Mom countersues RIAA under RICO

[Pangloss]

Info on Tanya Andersen's case:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html

 

Info on the RICO act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_(law)

 

This looks like it will be an interesting case to follow, even if it doesn't get very far. Tanya Andersen is one of thousands of individuals who has been sued by the recording industry for illegally downloading music. In many of these cases, the sued have settled out of court with the RIAA, and in many of these cases it could certainly be argued that the RIAA had a valid point about theft. The counter-argument is that they're using a very blunt weapon, smacking a lot of people who really don't deserve to get smacked. Tanya Andersen decided to fight back. She's countersued the RIAA under RICO, which is a very interesting twist.

 

RICO is a statute that was designed to fight organized crime. The idea being that ongoing criminal activity constituted an additional level of criminal activity in and of itself. So minor offenses added up to a greater offense, in a way. RICO has been an important tool historically in going after the Mafia and other kinds of organized crime.

 

The general idea behind this lawsuit is that the recording industry used illegal means to acquire its information. While the transgressions were minor, under RICO they can be tallied together.

 

Central to her case is the suggestion that not only did the RIAA act illegally, but the information it obtained was inaccurate. While that in itself does not constitute a RICO-type violation, it allows her a logical way to suggest that the RIAA knew that this was the case, and therefore exceeded the boundary of the law. In essence, the RIAA participated in a conspiracy to commit a very large number of very small infractions.

 

Obviously Andresen is a long way from success. For one thing, the RIAA acted within black letter law. There's a chain of events and suppositions here that would have to not only be clarified but proven before she could see any kind of success. But the publicity angle alone is interesting.

[Bettina]

Lets see......she's stealing music and suing the people who caught her.

Yeah.....this will go over big.

 

I get my music from Musicmatch and Itunes and think 99 cents is a fair price for the songs I want.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

A perfectly reasonable point of view. I guess the question here is whether or not she may also have a point about the record industry's actions. The law invariably considers one issue at a time, so the "two wrongs" problem never comes up in a situation like this. Put another way, both sides may have committed wrongs.

 

(Just as an aside, if there's a lot of interest in discussing the larger issue of illegal downloading, I may split that off into a separate thread.)

[bascule]

Lets see......she's stealing music and suing the people who caught her.

Yeah.....this will go over big.

 

She alleges her own innocence and that what the RIAA is doing is tantamount to extortion. From the article:

 

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations' date=' among others:

[...']

 

7. Ms. Andersen has, however, been the victim of the record companies’ public threat campaign. The threats started when the record companies falsely claimed that Ms. Andersen had been an “unnamed” defendant who was being sued in federal court in the District of Columbia. She was never named in that lawsuit and never received service of a summons and complaint.

 

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. ....

 

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.

 

10. When Ms. Andersen contacted Settlement Support Center, she was advised that her personal home computer had been secretly entered by the record companies’ agents, MediaSentry.

 

11. 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.

[...]

 

14. Ms. Andersen wrote Settlement Support Center and even asked it to inspect her computer to prove that the claims made against her were false.

 

15. An employee of Settlement Support Center admitted to Ms. Andersen that he believed that she had not downloaded any music. He explained, however, that Settlement Support Center and the record companies would not quit their debt collection activities because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves against the record companies’ claims.

 

16. Instead of investigating, the record company plaintiffs filed suit this against Ms. Andersen. F. The Record Companies have no Proof of Infringement.

 

17. Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims.

 

18. No downloading or distribution activity was ever actually observed. None ever occurred. Regardless, the record companies actively continued their coercive and deceptive debt collection actions against her. Ms. Andersen was falsely, recklessly, shamefully, and publicly accused of illegal activities in which she was never involved.

[Pangloss]

On a moral level the case might be more interesting if she is guity, but it's important to bear in mind that, as I pointed out above, in my amateur opinion her case seems to hinge on the point that she is innocent.

 

The key point is that conspiracy charge. For that to stick, the RIAA's information-gathering method has to be flawed, and the RIAA has to know that it's flawed. And of course in order for their information gathering method to be flawed, she has to be innocent of the charges.

 

It's a subtle point, but it could be an important distinction. I'm no lawyer, though, and all of this should be taken accordingly. My read on it could be completely wrong, which of course is one of the reasons I'm sharing with you guys.

[ecoli]

Lets see......she's stealing music and suing the people who caught her.

Yeah.....this will go over big.

 

I get my music from Musicmatch and Itunes and think 99 cents is a fair price for the songs I want.

 

Bettina

 

Read the links...She claims innocence. I, for one, believe her. Who would download "Gangsta Rap"... as the record companies are claiming.

[bascule]

The key point is that conspiracy charge. For that to stick, the RIAA's information-gathering method has to be flawed, and the RIAA has to know[/i'] that it's flawed. And of course in order for their information gathering method to be flawed, she has to be innocent of the charges.

 

She claims they broke into her computer to obtain the information, which would be patently illegal.

[Pangloss]

Right, but as I understand it the RIAA has a position of legal precedent on that issue. I believe there have been other cases that approached it from that angle, and were not successful (I could be wrong about this, but it seems logical enough given the fact that they're still doing it).

 

So they toss in this new argument, as well as the old argument, hoping to get *any* kind of illegality ruling (no matter how trivial it might be) which they can then extrapolate into a RICO violation.

 

But again, I'm not a lawyer.