MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-10-02 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM is Theft
|
I though Pro Bono died in a skiing accident
Anyone for a movie tonight?
Ruben
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 19:49, mlr52-at-michaellrichardson.com wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|
|
