RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951

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."

*HAPPYDANCE*

Way to go, Ms. Andersen!

Re:*HAPPYDANCE*

How the hell can a first post be moderated Redundant? Friends don't let friends moderate baked.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE*

Inevitability Mrs Anderson, inevitability.

Abuse of Process

I think that could be a fitting charge as well.

Re:Abuse of Process

I think she has beaten you to it.
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.

Reported Elsewhere

Torrentfreak.com also has a write-up of this: http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-pays-up-in-anderson-case-080814/ [torrentfreak.com] - [potentially NSFW link]

Interesting bits to note:

It is encouraging to finally hear that last night, the RIAA and the member companies that were involved in the case finally paid the fees (they refused first), putting an end to this protracted legal wrangling. The amount paid was not, however, $107,834 but a figure of $107,951 â" a figure which takes into account interest accrued due to delay.
[snip]
So, with Thomas looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA's 'war on downloading' have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong, and ordered to pay the fees.

class action

oh, this has the making of a beautiful class action suit against RIAA and the record companies. Can you imagine the beautiful, beautiful damanges?

Re:class action

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

Re:class action

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.

We need corporate prison

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

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.

Re:We need corporate prison

Extortion is a crime. Collusion and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion are crimes. This is where the RICO Act being enforced would be appropriate.

What does her disability have to do with this?

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?

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.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this?

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:What does her disability have to do with this?

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].

FYI

Here are the documents pertaining to her counter-suit,
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

Something tells me the movie industry won't get behind this story like they did for Erin Brockovich.

Re:Hooray Underdog!

David has slain Goliath, once more.

Not quite. David has kicked Goliath squarely in the testicles but he isn't dead.

Re:Hooray Underdog!

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:this was on hackaday first...

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:this was on hackaday first...

*whoosh*

Slashdot is a news aggregator - Every. Single. News. Story. is a copy of a posting somewhere else.

Re:Here's to you, Ray!

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!

Make that Lybeck Murphy [lybeckmurphy.com].

Re:Tell me...

And here's to you, Mrs. Anderson
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .