I think I have just found my new hero. A 45 year-old single mother accused of stealing music on the internet (subsequently sued by the RIAA and vindicated) has now decided to turn the tables against her former accusers—by suing THEM for $5 million, citing conspiracy and illegal investigative practices.

Tanya Andersen alleges the way the RIAA goes pursuing people is illegal, that the way they pressurize and threaten people to pay huge out-of-court settlements without first having to prove any wrongdoing is also illegal and investigative companies hired by record companies routinely violate people’s privacy by snooping through computers and private files without legal permission. Andersen herself alleges that she was threatened with “financial ruin” unless she immediately paid $5000.

The RIAA (of course) says that Andersen’s claims are false, that all they are doing is aggressively taking steps to protect their intellectual property. So who cares if a few innocent victims get caught in the crossfire, right? They’ve got all those billions of dollars to protect.
Accused music pirate turns the tables on the RIAA

While I support the RIAA in protecting copyright, the actual actions are often well beyond rational justice.

And unfortunately, the RIAA lobbyist and legal juggernaut machine has not really been addressed.
Hopefully she can take them down a notch, although I suspect it may come down to lawyer stamina in countering what the RIAA is likely to throw against them...

I confused about how she has a case...

But earlier, it reads that she was sued by the RIAA and vindicated...

It doesn't say WHY she was vindicated...

If she was vindicated BECAUSE it was found that the RIAA used "illegal investigative practices", then the allegation wouldn't be an allegation...it would be a fact...There would already be court documents on it...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Your rights include the right to privacy of your papers without a warrant.

I'm not saying her rights weren't violated...

I'm saying they shouldn't be considered allegations IF it was concluded that her rights were violated during the process of her being vindicated...

They're not allegations anymore...they are facts...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

__________________
"It is a man's sympathy with all creatures that truly makes him a man. Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man himself will not find peace." -- Albert Schweitzer

Southern born, Southern bred, and when I die, I'll be Southern dead!

May or may not...

That's why I said "If she was vindicated BECAUSE it was found that the RIAA used "illegal investigative practices"...

You are correct that it's only legalese...

If I was on trial for burglary, and my defense testimony was that I couldn't have committed the robbery because I was in another city killing someone, the murder charges brought about in the future are "allegations" in the legal sense, but, in reality, nobody is alleging anything...It was confirmed by my own words...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

There are different levels of requirements for different angles of the case.
Evidence can be thrown out for breach of civil rights, but a later court action may find that the means of the civil rights breach was not egregious (or possibly not intended) enough to warrant a counter-suit.
(e.g. It could have been an honest mistake. If the police "invaded the privacy" of the wrong citizen due to a clerical error on a perfectly good warrant, the cops should be held blameless and not liable for a counter-suit.)

It's possible that the RIAA did involve in some illicit action, but it may not be "improper" enough to warrant awarding her money.
If the earlier case was voided and lost because of RIAA investigative practices, then I'm sure that will be helpful in the counter-suit.

That's why I threw out "ifs"...

I'd need to know if "guilt of illegal investigative practices" was found during the first case where they were suing her...

If it WAS, then the second case where she sues them would take about 15 seconds...

JUDGE - "Where's your proof?"

PLAINTIFF - "Here's the transcipt of the last trial"

JUDGE - "Judgement for the plantiff"

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

This is an interesting case,I support the RIAA concerns but a right to privacy is even more important.

Separate story, similar theme...
It's an editorial type article, but I don't think it's lost too much objectivity.

This saga is why Big 5 Music Label executives are among the most hated businessmen in America. Last June, Universal Music Group sued to have a video clip of a 13-month old toddler dancing to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” removed from YouTube. Universal argued that the author – the child’s mother, Stephanie Lenz – violated the copyright of the song, which plays in the background of the video.

At first YouTube complied, but Lenz argued back, saying that the song was an obvious case of fair use. YouTube agreed and re-posted the song. This is when the story gets fun…

The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation supported YouTube in court. The case pivoted on when a copyright holder may legitimately complain about possible infringement.

EFF claimed that the use of the song in Lenz’s video was obviously fair use – and that the label’s demand to remove the song was essentially harassment. The specific law they cited was the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which recently has defined copyright on the Web.

Not understanding that discretion is the better part of valor, Universal turned and counter-sued the EFF. The big label argued that its initial complaint to YouTube was in itself a form a free speech – and the EFF suit represented a breach of Universal’s first-amendment rights. (Universal argued that use of the song wasn’t “obviously” a fair use – so a suit was warranted.)

YouTube - "Let's Go Crazy" #1

Federal district court judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose heard the case, and essentially found against everyone. The EFF hadn’t completely proven that Lenz’s video was “obviously” fair use. And Universal hadn’t shown that any of it’s free speech rights had been violated. Fogel did, however, give the EFF an opportunity re-file the complaint with a better argument that the fair use of obvious.

Well this month the EFF is back with Fogel’s requested proof that Universal should have known that the video made fair use of the song. They’ve re-filed their complaint — that Universal knew or should have known it had no grounds to complain under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So now the drama continues.

So was Lenz’s use of the song “fair use”? According to US Copyright law, fair use is determined by four factors:

1. The purpose and character of the copy, including whether its purpose was purely commercial, or whether it’s intended for educational or artistic purposes.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work (which in this case is clearly a copyrighted work of music).
3. The amount and substantiality of the copied portion. In other words, did the copy steal all the best parts of the original?
4. The effect of the copy upon the potential market for the original work.

A cursory glimpse at Lenz’s video makes the argument pretty clear.

• The video was not intended for commercial purpose or to supersede the original. In fact the video furthers entertainment expression by use of the song – transforming it into a completely new work.
• The video uses only about 15 seconds of the overall work, which is about 5 minutes long. Longer 30-second clips of the song are ubiquitously available from other sources, including Universal.
• Because of the amateur quality and ambient noises, the video could never be reproduced or diminish the value of the original in any marketplace (actually, the song is barely audible).

In short – even Lenz’s 13-month old baby should have recognized the video’s use of the song is obviously within the fair use definition.

Meanwhile, Universal’s reaction is confusing. Surely they must realize the absurdity of their position. This suit is just one reason why music fans generally revile the Music Industry; why many major artists are defecting to their own indie labels; and why most Americans would rather illegally download songs than spend even 99¢ supporting this rancorous industry.

From the “Abuse Your Customer” Business Manual - The Seminal :: Independent Media and Politics

It's a cute video.
Universal Music should be ashamed, but I'm sure they would milk money out of this toddler if they could.