Posted by George Hester on 10/03/05 04:39

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3qbov7Fdud9sU1@individual.net...
>
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fig
hts-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?

Finally some one is waking up to the RIAA methods. They will lose their
attempt to ramrod people. This idea that binary bits no matter how trivial
and incomplete they are to the full copyrighted material is evidence enough
of violating copyrighted material is doomed to fail. If I downloaded 10
Byes from you that was part of a copyrighted product can anyone in their
right mind say you provided copyrighted material. That's a bunch of hocum.

--

George Hester
_________________________________

[Back to original message]