Posted by me on 10/03/05 04:05

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

Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass,
Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud

ATLANTIC V. ANDERSEN

This is the case peer-to-peer file sharers have been waiting for. Tanya
Andersen, a 41 year old disabled single mother living in Oregon, has
countersued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, 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.

Ms. Andersen's counterclaims demand a trial by jury.

Ms. Andersen made the following allegations, among others:


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. As part of this campaign, these record companies
retained MediaSentry to invade private home computers and collect
personal information. Based on private information allegedly extracted
from these personal home computers, the record companies have reportedly
filed lawsuits against more than 13,500 anonymous “John Does.”

2. The anonymous “John Doe” lawsuits are filed for the sole purpose
of information farming and specifically to harvest personal internet
protocol addresses from internet service providers.

3. After an individual’s personal information is harvested, it is
given to the record companies’ representatives and the anonymous “John
Doe” information farming suits are then typically dismissed.

4. The record companies provide the personal information to
Settlement Support Center, which engages in prohibited and deceptive
debt collection activities and other illegal conduct to extract money
from the people allegedly identified from the secret lawsuits. Most of
the people subjected to these secret suits do not learn that they have
been “sued” until demand is made for payment by the record companies’
lawyers or Settlement Support Center.....

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.

6. Ms. Andersen has never downloaded or distributed music online.
She has not infringed on any of plaintiffs’ alleged copyrighted
interest.....

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.

12. Settlement Support Center threatened that if Ms. Andersen did
not immediately pay them, the record companies would bring an expensive
and disruptive federal lawsuit using her actual name and they would get
a judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

13. Ms. Andersen explained to Settlement Support Center that she
had never downloaded music, she had no interest in “gangster rap,” and
that she had no idea who “gotenkito” was.

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.

Ms. Andersen further alleged:

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.

21. The record company plaintiffs employed MediaSentry as their
agent to break into Ms. Andersen’s personal computer (and those of tens
of thousands of other people) to secretly spy on and steal information
or remove files. MediaSentry did not have Ms. Andersen’s permission to
inspect, copy, or remove private computer files. If MediaSentry accessed
her private computer, it did so illegally and secretly. In fact, Ms.
Andersen was unaware that the trespass occurred until well after she was
anonymously sued.

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.....

40. The record companies knowingly represented materially false
information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her.

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.....

49. Despite having never observed any downloading or distribution
associated with Ms. Andersen’s personal home computer and despite
refusing Ms. Andersen’s offer to allow an inspection of her own
computer, the record companies wrongfully continued their improper debt
collection activities against her.....

50. The record companies pursued debt collection activities for the
inappropriate purpose of illegally threatening Ms. Andersen and many
thousands of others. This tortious abuse was motivated by and was a
central part of a public relations campaign targeting electronic file
sharing.

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

52. The record companies were aware of Ms. Andersen’s disabilities
and her serious health issues. Settlement Support Center knew that its
conduct would cause extreme distress in Ms. Andersen. As a result of
defendant’s conduct, Ms. Andersen suffered severe physical and emotional
distress and health problems.

53. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages, including
harm to Ms. Andersen’s health and property in an amount to be
specifically proven at trial......

55. Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act prohibits those in trade
or commerce from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the course
of business with consumers. ORS 646.605 et seq.

56. The record companies’ agent, Settlement Support Center, is a
company doing business in Washington which was established to engage in
debt collection activities in manystates, including Washington and Oregon.

57. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent
made false and deceptive statements to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to
mislead, threaten, and coerce her into paying thousands of dollars.

58. Settlement Support Center acting as the record companies’ agent
has made similar false and deceptive statements to many other residents
of Washington and Oregon, and across the country. The public interest
has been and continues to be directly impacted by plaintiffs’ deceptive
practices.

59. The record companies’ conduct resulted in damages and harm to
Ms. Andersen and her property in an amount to be specifically proven at
trial. ....

61. The Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
prohibits companies from engaging in organized racketeering or criminal
activities. ORS 166.715 et seq.

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.

63. 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.

64. The record companies and their agents stood to financially
benefit from these deceptive and unlawful acts. Proceeds from these
activities are used to fund the operation of the record companies’
continued public threat campaigns.

65. These unlawful activities were not isolated. The record
companies have repeated these unlawful and deceptive actions with many
other victims throughout the United States.

--
Why is it the sensors seeking intelligent life are pointed away from earth?

[Back to original message]