<i>"Despite making false representations to Ms. Andersen that they had evidence of infringement .... plaintiffs knew that they had no factual support for their claims." </i> it´s actually illegal to make false and frivolous law-suits, however in toiday´s litigious society people rarely get brought up for it. <i>"The record companies knowingly represented materially false information to Ms. Andersen in an attempt to extort money from her." </i> that´s pretty serious. people can be jailed for that. I hope she goes all the way with them. I´m not supporting illegal file-sharing, that´s a debate for another time, but the actions taken against this lady and many other like her are corporate bullying and, with the absence of actual evidence and the underhand methods taken, are a form of extortion. even though it´s a civil matter, the harassment undertaken and the unauthorised access to computers could well have criminal consequences. Good for her, I wish her all the best.
Oregon lady countersues the RIAA
-
-
It appears that they rely soley upon the fact that many have downloaded <i>some </i> music files illegally, and therefore slam you with a court order for money. Many seem to pay up (it was on UK tv not long ago, family got a £3000 fine and paid up without any question by the looks of things... no mention of police, courts or anything else).
-
someone actually paid? omg. that´s <i>terrible </i> and how stupid of them? who hands over 3K without asking *why?*
-
I didn´t say they didn´t, only that it <i>looked </i> like they didn´t (the program didn´t really elabourate too much on their plight, just that they paid it out - and it was their daughter who caused it!). However, reading the article - it sounds like alot do payup without actually questioning the whole legality of it. The whole "sue namelessly without a chance to defend" sounds bad (whether that is really true or not...), simply because if it is true - I could sue someone for assault and be awarded damages without them even knowing about it (or taking part in it).# The whole article seems legit, but it does sound damned fishy that they can essentially take you to court and win without you even knowing about it/be summoned/ask to defend etc!!! Is that really what happens? (the article implies it).
-
even if a plaintiff does win a case in the defendants absence, there´s always appeals. if you haven´t had a chance to put your side of the story, any judgement can be overturned. for debt the process is different, esp as regards service of documents, but the principle os the same.many debt collectors and creditors back off when they know youre serious about going to court, because a/ they can´t harass you then, and b/ the judge will usually come to a fairer decision once he knows the defendants circumstances.