Slashdot Log In
RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:33 AM
from the grinding-gears-as-it-goes-into-reverse dept.
from the grinding-gears-as-it-goes-into-reverse dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well, Phase I of the RIAA's misguided pursuit of an innocent, disabled Oregon woman, Atlantic v. Andersen, has finally drawn to a close, as the RIAA was forced to pay Ms. Andersen $107,951, representing the amount of her attorneys fee judgment plus interest. But as some have pointed out, reimbursement for legal fees doesn't compensate Ms. Andersen for the other damages she's sustained. And that's where Phase II comes in, Andersen v. Atlantic. There the shoe is on the other foot, and Tanya is one doing the hunting, as she pursues the record companies and their running dogs for malicious prosecution. Should be interesting."
Related Stories
[+]
News: RIAA Backs Down In Texas Case 221 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After receiving a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion (PDF) in a Houston, Texas, case, UMG Recordings v. Lanzoni, the RIAA lawyers thought better of proceeding with the case, and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case 'with prejudice', which means it is over and cannot be brought again. The defendant's motion papers detailed some of the RIAA's litigation history against innocent individuals, such as Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic Recording v. Andersen, and argued that the awarding of attorneys fees in those cases has not sufficiently deterred repetition of the misconduct, so that a stronger remedy — Rule 11 sanctions — is now called for."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I imagine the amount of work her lawyer(s) put into this was anything but trivial. As far as I'm concerned, this is a very well deserved compensation.
Not all lawyers are evil bastards ..... Some are definitively not evil. If he is not a bastard, well, I'm not hiring him, so that part is fine.
Parent
Abuse of Process (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that could be a fitting charge as well.
Re:Abuse of Process (Score:5, Informative)
Third claim for relief: Abuse of legal process
From the document [ilrweb.com]; "8.18 As detailed above and herein, the RIAA and the Record Companies pursued litigation against Plaintiff, and many processes attendant to that litigation (including the filing of an initial information-farming "John" and "Jane Doe" action to obtain subpoena power), not for purposes of protecting or vindicating the copyrights purportedly at issue, but instead for the primary unlawful purpose of intimidating Plaintiff and the general public in order to maintain and preserve as long as possible their monopolistic control over the world's market for the distribution of sound recordings."
IANAL though, so maybe I have it all wrong.
Parent
Reported Elsewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting bits to note:
class action (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:class action (Score:5, Funny)
oh, this has the making of a beautiful class action suit against RIAA and the record companies. Can you imagine the beautiful, beautiful damanges?
*looks into crystal ball*..... I envision millions of dollars in legal fees for the lawyers representing the class and free iTunes download credits for the class members
Parent
Re:class action (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I was sued by RIAA, could I also pay them in print-outs of my own art?
Parent
Re:class action (Score:5, Insightful)
And then we'll hear all about how "the system works".
I'm surprised that no one here blames the legal system that enables the likes of the RIAA - if the system is setup in such a way that some bully can take advantage of people, they eventually will.
Parent
Re:class action (Score:5, Insightful)
oh, this has the making of a beautiful class action suit against RIAA
And then we'll hear all about how "the system works". I'm surprised that no one here blames the legal system that enables the likes of the RIAA - if the system is setup in such a way that some bully can take advantage of people, they eventually will.
You are being unfair. I spent an awful lot of time I didn't have writing an article about how the legal system has not been 'working' well on these cases [blogspot.com] and what needs to be done to make it a more level playing field. And most Slashdotters who have posted on the RIAA cases have been of the view that the system 'does not work'.
Parent
Re:class action (Score:5, Insightful)
NYCL, I completely agree with you that "the system does not work" but I think the person who made comment you're replying was taking a long view. In the grand scheme of things, if the judges listen to your rational disassembly of RIAA's methods, and shift the pendulum back even a smidge toward sanity, then there are those who will claim "see, the system works, it's self-correcting" and ignore the dust-up. Nevermind that the pendulum should never have swung in RIAA's favor, nevermind that many Tonya Andersons were legally abused for many years for no good reason; they will just say it's how the system works.
I see your cause as something akin to a civil version of The Innocence Project; you can hardly say "the system works" when some backwater judges and prosecutors ignore exculpatory evidence and men are incarcerated or put to death on the flimsiest of hearsay and innuendo. But because some people are ultimately let out of prison after decades of pain and suffering, the Death Penalty advocates (those few who will even acknowledge that a mistake might possibly happen in a court of law) will say, "See? The system works."
Parent
We need corporate prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.
It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.
Vote for corporate jail time.
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Monetary damages against corporations will never be enough. Since they are fictitious legal persons we need the equivalent of prison time for them. In the information age it's perfectly possible to 'lock up' a company, suspending their trading and seizing all assets for 60 days would REALLY HURT.
It may even collapse the company. Well, if they can't take the heat they shouldn't be doing the crime. This is the only way to give society and the courts that represent us any teeth against corporations.
Vote for corporate jail time.
Since what they've done here isn't a crime, why are you mentioning imprisonment at all? The worst thing they've done here is a civil tort, and the only remedy available to anyone for civil torts are civil damages, i.e. generally monetary damages.
If you're suggesting we create a special sort of damages schedule for corporations vs. normal persons, you've clearly not thought your cunning plan through.
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Extortion is a crime. Collusion and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion are crimes. This is where the RICO Act being enforced would be appropriate.
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a little fuzzy on the details but I think it involves Batman throwing them off a fire escape. Proceed.
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Informative)
In direct response to your idea: if, hypothetically, the RIAA is found to have either extorted or attempted to extort (including conspiracy) then the individuals who did so can be personally found guilty and imprisoned. Unless you can show that the company possessed the mental state required for the crime - which is conceptually impossible, absent extremely odd circumstances - you're not going to be able to demonstrate the elements of the offense.
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Informative)
"Give us $6000 or we'll sue you even though we know perfectly well we don't have a case" is extortion.
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you read some of what NewYorkCountryLawyer's written on the subject, RIAA attorneys have gotten close to contempt citations, disbarment, etc. on several occasions. My understanding is that contempt of court is a criminal charge (although usually handled via fines).
Parent
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:5, Insightful)
I say monetary damages are appropriate. Let's see, Mrs. Anderson was up against, what, 5 to 6 years of annual gross income? 5 to 6 years of gross income for Atlantic should be sufficient and appropriate. :-)
Parent
What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?
Personally, I think it makes it a bit more disgusting that the completely innocent person you are torturing over a frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case, happens to be a disabled single mother of a small child whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Here [blogspot.com]'s some background.
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
I agree that people should have a heart, but the legal system needs to be blind. It shouldn't matter whether Ms. Andersen was a disabled mother of 20, or a wealthy oil magnate who has a drinking problem.
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Informative)
People certainly should have a heart. I think you're reading rather a lot into my question, though. The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant being disabled, or a single mother or on Social Security. Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?
Because it says something important about the rat bastards that the RIAA has dredged up to handle these cases for them.
Parent
Ray: Wrong answer -- here's a better one (Score:5, Insightful)
Ray, although what you say is true, it should be your 3rd answer, not your first. Here are the first two:
1) Because the defendant's precarious personal situation directly determines the direct damages suffered by the defendant.
2) Because the RIAA campaign of intimidation and extortion relies on the weakness of their targets making them settle under pressure.
These two points are much more important than the fact that the RIAA lawyers are rat bastards. 1) and 2) support the case directly.
Keep on plugging away at them, Ray. They must suffer personally and professionally for this, not just in the form of business losses.
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It counts because her disability severely limited her economic means, and the RIAA tried to use this fact to bulldoze her into a settlement.
It also counts because this is a war on 3 fronts - legal, political, and PR. Her disability has little to do with the legal case (except as mentioned above), but is hugely relevant to the PR war and possibly to the political war - picture this woman in front of a congressional committee, and even the Senator from Disney will be groveling to show how much he sympathizes with her.
And if you don't believe it's a PR war too, why is this a favorite Slashdot topic.
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Informative)
It counts because her disability severely limited her economic means, and the RIAA tried to use this fact to bulldoze her into a settlement.
Well said. These bullies especially like people who are defenseless. See, e.g., my article in the Judges Journal, "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless" [blogspot.com].
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?"
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does.
The RIAA has been targeting people who are perceived as particularly poor and defenseless. They want people thinking, "My God, if they'll go after a five-year-old child for downloading one single song, they'll go crazy on me and my 50 songs." And they want to roll up a string of easy convictions and settlements. They know they can't actually prosecute more than the tiniest fraction of the cases, so the only hope they have of making a measurable impact on downloading is to intimidate people...especially the ones who might be inclined to download a single song from an otherwise-awful CD.
They know if they go after a big player, they'll have a fight on their hands, and they certainly don't want that. A loss could set their cause back.
Besides, they'd rather kick a puppy than a full-grown pit bull. That's because they're pricks.
Parent
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because it evokes the mental image of a "big bad corporation" picking on a "helpless disabled woman". It is called "spin". Here is the same summary with a different "spin".
The RIAA, a copyright defense group representing thousands of musicians and artists was shocked today by a judges decision to award over $100,000 to a person accused of pirating and distributing music illegally. In related news, the accused has filed a countersuit requesting huge additional damages from the artists' organization. An unnamed RIAA spokesperson was quoted as saying. "This was all a big misunderstanding. We represent the musicians that are losing millions to stolen music, and this settlement will come out of their pockets. In the end, that robs the paying music customer."
Sounds a lot different. Says the same thing.
-ellie
Don't flame me bro, this is not defending the RIAA, just answering the question.
Parent
FYI (Score:5, Informative)
Anderson v. Atlantic. [blogspot.com]
One of the claims cites the RICO Act, which I can only imagine spells bad news for RIAA & mediasentry...
Movie (Score:5, Funny)
Legal fees are not enough - by far (Score:5, Insightful)
First, congrats to Ms.Andersen for making the RIAA pay for its mistake. But compensation of her legal costs does not count as proper compensation, for several reasons:
For all these reasons, Ms.Andersen deserves a lot more compensation than just legal fees. It's too bad she has to start her own proceedings to get those. It would be better if that were automatic. Get proven wrong in a 'big corp vs. little guy' lawsuit, and be ordered to compensate legal fees plus an automatic percentage for related damages. Otherwise it's just too easy for corporations to bully on ordinary folks (like we see all the time).
I'm not going to get into a debate about (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.
As to those of you who feel this way I can only say this:
1. You are not my kind of people.
2. If you are lawyers, you are not my kind of lawyers, and in my opinion you are violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by exhibiting an indifference to the harm you cause.
3. The phrase that 'justice is blind' does NOT mean that it is indifferent to the suffering of those it affects, or that little people can be squashed by the wealthy in court; it means that the justice system has an obligation to protect the poor and the defenseless from the predations of the wealthy and powerful in court.
4. Those of you who are making these remarks about how Ms. Andersen's circumstances are irrelevant are probably the same people who love to dump on lawyers all the time. In point of fact, all good lawyers are compassionate, and will refrain from causing unnecessary harm to others with whom they come in contact. No good lawyer would have pursued the Tanya Andersen case.
Re:I'm not going to get into a debate about (Score:5, Informative)
You'll change your tone when you're at the end of a 2 barrel lawsuit.
I recently sat on a jury that deemed a man not guilty in a dui cause the state couldnt prove he was even driving. After the end of the trial, we find out the guy was defended by a public defender.
Now tell me this: is that lawyer who successfully defended a man against a frivolous, yet severe, state action a unjust satanic pig of a lawyer?
There's always bad eggs. Hopefully the Bar sets them straight, or chews them up.
Parent
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:5, Funny)
David has slain Goliath, once more.
Not quite. David has kicked Goliath squarely in the testicles but he isn't dead.
Parent
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the David and Goliath story, David knocked out Goliath with a stone from a sling, then took Goliath's sword and beheaded him with it.
If the RIAA gets beheaded this will indeed be a David and Goliath story in all respects! As it is, the RIAA is just stoned.
Parent
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:5, Funny)
If the RIAA gets beheaded this will indeed be a David and Goliath story in all respects! As it is, the RIAA is just stoned.
As far as I can see, they were stoned from the start.
Parent
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. David was a man of war.
However, you make a grave mistake of taking one example out of its context in casting it in ours. David was more or less ordered (specifically challenged) to bring in foreskins as proof of body counts. Yes this would be rather gross today. But back then it was very likely a rather simple way to ensure a Jewish force was killing non-Jewish males. You know, they didn't have embedded journalists back then. Nor did they have the Geneva convention for rules of war and return of combatants' (unmolested) bodies.
So yes, it was "savage" from our point of view. But it isn't appropriate to make it appear that David had a weird bloodthirsty foreskin fetish. There are much more reasonable criticisms you could correctly make of David if you wish to do so.
Parent
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:5, Informative)
Do we really want to support an "emotional distress" charge?
Why on earth wouldn't we want to support Ms. Andersen's countersuit? After all, the RIAA has structured its campaign to extort the populace while inflicting maximum emotional distress.
And anyway, Tanya Andersen's not claiming emotional distress; she's claiming civil conspiracy, wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, negligence, and seeking an injunction.
If she can get that injunction, that's a bigger victory than anything we've ever dreamed of.
Parent
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Informative)
this was on hackaday first... And this isn't the first time that Slashdot has essentially copied their posts
I can see where you might think that, because the Slashdot post was not released until after hackaday. But the reality is that the story was on p2pnet.net [p2pnet.net] before it was on hackaday, and it was on Recording Industry vs. The People [blogspot.com] first of all. Just because the Slashdot post comes out after it was published on hackaday doesn't mean it was 'copied' from hackaday; it just means the post was in the Firehose and on the editors' screens at Slashdot for awhile, before it was published.
Parent
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Funny)
oh look, it's mr. fancy pants lawyer.
I think Ray actually prefers jeans.
Parent
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Informative)
*whoosh*
Slashdot is a news aggregator - Every. Single. News. Story. is a copy of a posting somewhere else.
Parent
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, you mean /. doesn't have a crack team of reporters writing all these summaries?
I've been duped!
Parent
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Funny)
I've been duped!
s'okay - so have most of the stories around here. ;)
Parent
Re:Here's to you, Ray! (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, did I slip into a paralell universe or something? I'm hoisting a glass to the esteemed Mr. Beckerman tonight at JW's as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead. I hope you can afford that new tie now, Ray ;)
Whatever you're getting out of this, it isn't enough.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, sm62704, but these well earned fees go to my esteemed brothers and sisters at Lybeck Murphy [lawyers.com] in Mercer Island, Washington. And I am hoisting a glass to them for their outstanding and courageous victory.
Parent
Re:Here's to you, Ray! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tell me... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .
Parent