RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After 2 years, the RIAA has finally dropped its longstanding case against disabled single mother Tanya Andersen in Oregon, Atlantic v. Andersen. The dismissal (pdf) relates merely to the RIAA's claims against Ms. Andersen, and does not relate to her (a) claim for attorneys fees or (b) counterclaims against the RIAA, which are presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss. The counterclaims were first interposed in December 2005. This is the same case in which the RIAA insisted on taking a face to face deposition of a 10 year old girl. Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child had ever even heard of file sharing."

Comments

two years

[uolamer]

two years to drop a case that should have never been filed to start with. The civil court system in the US really needs an update.. maybe vista?

Re:two years

[Cerberus7]

Nah, then it would take 4 years but the paperwork would be _REALLY_ colourful!

Re:two years

[GreyPoopon]

The civil court system in the US really needs an update..

I don't think so... at least not yet. I think the judge needs to deny the motion to dismiss the countersuit and, depending on the evidence, not only award the fees requested in the countersuit, but also an extremely stiff penalty. Basically, you don't want to make your court system less open, but you want to scare the living daylights out of any organization that would abuse the court system by harassing innocent people. If it's clear that the defendant was innocent and that the RIAA did not take proper measures to make sure they had the right person, then they ought to pay attorney fees, emotional stress, fees for any efforts related to the case that the family had to take, ongoing fees for counseling for the 10 year old, any medical bills that might have been related to the stress they put the family through, fees to cover any libel that the family may have suffered for their treatment, and then a huge penalty on top of that for abusing the court system. After that, the FBI should investigate the RIAA for participating in organized crime. ;)

Yeah, it's just a pipe dream; I know. But seriously, before we call for changes to the court system, let's see how it plays out.

Re:two years

[uolamer]

personally i am curious how her RICO Case http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/02/16 12238 will play out. would be real nice to see it go the distance, but at this pace it wont ever finish. Filing waves of law suits against people without any evidence, or knowing who your suing, then resorting to 'extortion' seems to be close enough to the RICO law to play out, if someone cares enough to do it..

Re:two years

[Heir Of The Mess]

So what do you reckon 30? 40 billion $$$? Afterall doctors get sued for millions for making an honest 5 second mistake. This has been a 2 year campaign of deliberate persecution of an innocent minor and her disabled mother.

Re:two years

[canajin56]

Stop saying RIAA. The RIAA didn't sue a single person. Atlantic Records, a wholly owned subsidiary of Time-Warner-AOL's Warner Music Group, sued her. Blaming on the RIAA when the RIAA isn't mentioned once in any of the court documents is what the media reporting on the case, also wholly owned subsidiaries of Time-Warner-AOL, do to shift blame away from themselves.

Re:two years

[Anonymous Coward]

Afterall doctors get sued for millions for making an honest 5 second mistake

Not only doctors. An honest five second mistake in auto traffic can result in the same kind of pain, suffering, death, and lifetimes of medical bills as a medical mistake.

You're saying that if you don't see that stop sign and cause me ten million dollars of medical bills that since it's an honest mistake you (or rather your insurance company; the same company that insures doctors) shouldn't have to pay?

Just pray you don't wind up in a wheelchair severely brain damaged because of someone else's honest mistake, doctor or no.

-mcgrew

Re:two years

[mstahl]

You're right, sort of. What really needs to happen here is that Atlantic Records needs to get taken to the cleaners on penalties, they must reimburse the defendant appropriately, and just as importantly their lawyers must be held accountable for bringing this case to court. Filing a lawsuit on false grounds and wasting two years of these people's and the court's time is grounds for disbarment.

Re:two years

[jratcliffe]

While you're right about the RIAA, you're wrong about Atlantic Records. Atlantic is owned by Warner Music Group, but Warner Music is an independent company, with no connection to Time Warner (which doesn't use the AOL name anymore). Warner Music (ticker WMG) was sold off about two years ago, so Time Warner (ticker TWX) has no connection to this lawsuit

Re:two years

[EsbenMoseHansen]

You're saying that if you don't see that stop sign and cause me ten million dollars of medical bills that since it's an honest mistake you (or rather your insurance company; the same company that insures doctors) shouldn't have to pay?

That's what I would say. Damages should only be awarded for something very deliberate, like rape. The other line of thought gets sillier by the minute. What's next, suing the weather forecast man who fails to predict a thunderstorm? The man that falls out of his window and hits you? Suing the thunderstorm or gravity itself?

In my opinion, it is your responsibility to ensure that you have sufficient insurance to the level of medical attention you will need. For most of the civilized world, taxes already provides this ensurance, but for the rest, I'm sure the lower taxes would afford you the insurance.

Re:two years

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

You're saying that if you don't see that stop sign and cause me ten million dollars of medical bills that since it's an honest mistake you (or rather your insurance company; the same company that insures doctors) shouldn't have to pay?

When we drive cars, cross the road, ride an elevator, eat a meal, we all accept a certain level of risk. These are the risks that somehow, through no deliberate fault of anyone, something will go wrong. There will be an oil slick on the road, you will trip on a stone, a sensor will fail, there will be a chicken head in your nuggets.

It's one thing if someone deliberately avoids their responsibility and in so doing cause an accident. It's quite another when an accident occurs through no real fault of a diligent and responsible person. In the first case, their actions escalated the danger of the situation beyond the level of risk most people would be willing to accept. In the second, the accident that occurred was one that any honest person would accept was a reasonable possibility, and furthermore, one which people so accept as a possibility every single day.

Accidents happen. They are erratic events which we cannot predict, but nonetheless accept the possibility of. Of course, deliberate misfortunes also occur, which were indeed quite foreseeable and avoidable. It is the latter event that people should be held to account over.

Re:two years

[Maxo-Texas]

No that's just goofy.

I think $750 per day is a reasonable amount tho.

Surely a day of a person's life is worth as much as a copy of a song.

So 547,500 for two years.

Re:two years

[einhverfr]

IANAL, but I think there are times where neglegance should be actionable.

However, I do share a lot of the concerns about medical malpractice tort reform. My suggestion has generally been aimed at moving from a "court" solution to an "insurance" solution. Basically, a doctor's malpractice liability insurance would double as an accidental death/dismemberment insurance for his/her patients with a baseline of payments set by the state. Patients who want additional insurnace could buy it.

Then I would suggest raising the bar for malpractice suits from a "standard of care" approach to a "clear neglegence" standard. The goal is to keep the money from going into court costs and attourney's fees and provide a reasonable standard for compensation in the case of common medical issues.

There are other things that need to be done as well to reduce our medical costs, but we can save those for another discussion where they will be less off-topic.

Getting back to the case at hand... If there was copyright infringement going on, then the RIAA would have been within their rights to sue. However, since this looks like an abuse of the court system, I would suggest again, a very stiff penalty and a finding of fact that the RIAA was abusing the courts. I would then suggest the word gets out as far as possible, and that people are aware that such a finding can be used in the defense of other cases. A few such findings, and the RIAA may have a much harder time suing anybody. Yes a systematic adjustment is due but not to the court system but rather to these sets of cases.

how the RIAA beat me

[Anonymous Coward]

The most effective tactic they used to make me stop pirating music was to produce music that wasn't worth listening to.

Re:how the RIAA beat me

[Ilex]

The most effective tactic they used to make me stop pirating music was to produce music that wasn't worth listening to.

Sshh thats their new DRM tm. Make the music sound so intolerable that no one will want to listen to it hence no will download it much less share it.

Of course to safeguard their profits they'll just buy legislation which will tax the production of music. Anyone found accidentally bashing a stick against another object will have to pay the RIAA royalty tax.

Unfortunately that will also include bashing A clue stick against hollow objects like the heads of Industry executives. It looks like they've finally found their uncrackable DRM system.

Re:how the RIAA beat me

[statusbar]

This works into their grand master plan:

1) produce poor quality music
2) sell less albums
3) blame pirating and internet radio for their reduced sales
4) tax internet radio and sue everyone else for pirating even if they are not pirating ..5) profit!!!

--jeffk++

Re:how the RIAA beat me

[Mattintosh]

blah blah blah... heads of Industry executives... blah blah blah... uncrackable...

Not likely. Let's bash some heads.

Re:Obligatory

[theTrueMikeBrown]

you forgot to welcome our ten year old prate girl overlords!

The Trifecta!

[Himring]

Harrassing a handicapped mother, her child and disrupting the child's education (by wanting to depose during school hours). Congo rats RIAA! You've pulled the trifecta!...

Seriously, the devil is going to be in serious need of something to do the way these fookers are going. I think even he sits back, looks at these cases and says, "dayum...."

Re:The Trifecta!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah, it would be a good movie.

Here's a good article to start the research with.

People vs. The Child

[packetmon]

RIAA Attorney: Did you know that by downloading music you were doing something illegal?
Little Girl: wots eleegul?
RIAA Attorney: Don't play dumb missy. I'll ask again. So when you download Bratney Spears did you think you were doing something wrong?
Little Girl: I love my Bratney neener neener
RIAA Attorney: ANSWER THE QUESTION
Little Girl: *sobs*
RIAA Attorney: DID YOU KNOW THAT BY SHARING MUSIC YOU HEAR FOR FREE ON THE RADIO YOU WERE DOING SOMETHING WRONG
RIAA Attorney: DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD GO TO JAIL FOR A VERY LONG TIME
Little Girl: DID YOU KNOW THAT AL CAPONE DIED IN JAIL
Girl's Attorney: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR
Little Girl: *sobbing
RIAA Attorney: FINE YOUR HONOR (looks at little girl) YOU'RE GOING AWAY FOR A LONG TIME MISSY
RIAA trolls/employees: This guy is good!

Re:People vs. The Child

[kharchenko]

Little Girl: DID YOU KNOW THAT AL CAPONE DIED IN JAIL
Man, I thought the little girl was going to open up a can of whoopass after such a good start :)

Re:poor girl

[clickclickdrone]

>Isn't the girl suffering enough from having a boy's name?
You mean you people call kids Chad? I thought Randy was bad enough and don't get me started on Randy Vanwarmer or whatever his name was (70's singer).

We need some personal accountability

[spazmonkey]

We always talk about the RIAA as an entity, but there is probably only a relatively few individuals that are heading up all of this nonsense. Who are they PERSONALLY. They need to be outed, so that maybe when they are revealed as to who they really are, their personal lives will become as unbearable as they try to make their victims. No more hiding behind a corporate front. I want to know who these people are and everything about them made public so that decent citizens can avoid these pariahs.

Re:We need some personal accountability

[LWATCDR]

"We always talk about the RIAA as an entity, but there is probably only a relatively few individuals that are heading up all of this nonsense."
Nope your wrong. This is corporate policy. In this case the entity it's self really is to blame. I can give you that some employees may find it distasteful and personally disagree. They may even just work there because they need the money to raise their family. How ever the RIAA as an entity is corrupt and needs to be removed. The music industry has been convicted of price fixing. They have a long history of ripping off artists. I don't know how they have avoided getting busted under the RICO act a long time ago. Well I do know. They "Art" side pays big money and sends out celebrities to keep the Democrats in their back pocket and the big business side gives out big money to keep the Republicans in their back pocket. It really is the perfect storm. The Democrats can pretend they are protecting "Artists" rights while the Republicans can claim the be protecting profits.

Re:We need some personal accountability

[SQLGuru]

http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/default.asp

Mitch Bainwol
Chairman And CEO

Cary Sherman
President

Board of Directors
http://www.riaa.com/about/leadership/board.asp

Member labels (you can look up their leadership individually)
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

Layne

Re:I really hope...

[Rogerborg]

Oh, did you spot the best bit? They reserve the right to continue to pursue her to recover their lawyers' fees and costs. Goddamn them.

Swing... and a miss...

[T_ConX]

OK... so how many times has it been that the RIAA ended up bringing legal action against people who didn't (and in some instances, couldn't have) engaged in music piracy?

How do people like these folks even end up on the RIAA's hitlist? Do they pick their targets by just pinning up a street map of a city and throwing darts at it?

Will it ever get to the point where a judge just gets tired of all these false positives, desides that the RIAA can't be trusted in court, and throw them out of the courthouse? Let's hope so!

Re:Swing... and a miss...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Good post, Unknowing Fool.

By the way, she offered them the opportunity to examine her hard drive
before the lawsuit. They turned her down, and just sued her.

Yes, but did she steal songs?

[Henry V .009]

Do handicapped mothers not download Kazaa or something? The RIAA seems to have dropped this case because of bad PR, not because she was innocent so far as I can see.

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs?

[Paradise Pete]

Yes, but did she steal songs?

I don't think there were any missing.

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs?

[UnknowingFool]

Do handicapped mothers not download Kazaa or something? The RIAA seems to have dropped this case because of bad PR, not because she was innocent so far as I can see.

I would say that Ms. Anderson appeared to be innocent all along, but that doesn't matter to the RIAA. Only the bad PR may have mattered to them. This case, like many others, shows the RIAA's inaccurate and despicable driftnet techniques can harm the lives of the seemingly innnocent. When she received her settlement notices from the RIAA, she tried to reason with the settlement center even offering her HD as proof that she did nothing wrong. The only options they gave her were to pay their settlement or face a lawsuit informing her that they had accessed her computer to gain all the evidence they needed.

Living on a fixed income (because of her disabilities) she simply could not afford to pay the RIAA to go away. So the suit began. During discovery the HD was examined and no evidence of P2P software or illegal songs were found. Her lawyer also brought to the attention of the RIAA that P2P username that they targeted belong to someone else in the city when they googled for it. That other person openly talked about stealing songs via P2P on his myspace page.

To me it appears that she was innocent all along. Yet the RIAA still pressed forward wanting to depose her minor daughter in person. I hope that she wins big in fees because of all the anguish they have inflicted over the past 2 years. BTW, if she was innocent, then the RIAA either illegally accessed her computer (she did not have P2P software) or lied to obtain a false settlement. IANAL but wouldn't the latter be considered a crime?

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs?

[10Brett-T]

BTW, if she was innocent, then the RIAA either illegally accessed her computer (she did not have P2P software) or lied to obtain a false settlement. IANAL but wouldn't the latter be considered a crime?

Arrrr... and this be Oregon, where unauthorized access of computers be aggressively prosecuted, so the former be too.

Typo in Article, Title, and Summary

[canajin56]

The article and summary repeatedly use the term "RIAA", which is a typo. It should really read "Atlantic Records, a wholly owned Subsidiary of Time-Warner-AOL drops Yanya Andersen Case", and so on. The RIAA is like a guild. The big labels belong to it, they pay their dues and the RIAA acts like a mouth piece. But it doesn't own the music, Sony and Warner and maybe a few other companies own the music. The RIAA isn't suing, and can't sue. They may have provided the "experts" that will testify that they tracked down these evil pirates, but that is the full extent of their involvement. But I suppose people like to blame it all on the RIAA since if they blame the RIAA and not Atlantic Records and Warner Music, they don't have to stop buying stuff like Led Zepplin and Snoop Dogg and The Stones (Well the early stuff from them) as well as any stuff from matchbox twenty, Sugar Ray, Ray Charles, and hundreds of others.

Re:Typo in Article, Title, and Summary

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You, and others who have offered similar comments, are right that the record companies are to blame, and that it is important to name them so people will know whose music not to buy. The only reason I don't name each of the 5 or 6 plaintiffs in each case, in addition to the RIAA, is just laziness. I just don't have the time.

But it is not inaccurate to say the RIAA is bringing these cases; the RIAA is actually commencing and administering the lawsuits day-to-day. The record companies have nothing to do with it except on those rare occasions -- such as pretending for the Attorney General's sake that they do not know each other's prices in UMG v. Lindor -- where they have a strategic reason to pretend to be working independently of each other.

So when I say "RIAA" please accept it as shorthand for the litigation cartel of the "Big 4" record companies and their affiliated labels. And if you have the time to dig down into the court papers and supply the names of the culprits in any particular cases, please accept my sincere thanks for doing so.

Re:Don't start clapping yet

[DakotaSmith]

It won't get called off. To call it off would require a complete dismantling of the U.S. copyright and patent system. Copyrights and patents as they presently stand were never consistent with reality and they've always been blatantly immoral. Easy digital reproduction simply makes this painfully obvious to even the dimmest bulb.

Clearly, there's too much money tied up in copyrights and patents (and consequently too many Congresscritters purchased by interested parties) for the current system system to be dismantled.

No, the sad fact is that what the RIAA does is legal and will remain so until the Republic finally falls and we can ignore those jokers in Washington. In ten years, there will be midnight copyright raids, the same as there are drug raids today and with the same justification.

Screw ethics and morality. The issue is always about how those in government can control the governed. Copyrights and patents are a wonderful way of making sure we all knuckle under.

Huh?

[Frosty Piss]

Harrassing a handicapped mother...

Why do people insist on adding in this little factoid? It has absolutely no relevancy to the case. Certainly the RIAA has their heads up their ass, but if or not this woman or her child are "handicaped" has nothing at all to do with if she or her child are "guilty" as charged or whether she should or should not be pursued for breaking some law someplace. Anymore than this:

Harassing a single mother with enormous breasts, her child and disrupting the child's so called birthday party...

What can constitute adequate evidence?

[rajkiran_g]

A screenshot of limewire running on the RIAA's computer showing some files being shared from some IP address? Can that be sufficient evidence? Cannot such a screenshot be artificially generated?

If I manage to capture a screenshot of the RIAA homepage containing false adverse remarks about me, can I sue them for defamation, given that it is trivial to produce such an image?

Suppose RIAA victims who are being subjected to blackmail just reformat their hardisks, destroy any cd's they might be possessing containing any infringing material and claim they never had anything to do with any p2p downloads, what then? What evidence is there to incriminate them?