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."
Abuse of Process (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that could be a fitting charge as well.
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.
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: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.
Re:class action (Score:3, Insightful)
*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
Sounds about right, and how many of those free download credits will be expended on music by independent artists who aren't even affiliated with RIAA?
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.
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.
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.
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? "Person begins to get redress for 'frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case'" would do. A person's disability (or colour, or religion, or income, or favourite football team) doesn't need to be brought into the equation unless it's relevant (maybe if she was deaf it would add an extra layer).
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what "disabled" really means here is "poor". Why not just say it? It doesn't matter why she's poor.
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).
Re:Here's to you, Ray! (Score:3, Insightful)
...as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead.
You know, for years I touted the Grateful Dead as a band that was a pioneer in allowing the free taping and trading of their shows. Jerry was wise beyond his years saying that once they were done with a show it didn't matter what the fans did with it. In the years since his death (it seems like yesterday when I got word on IRC) the remaining members of the band have tightened the restrictions on the trading of their shows and now places like archive.org no longer distribute their shows in SBD format [blogspot.com].
It's really disappointing that one of the leaders in the free music world and a band that shaped a movement in free access to some of their best music regressed towards a closed format. My favorite quote of the article linked above was, "Technically and policy-wise, it has been invigorating as you can probably appreciate. We have made changes in the past and we will make changes again."
While I have yet made it to the point of no return and have not yet stopped listening entirely, I have begun to support other bands that have room to grow upwards and don't seem to have plans to regress to the draconian limits imposed by the typical mainstream bands. If the Grateful Dead's remaining members continue to stomp on the traditions started by Jerry all those years ago, I will be forced to change my username, my personal domain, and my listening habits much to my great disappointment.
As for the fight going on with the RIAA. While I applaud people who are standing up to them for the rest of us, I really wonder if it will change anything. We are seeing a slow change in the tide (just like we did with other bullies like SCO) but it's really unfortunate that while the record companies are finally getting stepped on, the bands themselves -- especially bands who used to allow and encourage nearly unlimited use of their live material, are starting to bend to the commercial pressures that shouldn't exist.
I still go to live shows of bands that adhere to archaic distribution methods in the hopes that their growing fanbase might be able to change their closed stance (hey, it's happened!) but I mainly support only those bands that allow the free trading of at least some of their music (They Might Be Giants [slashdot.org] for example -- who are coming to Minneapolis in September and playing at First Ave for those of you interested, Dark Star Orchestra [lazylightning.org], etc).
If we all keep up the pressure, from all angles, everyone -- including the bands that seem so hellbent on profits -- may come around, someday.
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
We all have a pretty clear picture of the RIAA's moral standing already. So again, why drag this woman's disability into a news summary? Has she made it a central platform of her defence?
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'.
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."
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because in the PR war, "disabled" is a more powerful weapon than "poor".
Wrap your heads around this, geeks - rationality has NOTHING to do with PR, and is only marginally related to politics. If we keep demanding playbook that is strictly rational, we are going to lose. Period.
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.
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.
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
What happened to justice being blind?
Slashdot is not a court room or legal forum in any way. We don't have to be blind.
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: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. :-)
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
We all have a pretty clear picture of the RIAA's moral standing already.
lots might have, but that doesn't mean everyone who reads this particular story is aware of the depths to which they are prepared to stoop.
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?
Not in any way hinge? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant...
- being disabled
- a single mother
- on Social Security."
Really? If you're on Social Security, you probably don't have a particularly big income. If you have a child, a chunk of it will go to that child. If you're disabled, you'll probably have additional expenses for that as well. Granted, she may be compensated for the child / disabilities to some extent in terms of money, but how's that going to compensate for all the hours lost that could be spent with her child instead? I haven't checked what disabilities are in play here - but it seems reasonably likely to me that she will be forced to deal with her disabilities more often than without the case. Now you may claim that "that's life, life sucks", but I'd argue that the RIAA made her life suck in that regard.
But let's take the heart out of it, and focus only on the money aspect and your statement "the case [does] not in any way hinge on"; if that were true, don't you think that there would be a greater portion of cases that would go to arbitration / court, rather than being settled? A great number of cases are settled not because the target knows they're guilty anyway (in which case, settling might be the wise thing to do - but I'll leave that for future cases on whether awarded damages to the RIAA are fitting to the 'crime'), but because the target simply does not have the resources (specifically: money) to bring a solid defense - mounting one leading to debts far greater than a settlement does.
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.
Re:In related news (Score:3, Insightful)
<paroody>
II knoow yoou probbably doon't speeak Engglish nattively, buut thhe veerb "loooose" meeans "too seet frree". Soome tiimes aa misssspelling altters thhe meanning oof thhe senntence. Oftten iit iss juust aa typoo, buut yoou ussed thhe saame spelllling twiice.
Iis thhis commment haard too reead? Weel, ssee?
</paroody>
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:3, Insightful)
What you've got to do, in order to avoid just speaking in hyperbole (this is the rhetorical 'you', here) is show that that is actually the purpose of the RIAA. Since the facts don't remotely support that assertion, you're going to have a serious hurdle to overcome before talking about this sort of thing.
Re:class action (Score:2, Insightful)
there's plenty of music out there that's about equal in quality to a stick figure drawing. now, if you could sell it as well as the big guys, you'd only need one or two ;)
Re:Biblical proportions! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hopefully the dead rising from the grave won't happen or else the RIAA might start a more vigorous lawsuit campaign in suing even more dead people http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/ [theregister.co.uk]
Actually, the undead are working for the RIAA, as its attorneys.
Re:We need corporate prison (Score:3, Insightful)
The shareholders are very rarely culpable for criminal offenses.
Yes but don't you think the record company shareholders have suffered enough?
Re:Here's to you, Ray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes me wonder what you would say if she had been in a coma for last 20yrs, still not relevant?
Did you read what I said? "If she was deaf it would add an extra layer." In other words, her specific disability would have contributed materially to the case and would therefore be of importance to the news summary. So no, 20 years of coma would not be irrelevant, since it would imply that the RIAA had made an obvious mistake.
It strongly implies she is financialy and physically helpless and thus it superficially supports her counter claim of bullying.
And presumptions like that are why I don't feel the woman's disability should have been in the summary. Disability is not a shorthand for helplessness of any kind. Using it as a bargaining chip or as a tool for spinning a story would be reprehensible.
Re:No we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>They punished the whole class and let the bully go free. It was done in class, and very publicly, so that EVERYBODY was suffering from the act of one person. Peer pressure from everybody works wonders.
I've seen that kind of thinking in action. The result was that everyone totally lost any faith in the administration and the lesson they learned was that the only path to success was being an outlaw.
I was very fortunate to go to a school (40 years ago) where disruption was not allowed. The disruptive 'students' were suspended. If they didn't shape up, they were permanently removed. The school administrators there believed that the taxpayers had built the school and were paying their salaries so that students could learn, and any students who were not there to learn had no place in the school.
the "system" (Score:3, Insightful)
In the "grand scheme of things" you mention, we all (in the US) operate under a very elaborate regime of exploitation fondly known as capitalism. (Pick your favorite scheme - they all amount to one form or another of exploitation.) Fact.
People decided that an organized way of dealing with this (i.e courts) was preferable to the alternative - which is pretty much to not deal with it.
The "grand scheme" and the court system are both full of people like you and me, who are in no way perfect. Ergo, you will have corruption.
It is idealistic bordering on crazy to think that it's even possible for people to not attempt to exploit anything and everything they can. Especially those with the resources at their disposal to do so.
The brainy thing (which I've seen lots of folks here and elsewhere allude to, so this isn't just me thinking!!) to do as citizens and as a civil government is to be aware of this reality and to be prepared for it. In terms of the government, that's supposed to mean regular elections (i.e. turnover) for the participants and checks and balances in the power held by them. Our two-party political system has worn down these safeguards to the nubs though, so big abuses (like Enron, Katrina, Microsoft and the RIAA) have a lot better chance of growing than they should.
If you need a good example, use the Founding Fathers. They had this good sense to implement checks and balances. At the same time they were acting with perfect human nature in their combined vision of Manifest Destiny. This is the trend that's basically been on repeat ad infinitum since the dawn of man, I suppose. Very seldom if ever does the fix come before the abuse.
It's also interesting to look at this from the point of view of the concentration of power and the corrupting influence that phenomena can have.
RIAA is obviously the best example here. On the face of it, there's nothing wrong with these record companies' position - that people who are taking their things for free that are only offered for sale should be stopped. If they were to go about that individually, it's unlikely a major abusive effort could result even if they were wrong. However, they strategically pooled thier resources and power in the RIAA.
power+resources+corruption=today's reality for the RIAA
Keeping in mind that the RIAA is still relatively a very very small group, it's not hard to imagine the results of larger concentrations of power and resources such as those which happen all the time in both government and business.
That's all for now.
-Matt
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely incorrect. Everyone from law enforcement to judicial powers should be human and practice discretion within the full extent of the law. This is how the law is made to work in reality - one law for everyone goes only so far. Circumstances always weigh in. (Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)
-Matt
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Not to say they should predominate, but neither should they be ignored.)
With that statement, it sounds like you agree with me. Any person should have the same rights to be heard in a court of law as any other person.
I also agree with you that circumstances should way in, but only if it pertains to the case. The fact that Tanya Andersen was a single mother and had a disability does nothing for the case and has no bearing on the case. If Tanya Andersen had been a college grad with a high paying job, or a 90 year old, elderly grandmother, the case should have been the same.
That's where I'm going. I'm not saying *no* circumstances...I'm saying only where they matter.
Re:No we don't (Score:3, Insightful)
I would suggest that first, fines that result from misbehavior on the board level be paid for out of the pockets of the board and it's shareholders at the time of the crime and not out of corporate funds. (IMHO C*O's should be held accountable for the consequences of their polices, none of this futz the company and then bail on the golden parachute like we saw with
Re:No we don't (Score:3, Insightful)
So to talk about some school administration coming in deus ex machina and helping the victims with some form of "discipline". The bullies I knew could care less about the school 'punishing' them; the worst thing the school could do would have been to expel them, which is what they would have wanted anyway.
Those of you who are talking about the 'school' punishing 'bullies' don't even know what a real bully is. Talk to someone who grew up in the mean streets of one of our big urban centers, and they'll tell you that this thread is nonsense.
When I talk about bullies I talk about vicious sociopathic vermin, who hunt in packs. And when I talk about fighting them, I always assume (a) you are overmatched, and (b) you will receive no help from anyone.. I make that assumption because that's the way it is when dealing with real bullies.
And there are basically 2 answers to how to deal with them. One is to run, if you are fast.
I'm not.