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."
Way to go, Ms. Andersen!
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
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.
David has slain Goliath, once more.
Not quite. David has kicked Goliath squarely in the testicles but he isn't dead.
Trolling is a art,
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
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
Something tells me the movie industry won't get behind this story like they did for Erin Brockovich.
And here's to you, Mrs. Anderson
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
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.
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.
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
*whoosh*
Slashdot is a news aggregator - Every. Single. News. Story. is a copy of a posting somewhere else.
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
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
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).
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 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'.
Ray Beckerman +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."
[
"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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
this, because it is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of personal values.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And if I was sued by RIAA, could I also pay them in print-outs of my own art?
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.