Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the grinding-gears-as-it-goes-into-reverse dept.

The Courts 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."

cancel ×

312 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

*HAPPYDANCE* (5, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613331)

Way to go, Ms. Andersen!

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613623)

How the hell can a first post be moderated Redundant? Friends don't let friends moderate baked.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (3, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613691)

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:*HAPPYDANCE* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613771)

It was not the first first post to not say "first post".

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614749)

Fail. Should read:

It was not the first first post post to not say "first post".

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (3, Interesting)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614763)

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 usually metamoderate daily.

Speaking of not worrying about karma, since this post is offtopic already I might as well add that today's mcgrew journal is uncharacteristically SFW (although it's not a very good one)

"No karma bonus" checked, please mod me down farther, thx

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (0, Redundant)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613669)

How in the world can the first post be redundant? Moderater clue: redundant means something has already been said before. See what I did? Adding before once I had said already made before redundant.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613705)

Although it wasn't said, it was implied in the summary.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (5, Funny)

Deadfyre_Deadsoul (1193759) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613741)

Inevitability Mrs Anderson, inevitability.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614193)

Keep the Faith!

And please, do all you can to get the money you deserve.

Psychological stress can leave traced for yours. That can affect the longevity of your life.

Those pigs charge atrocious fee per song/movies. Feel free to make them pay for the evil thing they do.

Jourdespoir

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (5, Insightful)

ElizabethGreene (1185405) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614321)

RIAA Lesson Learned: Do not annoy those that can devote their full time occupation to making you look like an imbecile.

Re:*HAPPYDANCE* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614325)

Ms. Andersen. It seems you have been leading 2 lives...

Hooray Underdog! (1, Funny)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613351)

Congratulations, Ms. Andersen. David has slain Goliath, once more.

Re:Hooray Underdog! (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613469)


David has slain Goliath, once more.

Not quite. David has kicked Goliath squarely in the testicles but he isn't dead.

Re:Hooray Underdog! (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613821)

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! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614091)

As it is, the RIAA is just stoned.

Quoted for truth.

Re:Hooray Underdog! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614795)

the RIAA is just stoned.

That they've been for a long time.

Re:Hooray Underdog! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614633)

Good! Keep kicking his nuts, Dave!

Abuse of Process (4, Insightful)

Ozric (30691) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613357)

I think that could be a fitting charge as well.

Re:Abuse of Process (5, Informative)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613765)

I think she has beaten you to it.
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 (4, Interesting)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613361)

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

Biblical proportions! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613363)

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Re:Biblical proportions! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613513)

If you'd said "The RIAA" not "This city" you might have got modded insightful.

class action (4, Interesting)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613389)

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:class action (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613523)

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:class action (3, Insightful)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613755)

*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:class action (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614011)

*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?

Despite the word "free", someone still has to pay for the download. All that's happening is that the record company is paying the $.99 fee but they're getting x% of it back, since that's their profit margin. So, in sense, it's a cheaper solution for them because the judgement see's the $.99 cost but the RIAA members aren't actually paying that.

The artists will still get their cut of "x% * number of downloads". Don't worry. Those costs are paid out by iTunes based on the purchases.

Re:class action (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614215)

iTunes credits? How ironically appropriate, if people were trying to steal music (not exactly the case, I know), and instead, they're given DRM'd music in return?

Re:class action (5, Insightful)

homer_s (799572) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613841)

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.

Re:class action (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613983)

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 (5, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614253)

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."

Tell me... (4, Funny)

coobert (1138959) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613401)

Tell me, Ms. Anderson... what good is a counterclaim... if you're unable to speak?

Re:Tell me... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613419)

Tell me, coobert... What good is being able to misquote movies, if the quote is so over used?

That's no moon... It's a second planet.

The force is weak in this one, keeps paraphrasing and misquoting shit movies.

Re:Tell me... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613625)

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... (5, Funny)

Cormacus (976625) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613683)

And here's to you, Mrs. Anderson
Slashdot loves you more than you will know
Whoa whoa whoa . . .

Re:Tell me... (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613667)

All your over-used-misquote are belong to us.

Re:Tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613975)

I, for one, welcome our new (robotic?) misquoting overlords...

In soviet russia, movies misquote you...

Re:Tell me... (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614009)

I like to imagine the look on her face if she hasn't seen the movie and was reading that comment...

We need corporate prison (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613445)

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 (5, Insightful)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613515)

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 (5, Insightful)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613561)

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 (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613709)

yes extortion is a crime. good thing that's not what the RIAA have done then isn't it?

Re:We need corporate prison (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614007)

"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 (5, Funny)

cushdan (949520) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613987)

RICO...I learned about that in the Dark Knight.
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 (4, Informative)

The Only Druid (587299) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614177)

I'm not aware of anyone actually having accussed the RIAA of extortion (or the related offenses), but I could be mistaken. Here, however, she's specifically accusing them of a civil offense, not a criminal one. Perhaps I should have spoken more explicitly.

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:We need corporate prison (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614319)

If the sole purpoes of the organisation is for criminal collusion and extortion, and if the organisation is, before the law, a fictional person, then why can't we prosecute the corporation?

No we don't (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614745)

"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."

I don't think so.

See, the whole idea of corporations is limited liability.

That's why the people in charge will take the risk and do stuff. That's good for society when they're doing the "good stuff".

Now if the people in charge do really bad stuff, you don't punish the fictitious legal person.

You punish the _real_ people behind it.

Many rich people own multiple companies. You lock one up, or punish one to dust, they have ten others, they write it off as a "cost of doing business".

Whereas if you jail the people in charge that would REALLY HURT.

A rich person isn't going to live much longer than 120 years, by the time they are rich, they've got a lot less than that left. So jail for 5 years does hurt.

While in prison, they can't enjoy the benefits of their wealth as much. No cocktails on beautiful beaches, no luxurious surroundings.

When someone really breaks the rules of the game, no more hiding behind "limited liability" and "fictitious legal persons".

That is what will really hurt, and that is what will "adjust the attitude" of the real persons behind those shields.

this was on hackaday first... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613449)

And this isn't the first time that Slashdot has essentially copied their posts

Re:this was on hackaday first... (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613617)

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... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613933)

oh look, it's mr. fancy pants lawyer.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (4, Funny)

pfleming (683342) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614135)

oh look, it's mr. fancy pants lawyer.

I think Ray actually prefers jeans.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (5, Informative)

Icarium (1109647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613781)

*whoosh*

Slashdot is a news aggregator - Every. Single. News. Story. is a copy of a posting somewhere else.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (0, Redundant)

Cala (1134197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614019)

Every repost is a repost of a repost.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614157)

No, I insist that every story on slashdot was individually investigated by the slashdot investigators themsleves. It is lucky for us readers that slashdot has investigators in so many different fields.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (4, Funny)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614203)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614291)

Wait, you mean /. doesn't have a crack team of reporters writing all these summaries?

Oh, there's a "crack team" all right. We love you anyway, Rob.

I've been duped!

Well, then you'll fit right in around here, I see lots of postings about dupes.

Re:this was on hackaday first... (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614243)

Unfortunately, some of the time it's just a copy of another story on Slashdot.

What does her disability have to do with this? (4, Insightful)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613553)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613589)

I was wondering the same. And I did RTFA. I haven't even found what her disability is. I back her 100%, but I'd like to think the side I back is above "Think of the disabled!" tactics.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613787)

Why would not use everything you have?

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613797)

Evidently not... has there been any anti-RIAA victory not involving a sympathy card (disabled, single mom, cancer victim, kid with cerebral palsy, etc)?

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613753)

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? (3, Insightful)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613859)

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? (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613909)

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:What does her disability have to do with this? (2, Insightful)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613973)

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:What does her disability have to do with this? (2, Informative)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614257)

Notwithstanding my criticism of the story summary, I admire your legal work in this area.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614427)

"Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?"

It strongly implies she is financialy and physically helpless and thus it superficially supports her counter claim of bullying.

"(maybe if she was deaf it would add an extra layer)."

Makes me wonder what you would say if she had been in a coma for last 20yrs, still not relevant?

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614093)

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.

What happened to justice being blind?

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614513)

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.

What happened to justice being blind?

Slashdot is not a court room or legal forum in any way. We don't have to be blind.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614287)

While having a heart is good, at the same time, the law should be the same for everyone. If her disability adds a claim for additional damage or something that's fine, but it shouldn't be related to whether or not she is innocent. I guess what I'm trying to say is being disabled doesn't allow you to ignore copyright law so, looking back, it shouldn't be used to enhance the verdict. So the GP was right, her innocence is not related to her disability. It is, however, related to the damage the RIAA inflicted. It should (and will) matter when it's time for the RIAA to pay for damages.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (4, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614371)

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:What does her disability have to do with this? (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613775)

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? (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613843)

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:What does her disability have to do with this? (2, Insightful)

ratbag (65209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613907)

So what "disabled" really means here is "poor". Why not just say it? It doesn't matter why she's poor.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614349)

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:What does her disability have to do with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614399)

Ratbag you are a Jackass. It doesn't matter why you are a Jackass. It is enough to say that you are a Jackass.

Re:What does her disability have to do with this? (5, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614479)

"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:What does her disability have to do with this? (4, Interesting)

ElizabethGreene (1185405) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614705)

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.

Here's to you, Ray! (3, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613557)

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:Here's to you, Ray! (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613627)

Hear, hear! /me raises a glass to Ray's honor.

Ray, if you're ever in Sweden, drinks are on the house.

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613635)

Oops... I just RTFA (yes, uncharacteristic of me) and it appears that NYCL wasn't her lawyer?

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613663)

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! (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613689)

Make that Lybeck Murphy [lybeckmurphy.com] .

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613745)

I just saw that after R one of the FA, but I'm still toasting you tonight, as well as her lawyers.

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613761)

NewYorkCountryLawyer for President! (I know, I know, this wasn't your case - I just felt like posting this.)

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (1)

matria (157464) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614535)

Now if that were the case, I would actually vote, for the first time since 1970.

Re:Here's to you, Ray! (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613959)

...as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead.

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.org no longer distribute their shows in SBD format [blogspot.com] .

It's really disappointing that one of the leaders in the free music world and a band that shaped a movement in free access to some of their best music regressed towards a closed format. My favorite quote of the article linked above was, "Technically and policy-wise, it has been invigorating as you can probably appreciate. We have made changes in the past and we will make changes again."

While I have yet made it to the point of no return and have not yet stopped listening entirely, I have begun to support other bands that have room to grow upwards and don't seem to have plans to regress to the draconian limits imposed by the typical mainstream bands. If the Grateful Dead's remaining members continue to stomp on the traditions started by Jerry all those years ago, I will be forced to change my username, my personal domain, and my listening habits much to my great disappointment.

As for the fight going on with the RIAA. While I applaud people who are standing up to them for the rest of us, I really wonder if it will change anything. We are seeing a slow change in the tide (just like we did with other bullies like SCO) but it's really unfortunate that while the record companies are finally getting stepped on, the bands themselves -- especially bands who used to allow and encourage nearly unlimited use of their live material, are starting to bend to the commercial pressures that shouldn't exist.

I still go to live shows of bands that adhere to archaic distribution methods in the hopes that their growing fanbase might be able to change their closed stance (hey, it's happened!) but I mainly support only those bands that allow the free trading of at least some of their music (They Might Be Giants [slashdot.org] for example -- who are coming to Minneapolis in September and playing at First Ave for those of you interested, Dark Star Orchestra [lazylightning.org] , etc).

If we all keep up the pressure, from all angles, everyone -- including the bands that seem so hellbent on profits -- may come around, someday.

FYI (5, Informative)

martin_henry (1032656) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613605)

Here are the documents pertaining to her counter-suit,
Anderson v. Atlantic. [blogspot.com]

One of the claims cites the RICO Act, which I can only imagine spells bad news for RIAA & mediasentry...

Re:FYI (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614415)

mediasentry

They're called Safe-Net now too, aren't they?

Movie (5, Funny)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613637)

Something tells me the movie industry won't get behind this story like they did for Erin Brockovich.

Re:Movie (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613733)

Depends, Does Tanya Andersen have big boobs and use her sexiness to change outcome?

what a terrible movie...

Remember, kids... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613687)

Remember, kids, Ms. Andersen didn't infringe anyone's copyrights, and neither should you.

I like her (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24613699)

She's kind of milfy.

The moral of this story... (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613865)

The moral of this story is that you can nto get a fiar trial without $107,000.00.

So, if you have less %107,000.00 but more than $500.00, then buy a gun and get even.

If you have less than $500.00, let them sue you as it won't matter anyway.

Andy

Re:The moral of this story... (1)

Icarium (1109647) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614801)

Odd. This seems to have ended up being a fair trial, despite the defendant lacking the aforementioned $107k.

The real moral of the story is "Don't go to a trail you can't afford unless you're damn sure you can win". Or you could mumble something about being innocent...

Legal fees are not enough - by far (5, Insightful)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613931)

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:

  • Not sure how this usually works, but if you hire a lawyer to defend yourself against such charges, isn't it up to you to pay that lawyer until compensation gives you a refund (which may take years)? Meaning: if you haven't got any money to spare, you can't mount a proper defense. If you take it out of a savings account, you're missing the (higher!) interest you would have had, had that money been kept there. Perhaps you might settle, out of fear that you can't keep paying your lawyer as long as needed. That alone tilts the playing field to the RIAA side.
  • If only the lawyers' fee is compensated, your time is regarded as either free, or worthless? (take your pick). That is ridiculous. Any time you spend on it could have been spent making money, quality time with friends/family, hobbies, going out, etc, etc. Regardless of how much you think your time is worth, forcing other people to waste their time (if your reasons are shown invalid) should cost money, period. Time is about the only thing you can't buy, no matter how rich you are. What if this had been a cancer patient with <3 months to live?
  • Then there's the distress caused, negative publicity surrounding her person, etc, all of which doesn't count as damage?

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 (1)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 6 years ago | (#24613993)

(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 the damage done, and well beyond any reasonable punative claims.

Well done to the lady... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24614003)

...but please note this post in your diaries so that you can come back in 5 years time and say "He was right, you know!" for what I am about to say.

Music is art and doesn't need to be played about with once the artist has finished making it - you either like what's been made or you don't like it, that's it. No different to having an opinion on a painting, a sculpture, a piece of architecture, etc.

So when people who call themselves music fans take this selfish "I want it now & I want it my way" attitude of downloading "pick n mix" tracks from albums (whether legally or illegally) just because they need something to work out to at the gym or something to drive along to, then they are altering that music purely to have something playing in the background, not to truly listen to it. And for 90% if the plastic, mass-produced rubbish that's spat out of CD duplication plants, that's fine & let them get on with it.

But for the minority of highly-skilled artists out there who have enough mastery of their art to grab the attention of a true listener from the start to the end of an entire album, it will spell their doom & ultimate demise.

I give proper music no more than five years...

The legal industry is extortion (4, Interesting)

dloyer (547728) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614071)

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.

I'm not going to get into a debate about (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24614787)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?