Friday, March 23, 2007

RIAA Insists on Deposing Tanya Andersen's 10-year-old daughter

The RIAA is insisting on deposing Tanya Andersen's 10-year-old daughter in Atlantic v. Andersen, in Oregon. The child was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement.

The record labels insisting on taking the child's deposition are:
-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.

RIAA Opposition to Limitation of Depositions*
Ms. Andersen's Response*
Lybeck Declaration*

This is the case in which Ms. Andersen counterclaimed against the RIAA, under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws.

Ms. Andersen is represented by Lory Lybeck of Seattle, Washington.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:


p2pnet.net
Slashdot
Digg
boing boing
Slyck
Der Standard(German)
agora.vox
Gizmodo
USA Today (Tech Space)
Punto Informatico (Italian)
IT Avisen (Norwegian)
NETTAVISEN (Norwegian)
ynet (Hebrew)
Intern.de (German)
Malaysia Hardware Zone.community
Heise Online (German)
net.nana.co.il (Hebrew)
p2pnet
derStandard.at/Web (German)
Softpedia
IDG (Polish)
PC World (Polish)
prefix
Menaeme (Spanish)
Torrent Freak






Digg!

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

37 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

without haveing read any of the here linked docs;
if"This is the case in which Ms. Andersen counterclaimed against the RIAA, under Oregon's RICO statute and other laws." and when RIAA and their lawyers are now preying upon 7(now10) year old little girls, shouldn't there be also claims against those guys for child molestering?!!!!!

They are so sick, RICO is oviously not enough against them!!

CodeWarrior said...

It just goes to prove what I have said for over three years now....

The RIAA lawyers should have a proctologist as their primary care doctor!

'Nuff Said.
~Code

ryan said...

Ok, I Love the Google search on there. It is awesome because I think that the defendant spent almost as much time researching the infringer as the RIAA did (ie ~5 min)

Alter_Fritz said...

OK now having read the docs here, some more comments from me:
Before I make some remarks about the yellow marked statement in the RIAA letter, let me refresh our memories that the RIAA already acted in bad faith in this case!
it was ordered by Judge Ashmanskas that a NEUTRAL expert examine the HDD.
RIAA violated that order willfully and in very very bad faith keept that HDD for weeks/month without inspecting it/providing the court or defendant with the results of that inspection.

I'm not aware at the moment about any results of such an inspection, but given our now knowledge about the RIAA experts forensic discovery methodology I assume any findings would be at least worthless, if not even willfully placed by plaintiffs.

The fact that the designated RIAA questioner "Tim Reynolds" is himself a father means nothing to support RIAAs demands. In fact, criminal records show that in most cases of childmolestering of other persons children the perpetrator had children of its own! (IMPORTANT: I do NOT say that "RIAA-Tim" is such a person. I only say that being a father means nothing at all with respect how a person interacts when he comes physicly and not only via videocamera in contact with other persons children.)
If the court would grant RIAAs demand for questioning this little girl in person I sugest that the RIAAguy will be monitored the whole time closely by a videocamera!

Finaly with respect to the yellow marked part in the RIAA letter: giving the typicly available May 20, 2004 internet connection speeds their statement about downloading times of "month to a year or more" is technological bullshit.

Have RIAA found the files on the harddrive they claim their investigators found on May 20,2004? Have they informed the court about that? Have they provided evidence of any eventual findings of songs, or did the RIAA expert forgot to record any findings in this case too?
If nothing was found, then should the Court deny any and all questioning of this little girl.
If they found songs on the HDD and informed the court about that before this action now at hand, IMO should this girl only be deposed via videoconference.

Alter_Fritz said...

"RIAA-Tim" (warning, its a HRO link, they might use your IP if you click that link to sue you in a frivolous claim since they believe that an IP address is a person!

Ray Beckerman said...

Tim Reynolds is the same lawyer who, in the Elektra v. Schwartz...

1. took our 'off the record' conversation and reported it to the Court and lied about what I had said

2. represented to Judge Trager that the AOL letter confirmed massive uploading and downloading when it contained no such statement... and

3. refused to dismiss the case against a nonambulatory Multiple Sclerosis victim suffering from brain lesions.

So persecuting a 10 year old girl should be second nature to him.

Alter_Fritz said...

Question:
Who's the GAL for (at the moment still non-party) Kylee? And how did the RIAA managed this time to come up with a functioning proposal how to pay a GAL in escrow while they failed so miserably in another case?

Ray Beckerman said...

I'm not aware of GAL having been appointed. Do you know something I don't know?

Alter_Fritz said...

I'm not aware too!
Thats why i asked who is it.

Sorry, totally my fault that I thought due process would require this.

Since the mother says she didn't do anything illegal, giving the history of the plaintiffs they will sue Kylee for being a direct infringer, even while this girl didn't do anything and it was this carpenter!
Because this little girl [sorry Kylee, didn't mean to offend you, of course YOU are already a big girl! But you know, the RIAA guys are mean, and for them you are still a little girl. And it is this * what they want to do with you if you don't have a very good GAL] can't defend herself against RIAA bullies, while the real gotenkito carpenter has even a camouflague background on his myspace page and has military background!
RIAA wants only the must vulerable and youngest prey**


* http://www.pibmug.com/files/riaasucceed.jpg
** http://www.worth1000.com/entries/75500/75675CIKG_w.jpg

r3m0t said...

"Plaintiffs merely want the opportunity of an in-person deposition under conditions that would make the deposition as comfortable as possible for Kylee."

They haven't justified their requirement for an in-person deposition. If Kylee was more comfortable by video or telephone, why not?

Re the highlighted statement - amassing a collection of so many songs, and finding them, could easily take a few months.

The fact that they failed to Google search "gotenkito" - or chose to ignore it - is ridiculour.

StephenH said...

Couple of questions here:

1) Do they expect Kylee to remember what all she did 3 years ago at such a young age?

2) Would Kylee have been up at 4 something in the morning, given that she has to go to school? Most kids are asleep then!

3) Was there any forensic anaylsis of the actual hard drive?

4) I think it is pretty odvious that the username may be somebody else (see the google search).

5)I think that deposing Kylee was wrong, because she is so young and may even lack the computer skills to download such tunes without assistance. q

Anonymous said...

Isn't there a law somewhere saying you cannot depose minors under a certain age or something due to there level of reasoning abilities?

Anonymous said...

If the ability to reason was a criteria for deposition it would be good news for the RIAA lawyers as they clearly fail this essential test..

Anonymous said...

2) Would Kylee have been up at 4 something in the morning, given that she has to go to school? Most kids are asleep then!

Unless in preschool, most kids don't start school until they're five.

r3m0t said...

"2) Would Kylee have been up at 4 something in the morning, given that she has to go to school? Most kids are asleep then!"

They meant 4pm... of course.

Anonymous said...

a) 10. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had “been viewed” by MediaSentry downloading “gangster rap” music at 4:24 a.m. Settlement Support Center also falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had used the login name “gotenkito@kazaa.com.” Ms. Andersen does not like “gangster rap,” does not recognize the name “gotenkito,” is not awake at 4:24 a.m. and has never downloaded music.

b) RIAA talks about 4 p.m. for deposition

Ray Beckerman said...

$pace6host on Slashdot made a very good point. He said that the stories should identify the record labels, not just the RIAA. I'm going to try to start doing that.

People should know that these are the blood suckers who are insisting on taking the deposition of a 10 year old child:

-Atlantic Recording
-Priority Records
-Capitol Records
-UMG Music and
-BMG Music.

Scott said...

Outrageous. How can I, as an uninvolved third party contribute to the support of the legal defense of this poor woman and her daughter?

Ray Beckerman said...

Thank you. Scott. 2 ways I know of presently.

One would be to send the contribution to Ms. Andersen's attorney directly.

The other would be to contribute to the RIAA victim defense fund set up by the Defective by Design Movement, at this link:
https://www.fsf.org/associate/
support_freedom/dbd

Anonymous said...

The RIAA going after the infirm and the innocent [as in: little children]. These people are beneath contempt. The RIAA are literally the scum of the earth. Please remember that it is the RIAA that has been convicted twice for price fixing of CDs so that everybody [on planet Earth] systematically paid too much for their records. Then, when people are royally fed up with their practices and the truly atrocious quality of the music now being published, they turn to anything and anyone they can sue and it really doesn't matter in the slightest who they are traumatising.

Imagine a 10-year old being questioned by a lizard in a suit on downloading music. Someone who has every incentive of putting words into that child's mouth so they can then sue her and have her convicted.

How much of a sick bastard do you have to be to do something like that. Over music. Something they never cared enough about to treat the musicians and artists whom they screwed out of untold billions in royalties, whose careers they sabotaged and destroyed by onerous contracts and bad management.
These are the most contemptible people on the planet.

A plague o'both your houses!

Oh, and I have stopped buying music precisely because of your attitude [and no, I do not download music illegally, I'm just fed up with it]

smartboards said...

Awesome! I just hope that we can get more of this stuff out there to the mainstream public. It is beyond ridiculous. I can't wait until they accidentally snag some politician's sweet little daughter. More publicity please.
---
Destroyit

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that the author of DCMA recently blamed the recording industry for people's disrespect of copyright.

These people are just evil. They ignore the fact that study after study indicate that people who download music also buy more music than those who don't.

Then they come up with outrageous numbers to describe how much money they are losing, despite the studies mentioned above. They point to decreasing revenue, even though they no longer publish the number of releases they have, masking the fact that the number of releases have fallen, thus the decline in revenues.

These are the same people that tell me if I buy a CD, they should be able to install spyware on my computer. And that technically it is illegal for me to copy the music from that CD so I can play it on my computer without carrying every CD I own around with me. And they make it technically illegal to transfer it to a device of my choice. If they had their way, you'd be forced to buy a copy for each device you choose to listen to your music on. Then they'd want to charge you per listen.

They feel they are entitled to every last cent available to them from the listening public, to the point where they treat customers like criminals. And worse yet they target those least able to defend themselves - college students, children, and the elderly. All in the name of an easy buck. And they make no attempt to make sure those they target should be subject to their scrutiny. They just get a whiff of something *possibly* illegal, grab an IP, trace it to someone who may have used that IP (not necessarily the only one) and slap a lawsuit on them.

These people are obscenely grotesque. I don't know how they sleep at night. Good lord I hope the family is found not guilty and the counter suit nails these guys for as much as is humanly possible.

Ray Beckerman said...

I think it will play out like that, with a huge attorneys fee award against the RIAA.

Anonymous said...

This crap is the last straw, RIAA.
This means /i/.
Anonymous does not forgive.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of bottom feeders!!!
I will be doing all I can to help in their counter claim against the RIAA!!

Dreddsnik said...

" These people are just evil. They ignore the fact that study after study indicate that people who download music also buy more music than those who don't. "

They're not ignoring the fact,
they are well aware of the truth.
That's just not the real reason
for all of this anti-P2P activity.

"Then they come up with outrageous numbers to describe how much money they are losing, despite the studies mentioned above. "

All part of a PR war to justify
passing legislation to get them
closer to the REAL reason for
all of this.

Control
Plain and simple.

While Napster existed, not only
was RIAA music available,
music from non-RIAA artists were
too, and RIGHT NEXT to the RIAA
stuff, for ANYONE to hear, and
possibly .. prefer.
Scary stuff for a cartel.
How to 'fix' the problem ???

Sue napster into oblivion ...
'Revive' it, under LABEL control.
This way, only those who can PAY
for the priviledge will ( label
owned, that is ).

This 'Business Model' is being
repeated, over and over again.
The latest example is the fee for
internet radio stations.
You know, the small competition
that plays indy stuff or old stuff
that isn't rotated on terrestrial
anymore.
Those stations will disappear,
leaving ONLY corporate backed
( Clear Channel/RIAA ) streams.

This is how they work,
Sue,
Buy,
Control ...

At ANY price.

This attack on a 10 year old girl
is designed to show other
potential victims just what the
RIAA lawyers are willing to do
to you, in the name of control.

Anonymous said...

I think all the Internet radio stations and other online music services should move their businesses to Canada.

HINT: Pandora - Please host your music discovery service in Canada before you give up and shut down! RIAA can't touch you here!

Canada has already told the RIAA to go fornicate themselves with a red-hot poker. The CRIA (canadian branch of the RIAA) gets it's face slapped every time they lobby the gov't to implement the same sort of control and litigious structure enjoyed by the satanic RIAA of the US.

Bob said...

Sorry. While I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics, the defense SCREWED UP. The RIAA states that the defense listed Kylee on their list of witnesses. In a legal action, you cannot offer something and then take it back. I agree that there's no point, but the slap of the wet rubber chicken goes to the defendant's lawyers!

ryan said...

bob:
The defense agreed to the deposition (as it appears) they are just objecting to a face-to-face. They mention in a few places that that they are willing to allow a telephone or video conference interview. Most likely because as you pointed out, she is a listed witness and thus they have the right to talk to her, but not particularly an in person discussion (as I understand it).

Sanji Himura said...

1) Do they expect Kylee to remember what all she did 3 years ago at such a young age?

No, and they are counting on it! Youngsters can be manipulated into saying anything they want them to say, and if the RIAA gets her to say what they want...

3) Was there any forensic anaylsis of the actual hard drive?

I don't know, but it shouldn't be given much weight because the RIAA, like Alter_fritz said, willfully violated a judge's order to have a neutral forensics examiner examine the HDD, and in bad faith kept the drive for about a month without examining it or reporting the results to the court and the defendant.

Sorry. While I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics, the defense SCREWED UP. The RIAA states that the defense listed Kylee on their list of witnesses. In a legal action, you cannot offer something and then take it back. I agree that there's no point, but the slap of the wet rubber chicken goes to the defendant's lawyers!

I, in my non-lawyer mind, don't think the problem is that they(the defendant) don't want the RIAA to despose of Kylee, the problem is that the RIAA wants to do the deposition face to face.

Ray Beckerman said...

i disagree with anyone who thinks there's any justification for taking the deposition. Period.

Alter_Fritz said...

Heise.de(German)

maybe you haven't seen it, because this time only back links to the documents themself in their report.

Ray Beckerman said...

Thanks, alter_fritz. Yeah, I usually only find out about it when the sites give me a proper link.

Markbnj said...

RAY:::

Very simple:

This sounds/sniffs/smells/looks
like a loverly Class action suit in the making

Hee hee

Glad you put up the link for the Reg's coverage of the college's saying no to the RIAA

pika said...

RIAA is desperate to go after anybody to make an example of. wake up and smell the coffee! Downloading of copyrighted material will continue as long as it is possible to do so.

blogsearch.sg said...

Did you submit your site at blogsearch.sg?

You can reach blogsearch by just typing blogsearch.sg in your browser window or click here

This is a service by bizleadsnet directory of web logs.

Lunarsight said...

I read articles like this, and it makes me all the more hellbent on boycotting every last record label under the RIAA umbrella.

I can't in good conscience support an industry that pulls stunts like this.

Don't purchase their albums nor pirate them. Don't give them any potential avenue of getting any money. We need to economically bleed them dry.

That's the beauty of capitalism - it's our right as consumers to do that.