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."
*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably because I didn't actually add anything substantive to the discussion. It's cool--I have the karma to burn, and my sig says it all.
And hey, it was a first post that didn't say "First Post." That ought to count for something! :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You cannot have a post post first post post.
Punctuation is over-rated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps that if what you're saying doesn't offend anyone, you're not saying anything very controversial and thus perhaps not of much weight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it's now modded "+5 informative" the system worked... kind of.
"Probably because I didn't actually add anything substantive to the discussion. It's cool--I have the karma to burn, and my sig says it all." Indeed.
The way to get karma at slashdot is to comment honestly, rationally, candidly, without rancor, and most of all don't worry about the karma. I get modded "troll" and "flamebait" quite often (despite the fact that I don't, in fact, troll, and try to be calm) but my karma is excellent and I usuall
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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.
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.
Hooray Underdog! (Score:2, Funny)
Congratulations, Ms. Andersen. David has slain Goliath, once more.
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.
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: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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
BRICK TO THE JUNK!
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.
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
Re: (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: (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 coupon
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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."
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
Tell me... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Overused not-funny quotes, get modded funny.
Pointing out that the overused quote is overused and crap, gets modded flamebat.
Pointing out that certain mods are fucking stupid, gets modded priceless.
Somethings posting can't buy, for everything else, just piss of the mods.
Re:Tell me... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the question you should ask is, why would you want to extend the liability shield of a corporation-as-fictional-person to include excusing the real persons who make up the corporation from any punishment for their criminal wrongdoings?
Re: (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
Re: (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: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)
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: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:No we don't (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was in elementary school oh so long ago, one teacher found a way to stop the bullies from doing disruptive behavior.
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.
Apply this idea to a company: Your assets are froze for 10 days, stocks cannot be traded in their name, and the workers MUST be paid. The ones responsible for this would be outed rather quickly.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So to talk about some school administration coming in deus ex ma
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.
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: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: (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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Notwithstanding my criticism of the story summary, I admire your legal work in this area.
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.
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.
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
True to /. form I shall impart wisdom with a quote from a fictional source(yes I know).
"Has Picard no respect for justice? Tasha asks, "What of justice for Wesley? Does he really deserve to die?" Riker commends the Edo's system of justice is probably better than any they once had, a testimony to their beautiful way of life, but adds that the Captain is also bound by the laws of the Prime Directive, which states he must protect his people from harm. The group is ready to beam out, but the alien force prevent
Re: (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: (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
Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what "disabled" really means here is "poor". Why not just say it? It doesn't matter why she's poor.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
...the Senator from Disney...
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but reading this put me on the floor with laughter.
Thank you!
-Matt
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear! /me raises a glass to Ray's honor.
Ray, if you're ever in Sweden, drinks are on the house.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops... I just RTFA (yes, uncharacteristic of me) and it appears that NYCL wasn't her lawyer?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NewYorkCountryLawyer for President! (I know, I know, this wasn't your case - I just felt like posting this.)
Now if that were the case, I would actually vote, for the first time since 1970.
I am deeply honored.
(By the way, I have never not voted. Even when I was in the hospital recovering from brain surgery, and wasn't allowed to sit up, my kids brought me an absentee ballot and helped me fill it out. Although the likelihood of me getting on the ballot is nonexistent, please do vote anyway. Worst comes to worst, you can do a write-in vote for Cmdr Taco).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.o
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).
In related news (Score:2)
(satire) In a related story, the RIAA will be increasing the charges assigned to people who pay to cover the cost of loosing to someof the people who fight back.(/satire)
I just hope this isn't a joke that becomes reality. One of the basic problems with the whole system here is that it's out of balance. It's appropriate to be able to seek redress from someone who violates your copyright; but the amounts involved (the amounts the individuals are being required to pay when they loose) are out of proportion to
Re: (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>
The legal industry is extortion (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Worst part of her case... (Score:4, Interesting)
Her child was being researched by the RIAA. They would call about Ms. Anderson's daughter at work and at child's school, looking for her. Now, I am no parent, but, that would really scare me and fear for my child. As such, her mental state was suffering from these court cases, and she took leave from work and skipped court days sometimes.
Pigs, the lot of the MAFIAA.
Anderson has a lot of guts to stand up to them even after that. Cheers to her and her courage. Hope this helps put an end to the music and movie court cases.
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:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Funny)
oh look, it's mr. fancy pants lawyer.
I think Ray actually prefers jeans.
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: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!
Re:this was on hackaday first... (Score:5, Funny)
I've been duped!
s'okay - so have most of the stories around here. ;)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
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.