http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/04/riaa_sued/

Disabled woman sues RIAA

Computer snooping claim
By John Oates
Published Tuesday 4th October 2005 12:11 GMT

Justice can sometimes be poetic: the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has sued 14,800 people for using peer-to-peer networks, is itself being sued.

An Oregon woman is using anti-gangster RICO laws to countersue the organisation which spends its time suing individual file sharers. She denies ever having downloaded or distributed music and accuses the organisation of trespass - by secretly snooping into her computer.

According to documents filed with the Oregon court Tanya Andersen, a 42-year old single mother, was accused of downloading gangster rap at 4.24am using the user name gotenkito. The document notes: "Ms Andersen does not like 'gangster rap' music, does not recognise the name 'gotenkito', is not awake at 4.24am and has never downloaded music."

Ms Andersen was told she could settle with the RIAA or face expensive legal action.

Count 8 of the document accuses the RIAA of breach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation (RICO) laws. The document says: "The record companies directed its agents to unlawfully break into private computers and engage in extreme acts of unlawful coercion, extortion, fraud, and other criminal conduct. The record companies and their agents stood to financially benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts." ®

I hope this woman has lots of money for a legal team. Good luck to her and Fuck the RIAA!!!

What does her being disabled have to do with any of this? Could it have been one her kids downloading rap music using her computer?

Sympathy from the common folk.

Possibly....good question though. Who knows why they put that in there. They could have left that out and my hatred and disgust for the RIAA would still be the same.

If it helps screw over the RIAA, I'm all for it.

Maybe we should start an RM fund for this.

I THINK this story goes with the one posted:

RIAA Countersued For Racketeering


There have been a growing number of stories recently about people finally fighting back against the various RIAA lawsuits, that are usually filed on the basis of a single IP address, without any effort being made to find out who might be responsible for any of the unauthorized sharing.

This was a question that some had been asking since the RIAA first started filing lawsuits, but many people felt it was safer to just settle and pay the fine than to risk going to court and losing. However, since that one story of a woman fighting back, others have stepped up as well, and they may reach a new level, as one woman has now countersued the RIAA under racketeering charges and a slew of other charges: "fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices."

Some of those seem like pretty big stretches and won't get very far, but it should be quite an interesting case (if it actually gets to court). The charges of the RIAA hacking into her computer and spying on her are unlikely to get very far at all -- especially if the data was left open to be viewed by file sharing programs.

The extortion charge is the really interesting one, as that's the biggest point that many critics have brought up in the past. The RIAA basically says they'll make these cases go away for a few thousand, and often make it clear that people should just pay up rather than fight it -- which certainly sounds a lot like extortion to most people.

So what if the data was "left open"? Isn't that what recently happened with a wireless network? Didn't the courts deem it illegal to use a wireless network that is "left open"? Sounds pretty similar to me. I don't care if my computer is the most insecure computer in the world; that does not give anybody the right to hack into my computer and spy on me.

I hope the RIAA gets torn to shreds. I'm not necessarily for free file sharing if the artist doesn't allow it, but RIAA's methodology makes even this libertarian fume.

Good luck to her.

Good point.....so if I leave my house unlocked....it gives a person the right to come in my house and snoop around?

The difference is in this case the lady or whoever used her computer invited them in and encouraged them to snoop around.

No, she didn't. If she actually sent out public data that's one thing, but that's not "hacking into her computer."

I think they call it file sharing instead of file stealing for a reason.

I don't see your point. I guess I just missed what file sharing has to do with hacking; I apologize.

I'm saying the RIAA didn't have to hack into her computer to see all the music she illegally downloaded. All they had to do was sign up for Kazaa or whatever file-sharing program she used and look at the files she voluntarily shared.

It said she was busted for downloading gangster rap though, not sharing. In my mind, sharing means uploading, not downloading. How can the RIAA know what you are downloading unless they are connected to you, feeding you the file? Isn't that entrapment in a way? Maybe it's just poor wording in the article, but honestly I'm kinda fuzzy on what exactly happened here.

I'm going to rename Microsoft Word files things like:
Metallica - Enter Sandman
Dr. Dre - The Chronic

Then find every way possible to distribute them and see if the RIAA comes after me. How the fuck does the RIAA know exactly what the contents of the transferred files is? Like I can't change the names of something?

I agree neither of the articles posted is really clear. I'm assuming the author of the article, BP posted, is correct here:



The way those file-sharing programs work is you designated folders that you download music to and other users can upload from. The woman would have a better case if the files the RIAA say she stole where not in folder she designated as one she was sharing.

I'm not sure though how the RIAA could prove she stole those files. She could have ripped some CD’s she bought and saved the files in a folder she allowed people access to.