Recording Industry Going Off the Deep End?

An Oregon woman has sued the Recording Industry Assocation of America in response to what she calls abusive tactics by the RIAA, including threats to "interrogate" the woman's ten-year-old daughter.

The recording industry sued Tanya J. Andersen, 44, in 2005, accusing her of violating copyright laws by illegally downloading music onto her computer. Andersen claims in a suit she filed last week in U.S. District Court in Oregon that the recording industry refused to drop its case after its own expert supported her claims of innocence.

Instead, industry officials threatened to interrogate Andersen's 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, if she didn't pay thousands of dollars. The intimidation included attempts to contact Kylee directly. A woman claiming to be Kylee's grandmother called the girl's former elementary school inquiring about her attendance, according to Andersen's suit.

The recording industry dropped its lawsuit June 1.

Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the recording industry association, said he respectfully declined to comment on the specifics of Andersen's case.

As a result of file-sharing and illegal downloading, the RIAA says its artists and members have lost billions of dollars in revenue.

So the industry started taking legal action against individual computer users it accuses of illegally downloading music -- 21,000 people since 2003.

Tanya Andersen was one of those people.

She said she received a letter in 2005 from a Los Angeles law firm accusing her of illegally downloading music. As directed, she called the Settlement Support Center, which Andersen's suit called the "debt-collection arm" of the recording industry's campaign.

Andersen said she had never illegally downloaded music but was told she had to pay $4,000 to $5,000 or she would be ruined financially.

An employee said he believed she was innocent, according to the suit.

"He explained, however, that defendants would not quit their attempts to force payment from her because to do so would encourage other people to defend themselves," the suit says.

If there is any kernal of truth in this case, this looks really, really bad for the RIAA. According to the story, Andersen proved that she was not the person who had downloaded the music, after finding the person who did so (and admitted to doing it), Andersen provided the information to the RIAA--which promptly ignored the matter.

So instead of being the suer, the RIAA is the sued and probably rightfully so.