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."

Comments

*HAPPYDANCE*

[jeiler]

Way to go, Ms. Andersen!

Re:*HAPPYDANCE*

[morcego]

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.

Reported Elsewhere

[ilovegeorgebush]

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

[pha7boy]

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:What does her disability have to do with this?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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'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.

The legal industry is extortion

[dloyer]

The entire civil legal industry is based on the fact that it costs far more to defend yourself against whatever the plaintiff claim (lie) than to pay what they ask. Plaintiffs are almost never forced to pay the legal fees of the defendant, unless the case is very public AND black and white. It is all a sham and a huge subsidy for sleazy attorneys that know how to work the system, often at the expense of an insurance company, but not always. I found this out the hard way when I made the mistake of selling my home to a sleazeball attorney. They can fuck with you based on the most flimsy of reasons and it costs them very little to ruin your life. The defense attorneys, that burn through their client's life savings by over billing and accomplishing nothing, but still make costly mistakes, are no better. "Justice" is only for the rich. Far worse than the money, is the stress, the fear that my children may not be able to attend college because of it. It should be a crime, but it never will. Who runs the court system? Judges, that are also attorneys. Who makes the laws? Elected attorneys.

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

[ElizabethGreene]

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?

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.

Worst part of her case...

[st33med]

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.