Slashdot Mirror
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."
Here are the documents pertaining to her counter-suit,
Anderson v. Atlantic.
One of the claims cites the RICO Act, which I can only imagine spells bad news for RIAA & mediasentry...
www.purevolume.com/martyd
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 before it was on hackaday, and it was on Recording Industry vs. The People 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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I think she has beaten you to it.
Third claim for relief: Abuse of legal process
From the document; "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.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
*whoosh*
Slashdot is a news aggregator - Every. Single. News. Story. is a copy of a posting somewhere else.
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".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"Give us $6000 or we'll sue you even though we know perfectly well we don't have a case" is extortion.
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.
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.
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.