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 Drops Tanya Andersen Case

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the pendulum-swings-both-ways dept.

The Courts 164

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."

cancel ×

164 comments

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

I've never seen a pic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395269)

But the same Tanya Andersen sounds like she must be a milf. Anyone got a link ?

Geeky and Uptight, yet Hot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395389)

Here she is:

Uptight and hot [darton.edu]

Looks like she needs some.

Re:I've never seen a pic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395815)

I have a link to her picture right here [tinyurl.com] .

Re:I've never seen a pic (1)

Kaffien (635219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396081)

This is SICK someone moderate #19395815 now.

Re:I've never seen a pic (1)

PurPaBOO (604533) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396139)

FFS. That is fully NSFW.

ew

Ha ha! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395281)

Fuckers

two years (5, Funny)

uolamer (957159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395299)

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 (2, Funny)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395315)

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

Re:two years (1)

Timberwolf0122 (872207) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395379)

Nevermind that how can you even sue a 10 year old??! At that age surely community service would be a better option.

I think the very least they can do is pay the legal fees the family has rung up, soliciters are not cheep! RIAA are so off my birthday card list.

Re:two years (2, Interesting)

uolamer (957159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395495)

personally i am curious how her RICO Case http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/02/16 12238 [slashdot.org] 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 (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395597)

Learn the difference between civil and criminal cases, Little Billy.

Re:two years (5, Insightful)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395481)

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 (4, Insightful)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395625)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396171)

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 (2, Insightful)

EsbenMoseHansen (731150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396731)

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 (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396933)

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 (4, Insightful)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396259)

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 (1)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397525)

Now we just need a judge with enough balls to assess such a penalty. Of course, this says nothing about the judges in the courts above him. I'm afriad that even if this judge were to assess such penalties, the penalties would be overturned on appeal by a higher court. But maybe I'm just being too pessimistic.

Re:two years (3, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397537)

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.

Triple that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19398039)

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.


Too low. Triple that amount. About 1.5 million would be more appropriate, after all the goal is to *punish* the offenders and set such a strong an example as to thwart them from ever even thinking of repeating the offense plus discourage others from doing the same.

Re:two years (1)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19398553)

I dunno who would've modded me "flamebait" just then.... Really what I mean to say is that lawyers don't have to go through with lawsuits that they can clearly see are frivolous or liable to get them into trouble further down the line just because their client wants them to. Mind you I didn't say anything about the morality of a law suit.

If a client proposes a law suit like this one, it's the lawyer's job to tell their client they can't risk it backfiring.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a graphic designer whose sister is a lawyer.

Re:two years (2, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395767)

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 (2, Informative)

jratcliffe (208809) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396499)

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 (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397401)

Stop saying RIAA. The RIAA didn't sue a single person.

The question is: was the RIAA involved at all, either through securing legal counsel or through lobbying to get laws in place and establish procedures with ISPs. If so, they should participate in the accountability. If not, then s/RIAA/Atlantic Records/g.

Re:two years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19397899)

Warner Music Group was sold to a group of investors led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. in March 2004.

This happened after they found out that AOL was a (Image word)

Re:two years (1)

HRogge (973545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395521)

Sounds like a really good idea...

every times the RIAA want's tu sue a huge number of people they will run into an advanced feature of Vista called "User Access Controls"...

"You are trying toaccess the legal interface, are you sure ?"
"You are trying to hire an incompetent consultant, are you sure ?" ....

after 10-20 of this question (for each single case they start) they will just drop the whole matter...

what happened to mafiaa tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395991)

so slashdot only allows approved tags? what fun is that?

Proposal (1)

TrueRecord (1101681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395347)

RIAA has got a pretty nice way of making money: bullying innocent people; I suggest imposing a just 100 per cent tax on them and their business.

Obligatory (-1, Offtopic)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395353)

1. Does it run under Linux?
2. In Soviet Russia blah blah blahs you!
3. It's the left wing cheese eating surrender monkeys
4. It's the right wing religious nut jobs
4. Profit!

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

theTrueMikeBrown (1109161) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395413)

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

Re:Obligatory (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395515)

You're right. And I can't count above 4 either. Dammit, a flippant and ill-conceived post if ever there was one.

Re:Obligatory (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396303)

You misspelt "prat".

Re:Obligatory (1)

theTrueMikeBrown (1109161) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396477)

ops, I aktually missspelt pirate.

Sung To "Its only rock n roll" by the stones ... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397539)

I know, she's only ten years old but she stole it.

how the RIAA beat me (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395371)

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 (4, Funny)

Ilex (261136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395603)

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 (2, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396219)

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++

Child's condition? (-1, Offtopic)

sharkey (16670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395375)

Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child chad ever even heard of file sharing."

Was it hanging child chad?

Re:Child's condition? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395411)

No, I think she named her daughter 'Chad'.

What kind of freak would do that?

The Trifecta! (3, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395449)

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! (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395541)

Yes. With so much money being wasted and lives disrupted, maybe all this nonsense will become so publicly humiliating for the **AA groups that some real change might happen. Ooooor not. It's discouraging that things like this happen, but it's much more important to cover the silliness of this than whether or not Paris H. can handle the hard time she's serving or any other media inanity going on right now.

Re:The Trifecta! (1)

palewook (1101845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395605)

in the end, this story might end up on the small screen as a movie of the week.

Re:The Trifecta! (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395653)

Yeah, it would be a good movie.

Here's a good article [p2pnet.net] to start the research with.

Re:The Trifecta! (0, Redundant)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395923)

The RIAA had nothing to do with this case. It was Atlantic V. Andersen. Atlantic Records, a wholly owned subsidiary of Time-Warner-AOL sued her. The RIAA is what The Media, (tm) also a wholly owned subsidiary of Time-Warner-AOL, report as doing the suing because saying "We are suing her" makes them look bad. So remember, Atlantic Records, Time-Warner-AOL. They are the ones suing, not the RIAA. The RIAA is the organization they belong to that recommends investigators to track down offenders but takes no real actions on its own, being only an organization the ACTUAL media corporations belong to. Ahmet Ertegün was the founding chairman of Atlantic until he died December 2006, so I guess blame the lawsuit on the dead guy? Certainly don't stop buying Atlantic albums like Led Zepplin, Cher, Charles Mingus, Coltraine, AC/DC, Bush, Ray Charles, Death Cab for Cutie, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Genesis, Jennifer Love Hewitt, King Crimson, Lil' Kim, matchbox twenty, The Rolling Stones (Some), Sugar Ray, or Velvet Underground, to name a very very few ;) Because remember, its not THEIR fault, right? Its somehow the RIAA who had nothing to do with anything?

Re:The Trifecta! (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396013)

huh?

Re:The Trifecta! (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396273)

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...."

Well, it's a good thing Satan already installed the new Tenth Circle of Hell [theonion.com] !

Huh? (2, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396665)

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...

Re:Huh? (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396899)

Reminds me of a piece from that cache of quotes from court documents some where on the internet:

"Your honor, the fact that the defendant was dead has nothing to do with the pain they must have suffered due to a bad autopsy, and that is what this case is really about."

Seriously, listen to yourself. You sound like a lawyer....

Ever been in court? Defending yourself? I have. One day, when you are finally drug into court and have to defend yourself, what you said here today will come back to you in spades....

Re:Huh? (1)

drummerboybac (1003077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396985)

From the countersuit. "Tanya Andersen is a disabled, 42-year-old single mother of an eight-year-old daughter who lives on a limited income from Social Security." More of the sticking point is that she is supporting a family on a fixed income, meaning that the suing party can not hope to get the money they demand. In this instance, handicapped means fixed income.

Haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395471)

"child chad"

A girl named Chad, that's weird.

I really hope... (1)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395473)

... this woman will get some retribution for the many months of hell she went through. It really wouldn't be fair if the RIAA didn't have to pay up for this!

Re:I really hope... (3, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395647)

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.

poor girl (0, Offtopic)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395507)

...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 chad ever even heard of file sharing."
Isn't the girl suffering enough from having a boy's name?

Re:poor girl (3, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395553)

>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).

Re:poor girl (1)

ICantHearYourMusicAn (1044614) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396217)

At least they weren't hanging Chad. That caused all manner of problems last time.

Re:poor girl (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396969)

"How's it dangling, Chad?"

People vs. The Child (4, Funny)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395517)

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 (2, Funny)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396257)

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:People vs. The Child (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396489)

Little GirlChop him up, chop his head off ...

PoliceOh my God ! What's going on ??
Little Girl He killed the man
ManShe told me to do it !
Little GirlI'm only six, and three quarters

Re:People vs. The Child (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396777)

Capone didn't die in jail.

Scare Tactics (1)

christus_ae (985401) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395545)

You know all of that "suing an old lady" or "requesting a deposition with a 10 year old girl" was just scare tactics, nothing more. How often was I told as a young child "if you do something bad the police will get you and take you to the slammer!"... I would assume that notion translates here.

Re:Scare Tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395823)

How often was I told as a young child "if you do something bad the police will get you and take you to the slammer!"

I don't know, but it's phenomenally bad parenting.

We need some personal accountability (5, Insightful)

spazmonkey (920425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395631)

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.

avoid? I think they need to be questioned. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395719)

we need to stop them on the street, call them at home during dinner, and have all the Mike Wallace Wannabees on their doorstep with cameras and microphones and ask the twisted few why they are terrorizing Americans.

which, after all, is against the law.

imagine, RIAA in gitmo
it's easy if you try....

Re:We need some personal accountability (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395749)

I might agree with you if there were a -single- person that works for the RIAA willing to speak out and say 'what we are doing is wrong', and -not anonymously. By not doing so, they are each personally condoning the tactics of the entire organization. Even the US Government has people that say 'well, maybe that was wrong.' The RIAA has nobody like that.

So let's say you find your 3-10 (relatively few) people and 'oust them'. Who replaces them? The same people that backed them the entire time. You haven't changed anything except the faces.

Re:We need some personal accountability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395871)

Their replacements will be well aware of the public exposure they will be facing should they continue to pull silly stunts. That's the difference.

Re:We need some personal accountability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19397131)

By not doing so, they are each personally condoning the tactics of the entire organization.
*imagines a drone weighing options* Make statement, eat this week, make statement, make mortgage payment, make statement, pay untility bills...
I think we know how this is going to end.

It may take someone at a higher level to be able to speak up, and I doubt those who see themselves as the winners in this money game will want to end the game before they have to.

Re:We need some personal accountability (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395811)

"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 (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397215)

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.
But as far as I know, RIAA is not a corporation. They must be accountable to someone.

Re:We need some personal accountability (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397891)

They have a chairman and a CEO so they sound like a corporation to me. They say they are a trade group so I would bet they are incorporated.

Re:We need some personal accountability (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395825)

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

Mitch Bainwol
Chairman And CEO

Cary Sherman
President

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

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

Layne

Re:We need some personal accountability (1)

internetcommie (945194) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396029)

Could we possible get their corporate phone book turned over to all the telemarketing companies?
That could be a start.

Re:We need some personal accountability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395867)

#1 Weasel Edgar Bronfman Jr. ---- Check out the family ... Good wholesome family that one ....

Re:We need some personal accountability (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396739)

You never find 'em. Typically, they end up as a questionable heap of charred bones with a hint of gasoline....

Just like Cochran (0)

l33tPr0digy (1064738) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395707)

Her lawyer should have used the Chewbacca defense, that way, the case wouldn't have drug on for so long.

Swing... and a miss... (3, Interesting)

T_ConX (783573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395755)

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... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19398033)

It makes me wonder,
given how many people are doing this how Riaa can screw this part up so badly.

I *remember* only a few years ago when people said, "well the music business should go after the folks actually downloading songs". Finally Riaa tried to start doing that. But fortunately they got it horribly wrong.

I can't imagine how they got it as wrong as they have with suing dead people and people who do not own computers and 13 year old kids. Maybe people use private trackers (100-200 members) and peer guardian (and keep moving to newer technologies when old ones become to ubiquitous ) while the 13 year olds of the world do things that get them caught.

Re:Swing... and a miss... (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19398281)

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.

Don't start clapping yet (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395785)

One drop of water does not make a waterfall... it is but the start.

The RIAA has plenty of other cases out there they are pursuing with zest, and still more cases where people are simply caving and paying them their blood money. Until the tide truly turns in the courts, this is only a small victory. I suspect it's going to take one of these getting to the Untied States Supreme Court before the RIAA will be forced to call off their dogs.

Re:Don't start clapping yet (2, Interesting)

DakotaSmith (937647) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396177)

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.

OMG, she MUST be innocent! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395821)

After all, she refuses to work in any capacity whatsoever and just sits at home on the computer collecting welfare and SSI!

And she has a kid!

And she denied doing it!

Add that all up, and she MUST be innocent, no?

Yes, but did she steal songs? (3, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396043)

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? (1)

aegisalpha (58712) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396315)

It says in the summary that neither the mother nor child had heard of file sharing. So maybe not?

And it took them 2 years to drop a case because of bad PR? It's far more likely that she really was innocent at this point.

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396711)

Never heard of file sharing?

"Yes, all I was doing was using that fun little kaz-ahh thing my nephew told me could get me lots of music from the internets. What's file-sharing? I didn't get any files, just songs!"

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs? (3, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396993)

Yes, but did she steal songs?

I don't think there were any missing.

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19398151)

Yes, but the profit of the record labels was missing. I feel that they should'nt have dropped the case, and instead seeked damages in the range of $15,000 per song. Assuming she downloaded 10 songs (which is the minimum that any copyright infringing freeloader steals) then she should have been forced to pay $150,000. On disability and can't pay? The RIAA can have the money deducted from her disability check she receives each month from the government. After all, we are talking about the profits of a multi-billion dollar industry here. The lives of executives are at stake, including the coke, whores, multi-million dollar mansions, and million dollar sports cars they purchase.

Who gives a shit about some disabled mother and her daughter who struggle to make ends meat on a daily basis.

Re:Yes, but did she steal songs? (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#19398165)

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?

Typo in Article, Title, and Summary (5, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396109)

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 (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396645)

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 [blogspot.com] -- 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:Typo in Article, Title, and Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396649)

I get the impression that the RIAA provides the lawyers and decided the legal strategy, so the article is correct. Sure Atlantic is named in the suit, but that's the extend of their involvement. If you have reason to believe otherwise I'd love to hear it.

Oh come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396197)

Seriously, what the hell does being a single disabled mother have to do with ANYTHING???? Why is that any worse than if it was a married father or anyone else for that matter?

Re:Oh come on! (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396307)

It was enough to get the case dropped so apparently it has everything to do with this case.

Re:Oh come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19397017)

It might not be worse in your eyes, but maybe you should try asking her that question.

Sure, being disabled has no bearing on one's ability to download music, but it can affect one's ability to handle stress, and the record label must have known that bringing a court case such as this would place incredible stress on this person. At the very least they must have taken her disability into account and decided that it mattered less than their crusade against perceived breeches of intellectual property - and that alone makes this worth reporting, since it shows what this label is capable of.

child chad? (1)

kwieland in stl (830615) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396637)

EDITORS: Could you please fix the typo?

Re:child chad? (1)

Zorandler (931867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397621)

We need to remove all the hanging chads...

Pedantry... (1)

Nereus (733242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396671)

Prior to the case, neither the mother nor the child chad ever even heard of file sharing.
Chadn't they?

I think it's inappropriate and in bad taste (1)

shelterpaw (959576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397433)

to wish ill-will towards anyone, but seeing how the RIAA has handled this case, I can't help myself.

What can constitute adequate evidence? (3, Insightful)

rajkiran_g (634912) | more than 7 years ago | (#19397565)

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?

Re:What can constitute adequate evidence? (1)

Benanov (583592) | more than 7 years ago | (#19398495)

The pirate bay used to have an artificial screenshot generator. You might be able to find it with a quick search.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>