RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951 312
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."
Here's to you, Ray! (Score:4, 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.
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...
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.
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.
Re:Here's to you, Ray! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Informative)
Notwithstanding my criticism of the story summary, I admire your legal work in this area.
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).
Re:class action (Score:3, Informative)
how many of those free download credits will be expended on music by independent artists who aren't even affiliated with RIAA
which was the whole post. If the result of a class action lawsuit was free iTunes downloads, then inevitably, some of them would be used for non-RIAA music, which is a good thing for everyone but the RIAA.
That said, I don't think the indie effect would be that big, and the GGPP's point (and yours) still stands. It reminds me of the time I got a card from BlockBuster about a class action settlement that I'd never heard of. They gave me six coupons on a card that looked a lot more like a promotional mailer they could send out than it did a legal settlement. Most of the coupons were "rent one, get one free" anyway, so the result of the whole settlement was basically that they were compelled to have their marketing department do their jobs and send out an ad. I'd say it's true that the lawyers are the real winners here, and sometimes, like in this BlockBuster case, the company that loses the class action suit still wins.
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Hooray Underdog! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, as long as we're talking about the David and Goliath story, once David grew up to be a general, he was pretty much as bloodthirsty and savage as any other.
Specifically, he would cut off his enemies' foreskins as proof of how many he killed.
Yes, you read that right -- their foreskins.
I know this mostly because my name is David, and I used to be proud of this guy -- until I read the actual story (and not the sugarcoated kids' version, which is still pretty bad.)
To avoid being completely offtopic, I guess I wonder how much we should really be cheering the "little guy"? I love to see the RIAA writhing in agony on the ground, holding its testicles, but this isn't combat. Do we really want to support an "emotional distress" charge?
It will be interesting to watch, regardless.
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.
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.
Re:Tell me... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Biblical proportions! (Score:5, Informative)
Spoken like a true /.'er!
Thanks for keeping us up to date and this breath of fresh, sweet air. *inhales deeply* Ahhh...fresh flowers and.. OMG!! Ponies!
Now let us hope that phase two works in Ms. Anderson's favor also, then we may be able to start seeing the RIAA monopoly crumble, or at least a better business model from them. Both for our sakes, and especially for the artist's sakes.
One of my best friends is a professional musician in a band, and they checked out signing with RIAA affiliated labels.(about four years ago) It would actually have cost them money to sign instead of make them money.(unless by some miracle they became popular overnight) Being smart guys,the band finally started their own distribution in addition to signing with an independent label that allows them to continue to do so. They are making a decent living with their music now instead of paying some label to be musicians.
New book just came out on that very subject [blogspot.com]: how musicians can make more money by NOT using record labels.
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:3, Informative)
What I want to know is. What happens when the RIAA goes after someone who has a job?
They lose time from work.