MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-10-02 |
| FROM | From:
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft
|
Pro Bono. It will make some lawyers day.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ruben Safir
Subj: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2005 7:30 pm
Size: 17K
To: mlr52-at-michaellrichardson.com
cc: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
How is she going to finance this?
Ruben
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 18:07, mlr52-at-michaellrichardson.com wrote:
> I Hope she stays the course.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Ruben Safir
> Subj: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft
> Date: Sun Oct 2, 2005 3:53 pm
> Size: 16K
> To: hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com
>
> 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.â€
>
> 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-at-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 (“IPAâ€))
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
