It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: RIAA Sued for Hacking and Racketeering

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I am sure we all have heard of the RIAA, if not they are the Recording Industry Association of America. They are currently sueing or trying to sue almost everyone in America for downloading illegal music. To date there are about 13,000 cases tied up in court system cause of this.
So far we have had 1 other case kinda like this where they were sued for racketeering, from my knowledge nothing was accomplished.
The lady in this case is claiming that she had no idea that anything wrong was going on with her computer, so she is fighting back on legitimate claims of hacking, fraud, invasion of privacy, and so on.
 



www.theinquirer.net
A WOMAN who was sued by the Recording Industry of America for file-sharing has countersued the outfit for hacking.

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. She is claiming hurt feelings and "outrage", and deceptive business practices.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I dont know what anyone elses stance is on this type if thing. But I am not in for this at all. I agree downloading music without paying for is.....

I cant finish that because I downloaded music a while ago in the napster age and bought music I downloaded. They are using deceptive practices to get infomation needed. I would like to see how this fans out in court.

Related News Links:
www.vnunet.com...

[edit on 10/16/2005 by ThichHeaded]




posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Way to go Tanya!
Stick it to the man
. Lets see if more lawsuits pop up.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
It sounds like she has a good case to me. I would like to see the RIAA get their comeuppance. Of course, the best comeuppance would be for everyone to just quit buying music altogether or buy only used CDs.

[edit on 2005/10/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
While I do not illegally download music or anything else, the RIAA has seemed to me to be very heavy handed in going after casual downloaders. So, Way to go Tanya! I've always suspected the RIAA had to penetrating private computers in order to get the information they claim to get about illegal file sharers. I hope she wins.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Thanks.

Go Tanya! It's a good case, IMO.

...Most musicians welcome file-sharing as far as I know. The ones with something to say, anyway. They WANT to get their stuff out, and want the publicity too. They make their money on concerts - not from a few points on CD sales.

Production costs today are minimal - so the big boyz are just trying to control distribution. And take their pound of flesh there. Good luck.




.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I have been following the new laws and benefits that the RIAA is getting from our business friendly government and courts in American.

The reason is obvious but I will not get into details as to incriminate me.


The whole issue of their assault to people that share their music over the INTERNET is nothing more than greed.

If they ever get away from all laws and regulations they want, we the consumer will once again be at the mercy of another group of business groups elite.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The reason is obvious but I will not get into details as to incriminate me.



I would like to hear what you have to say...

I also have to point out something here also..

Remember this is a case where there is a jury.. so in that remember when some collection agency went after this guy for debts he owed... They would call his house, work, family, and coworkers. Anyway he ended up suing and won something around 10 million bucks..

This is the same case as this.. people get sick of big companies trying to screw the little guy and tries to put an end it it.. I wouldn't be surprised if this SSI person walks away with a big sum of money.. Also will get others to fight back..

Then the RIAA will disappear into yesterdays news.

[edit on 10/16/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The only thing that comes to my mind at 10:30 am is:

[mod edit]

and for the love of God we should hunt them down for every horrid thing their industry has done to music.



[edit on 16-10-2005 by Nerdling]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
tho downloading copyright music is against the law so are the methods the RIAA used so they got what they deserved.

the RIAA messed up messing with an old single mother as they are usually well up on what resources are available and how to get leagle help she will take pleasure in trying to rip them apart.

if the RIAA wins chances are an army of single mother like her will emerge and thats a scary site to see I have seen them chew holes thru fema in court and to these laidies it was a tea party.

so if there are any bets put mine down on the single mother lol



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
After DECADES of distributing albums that had two to three good songs with a bunch of filler trash included to finish out the album, I still have little to no sympathy for the RIAA. This is why I am for the "theives" and reserve the right to be an outlaw jurist.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I signed some electronic list several years back that added me to the list of plaintiffs involved in a class action suite against the RIAA for monopolization practices and overpricing.

About a year later, I got a cheque in the mail for 15 bucks from the damn RIAA. I still have it - some day I want to frame it.

Zip

[edit on 10/16/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
This is why I am for the "theives" and reserve the right to be an outlaw jurist.


I think this is what alot of people thing anymore about the RIAA. go on my past post here about the collection agency.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I always felt that if I buy something is my property an is my choice if I want to share my property that I pay for it with my tax earned money or not.

I don't need anybody to tell what I can or not do with what is mine.


MBF

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
After DECADES of distributing albums that had two to three good songs with a bunch of filler trash included to finish out the album, I still have little to no sympathy for the RIAA. This is why I am for the "theives" and reserve the right to be an outlaw jurist.


What do you mean two or three good songs? They have got to where they may have one good or so so song with a bunch of filler. If they would produce good music at a reasonable price they would sell a lot more.

These same issues came up when the VCR came out, they were going to ruin the movie industry. I don't see any affect on the movie industry what so ever.

The problem is not the downloading of music, but the quality of what is being produced for the lack of sales.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Semi old news.

Read up on all the RIAA lawsuits in this blog

this entry is particulary troubling



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
if they would lower the price of 15 dollars a cd maybe i might buy it. but not for 15 a cd. i buy underground cds for 5 a piece, thats sumthing im willing to pay. they profit way too much from commerical cds. its funny though because i bought the CD and im not selling it to profit, im simply giving it out to my "friends" or a.k.a fellow human beings lol



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Good luck to Tanya
and hope she wins big. I never did get into downloading music off the net but noticed since the recording industry put so many extra restrictions on listening to music, I haven't been buying any new music at all now. It's been probably a few years since the last CD I bought. In going after file sharers, the recording industry is putting their own brakes on their own sales in my opinion. I am against all these lawsuits against individuals but see this as a greedy industry trying to protect their profits without any regard for how the average consumer feels about them.

I've heard rumors that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true that the recording industry might not only be hacking or paying hackers, but introducing or allowing with knowledge, viruses and worms into those sites where people are downloading music without their consent. That's just my opinion though. I've heard it's easy to download worms and viruses at those sites and I could only imagine who would not be against that.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The RIAA should take lars and go jump off a high cliff. Do I download music? Yup. Am I going to stop? Nope. They are still making money hand over fist. The artists are still living large. Every time I see a rapper with a shiny new tooth driving a bently I am reminded of the fact that neither they nor the RIAA will ever be hurting for money. They are just upset that they no longer control everything.

If anyone should be suing its the consumer for having to pay 20 bucks for a crappy cd by some second rate artists.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Whompa1]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
As much as i'd like to see the RIAA taught a lesson for sueing their own customers i suspect this case wont do well the hacking aspect of it i find unlikely.

The closest i can envision them going to hacking is reverse engineering fileshare programs to collect ip's easier and i doubt they would even need to do that breaking into pc's doesn't seem necessary to me.

She may have a case on the intimidation they use though and i'd like to see her win. It's very feasible anyone sued based on an ip address is completely innocent with advances like wireless hacking and the latest trojan's doing the rounds.

Even a case of 1 number wrong and they potentially sue a completely different computer somewhere not to mention the issue of who was at the computer at the time.

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Teknikal]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join