RIAA loses in court to disabled mother it tried to sue
- Thread starter bknot1
- Start date
b/s she should have lost lol.
Personally I side with RIAA. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, even ones without computers, KNOW 110% that distributing music like that is copyright infringement and is punishable by law. The press is making RIAA look too much like a bad man. Counter suit? I wonder, who made the music in the first place. I don't see how those who think stealing music is ok. Then turn around and try and lay claims against the rightful owners of the property & then enjoy the music they are stealing from them. "Disabled" or not. However, the RIAA attorney's could have better handled the case properly. Much of her counter claims won't hold up in court however. One does not HAVE to access someone's computer & files to know. IP addresses, file sharing programs, etc, puts them out there. If you look at it, a lot of her claims against the RIAA are the same thing (they are not allowed in my computer) she has maybe a few valid points... :: She says they didn't even look at her computer, but yet she says they did and took illegal info.....
20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.
22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....
Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.
26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.
27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.
28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....
31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.
32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.
33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....
36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.
37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....
41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....
62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.
OK Andersen, what is it...
They illegally got info out of her computer
or they didn't do it at all and the claims are false (by the labels)
It sounds like she doesn't know what to do really...
1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. They should be allowed to do this.
HER valid Points:
5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.
8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....
It creeps up on you. be aware... anyone being sued would be shocked fearful and upset.
9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.
Remember, the above, is what SHE claimed... The industry makes money, though loosing some to piracy, they make money regardless... No one was "Targeting" her. I doubt they gave a shit about her really. It was not for the money, or extortion or anything.
Personally I side with RIAA. EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, even ones without computers, KNOW 110% that distributing music like that is copyright infringement and is punishable by law. The press is making RIAA look too much like a bad man. Counter suit? I wonder, who made the music in the first place. I don't see how those who think stealing music is ok. Then turn around and try and lay claims against the rightful owners of the property & then enjoy the music they are stealing from them. "Disabled" or not. However, the RIAA attorney's could have better handled the case properly. Much of her counter claims won't hold up in court however. One does not HAVE to access someone's computer & files to know. IP addresses, file sharing programs, etc, puts them out there. If you look at it, a lot of her claims against the RIAA are the same thing (they are not allowed in my computer) she has maybe a few valid points... :: She says they didn't even look at her computer, but yet she says they did and took illegal info.....
20. Entering a person’s personal computer without their authorization to snoop around, steal information, or remove files is a violation of the common law prohibition against trespass to chattels.
22. According to the record companies, the agent, Settlement Support Center used the stolen private information allegedly removed from her home computer in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Anderson into paying thousands of dollars. ....
Under the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) it is illegal to break into another person’s private computer to spy, steal or remove private information, damage property, or cause other harm.
26. Ms. Andersen regularly used her personal computer to communicate with friends and family across the country and for interstate e-commerce. Ms. Andersen had password protection and security in place to protect her computer and personal files from access by others.
27. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their agent to bypass Ms. Andersen’s computer security systems and break into her personal computer to secretly spy and steal or remove private information. MediaSentry did not have her permission to inspect, copy, or remove her private computer files. It gained access secretly and illegally.
28. According to the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, used this stolen private information in their attempt to threaten and coerce Ms. Andersen into paying thousands of dollars. ....
31. According to the record companies, Ms. Andersen’s personal computer was invaded by MediaSentry after she was identified with a nine digit code (an Internet Protocol Address (“IPA”)) obtained from the anonymous information farming lawsuits. MediaSentry did not have permission to inspect Ms. Andersen’s private computer files. It gained access only by illegal acts of subterfuge.
32. The record companies’ agent has falsely represented that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment associated with plaintiffs’ claims and public relations campaign.
33. The record companies have used this derogatory, harmful information to recklessly and shamefully publicly accuse Ms. Andersen of illegal activities without even taking the opportunity offered by Ms. Andersen to inspect her computer. .....
36. Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.
37. The record companies have falsely represented and pleaded that information obtained in this invasive and secret manner is proof of Ms. Andersen’s alleged downloading and distribution of copyrighted audio recordings. Ms. Andersen never downloaded music but has been subjected to public derision and embarrassment.....
41. For example, between February and March 2005, the record companies, through their collection agent Settlement Support Center, falsely claimed that they had proof that Ms. Andersen’s IPA had been “viewed” downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files for which it sought to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars. This statement was materially false. Ms. Andersen never downloaded or distributed any audio files nor did the record companies or any of their agents ever observe any such activity associated with her personal home computer.....
62. As fully set forth above, the record companies hired MediaSentry to break into private computers to spy, view files, remove information, and copy images. The record companies received and transmitted the information and images to Settlement Support Center. As the record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center then falsely claimed that the stolen information and images showed Ms. Andersen’s downloading and distributing over 1,000 audio files. The record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Anderson owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in an attempt to coerce and extort payment from her.
OK Andersen, what is it...
They illegally got info out of her computer
or they didn't do it at all and the claims are false (by the labels)
It sounds like she doesn't know what to do really...
1. For a number of years, a group of large, multinational, multi-billion dollar record companies, including these plaintiffs, have been abusing the federal court judicial
system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities. They should be allowed to do this.
HER valid Points:
5. Tanya Andersen is a 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter living in Tualatin, Oregon. Ms. Andersen is disabled and has a limited income from Social Security.
8. Neither did Ms. Andersen receive any timely notice that the suit even existed. That anonymous suit was filed in mid-2004. Ms. Andersen first learned that she was being “sued” when she received a letter dated February 2, 2005, from the Los Angeles, California, law firm Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP. The LA firm falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had downloaded music, infringed undisclosed copyrights and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Andersen was understandably shocked, fearful, and upset. ....
It creeps up on you. be aware... anyone being sued would be shocked fearful and upset.
9. After receiving the February 2, 2005 letter, Ms. Andersen contacted the record companies’ “representative,” which turned out to be Settlement Support Center, LLC. This company was formed by the record companies for the sole purpose of coercing payments from people who had been identified as targets in the anonymous information farming suits. Settlement Support Center is a Washington State phone solicitation company which engages in debt collection activities across the country.
Remember, the above, is what SHE claimed... The industry makes money, though loosing some to piracy, they make money regardless... No one was "Targeting" her. I doubt they gave a shit about her really. It was not for the money, or extortion or anything.
Last edited:
bknot1
Hustle Magic!! We Got It.
FCUK...lost my damn reply..
sum it up.. im glad they lost... i dont back what they are doing... Dj Drama is a good example of hoe labels dont back dj when they send them music to promote...Itunes was created for this reason, to make money off of old files(music) that fans want that has been purchased in the past..labels benefits from all this...will post a itunes royalty chart later...its a was of tax payers dollars...people will allways share music..
something like that was written..but lost it all
sum it up.. im glad they lost... i dont back what they are doing... Dj Drama is a good example of hoe labels dont back dj when they send them music to promote...Itunes was created for this reason, to make money off of old files(music) that fans want that has been purchased in the past..labels benefits from all this...will post a itunes royalty chart later...its a was of tax payers dollars...people will allways share music..
something like that was written..but lost it all
DesertEase
Notorious
wow i didn't know they could pinpoint people using fileshare programs like kazaa and limewire and shit......makes me nervous now .....but my major question is why are they targeting the people using the software when the logical ideal is to go after the creators? cuz in all honesty if u pay for the legit version of a fileshare program wtf are u paying for?
DesertEase said:
They can't go after certain software creators for various reasons.
1. The creators did not actually share anything, so therefor they did not do anything illegal.
2. The creators are smart, unlike Napster. IF Kazaa were to host the files then they become liable. However, programs like Kazaa are Peer to Peer, meaning, it would be direct connection between, you and me. Instead of you to server, to me, to server to you.
3. Usually, the program has a disclaimer. So therefor they cover their own ass by stating that it is illegal to trade anything that's protected. Stuff like, personally created music, personal programs, royalty free stuff, sharewares, etc can be sent legit.
Though, everyone knows, including creators, what these programs are used for.
BTW about the case thing, her not knowing who that "user name" is, if you open up a program like Sharaza, or Kazaa, or any of those, where you are allowed to put a user name in, by default, it's a set of characters like JZIIKEO or IDKJACH or KAERMDA or whatever unlimited combination it comes up with like her's.
bknot1 said:there are other ways other then tose site to share files...those are just the most popular sites..
the thing...ooh hell ..i dont even want to get into it on the topic anymore...
Yeah there's like a million ways to share files, and a million programs that do it too.
bknot1 said:
When Napster first came out, I thought it was so clean. I started file sharing a lot of our artist musics under Shotup Records back then, and it spread like a wild fire. I would do a search on me, or any of our artists, and hundreds of songs would pop up of ours. Crazy shit... I can only imagine how much money is actually being lost. If you count every illegal download out there, the monies would most likely range up there in the billions if not trillions.
Unfortunately there will be no way to stop it, picture everyone paid for their stuff, the producer's, labels, artists, stores, software companies, etc would make more monies. Artists could recoup easier, in a perfect world .
And so comes RIAA to try and save the day lol
bknot1
Hustle Magic!! We Got It.
if they tried to stop it no one would by sh!t on the real...look at microsoft OS..its is the most pirated software program out there...do they really care no cause they still make money...is it hurting their pockets...hundreds say yes..and millions say no...
be back with the itunes royalties..
be back with the itunes royalties..
bknot1
Hustle Magic!! We Got It.
read the whole article here http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/dl_newmedia.htm
wow I"m surprised 15%? The average major label artist would get around 9% and then 3% (12% total) in an All-In royalty agreement.
Just for information that's 31,000,000 less than the previous year. If they were all just $5 dollars only, that was $155,000,000 lost or $310 million at $10 each.
Just for information that's 31,000,000 less than the previous year. If they were all just $5 dollars only, that was $155,000,000 lost or $310 million at $10 each.
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Steve Henningsgard
New member
I think the RIAA is doing a pretty damn good job of making themselves look bad. In general, I respect your opinions on this board and I know you know your shit, but I can't believe anybody could actually side with the RIAA on basically any front.Mindset said:
I suppose if you're in it for the money, the RIAA is great. And to be fair, I suppose most people on this forum are most likely in it primarily for the money...
my only problem witht this all is the only cats who suffer is the artist. They were getting fugged before the download wars and things aint changed for them. its ridiculous how hard an artist has to work to to receive such a lil profit. Its only because most artist love what they do so somebody who dont love it is able to exploit them. If an artist worked as hard in any other field they would be rich buy year 2. so i definately come out against riaa for exploitatation. This download stuff just shows that the whole system needs to be restructered.