Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses Media Music News Your Rights Online

RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case 164

Posted by Zonk
from the pendulum-swings-both-ways dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case

Comments Filter:
  • two years (Score:5, Funny)

    by uolamer (957159) * on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:26AM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Cerberus7 (66071)
      Nah, then it would take 4 years but the paperwork would be _REALLY_ colourful!
    • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by uolamer (957159) *
        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..
        • What's even more interesting is the counterclaim- if the RICO suit fails, there will be case law in Oregon making it legal to copy files out of anybody's open and unprotected shares- plus it will be legal to scan for such open ports and shares. Kazaa isn't the only file sharing software out there- "I want to share my printers and I want to share my files, and I want to share my anger 'cause it's making me bloomin' wild"- ReInstalling Windows by Les Barker, from back in Windows 3.1 days. MOST basic file sy
      • by Rogerborg (306625)
        Learn the difference between civil and criminal cases, Little Billy.
    • Re:two years (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreyPoopon (411036) <gpoopon&gmail,com> on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:39AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Heir Of The Mess (939658) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:50AM (#19395625) Homepage
        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            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 pr

            • by Qzukk (229616)
              that you have sufficient insurance to the level of medical attention you will need.

              So in other words, he should be punished for failing to predict that you'd hit him? How is that different from the other examples?

              How about his insurance company, which in the real world would turn around and sue you for causing the damages they had to pay for? Should they be punished by being forced to raise the rates for their customers because you can't be bothered to keep your eyes on the road for 5 seconds? Maybe if Y
              • that you have sufficient insurance to the level of medical attention you will need.

                So in other words, he should be punished for failing to predict that you'd hit him? How is that different from the other examples?

                Is it punishment to have to pay for medical bills after being hit by lightning? No. It's just life. Likewise, you might get hit by a car. Unfortunately, such things happens.

                How about his insurance company, which in the real world would turn around and sue you for causing the damages they had to pay for?

                They wouldn't in most of the civilized world. Since they wouldn't get anything out of that regress suit. That would require "gross negliences" (literal translation) on your part.

                Should they be punished by being forced to raise the rates for their customers because you can't be bothered to keep your eyes on the road for 5 seconds? Maybe if YOU had been insured against the damage YOU did, then the insurance company would be able to take their damages out on you, but then you'd have to face the responsibility for your own failures.

                Relax. Everyone blinks. Sometimes, it just isn't anybodys fault, and besides, everyone makes mistakes. I am not speaking of gross neglience here.

                Look up the definition of mis/malfeasance, I think you'll find that your failure to properly operate a vehicle that you have been trained and licensed to operate falls in this category regardless of whether you think that insurance companies grow money on trees.

                Why shou

                • by Qzukk (229616)
                  Everyone blinks.

                  5 seconds is more than just a blink. I'd even go so far as to say that if you're looking at something other than the road for 5 seconds, you're negligent. If it takes you more than a second to read your speedometer, you either need your eyes checked or you've had too much to drink.

                  everyone makes mistakes

                  Punishment is the process by which people learn not to. Is 10 million dollars too much punishment for deciding to fish around in your purse while approaching a red light? Maybe. Are clai
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by einhverfr (238914)
              IANAL, but I think there are times where neglegance should be actionable.

              However, I do share a lot of the concerns about medical malpractice tort reform. My suggestion has generally been aimed at moving from a "court" solution to an "insurance" solution. Basically, a doctor's malpractice liability insurance would double as an accidental death/dismemberment insurance for his/her patients with a baseline of payments set by the state. Patients who want additional insurnace could buy it.

              Then I would suggest
          • Re:two years (Score:5, Insightful)

            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.
          • 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?
            Exactly, yes. That's what I would agree with. Intent isn't present, so, neither should mens rea be.
        • Re:two years (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mstahl (701501) <marrrrrk@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @09:33AM (#19396259) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • by RESPAWN (153636)
            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 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @10:42AM (#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.
          • by Reziac (43301) *
            "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."

            Seriously, that sounds like a good rule-of-thumb penalty for this sort of abuse. Enough to be painful for the abuser, not so much as to err on the side of reverse abuse.

          • More... there should be a clear incentive not to settle against the riaa, after all million dollar lawsuits for consumer good related damages helped a lot...
            The same should go for the RIAA, they sue people for millons of dollars of questionable real value, I personally think a fine which really hurts them, and with really I mean seriously hurts them is appropriate!
            After this fine a few hundred thousand get rich quick crooks will hunt the riaa and out of court settling will be much harder than it used to be!
        • by mstahl (701501)

          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 sis

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by canajin56 (660655)
        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jratcliffe (208809)
          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
        • Yes, this case was taken to court by Atlantic Records. Atlantic Records is a member [riaa.com] of the RIAA, and this suit is but one piece in the ongoing RIAA campaign [com.com] to sue people for copyright infringement, apparently regardless whether they've done so or not.

          To quote the RIAA presidentCary Sherman (regarding a different, but similar case):

          "This is an ongoing strategy, and the way to let people know that there is a risk of consequences is to continue the program. You don't set up a speed trap for one day and st

          • by Builder (103701)
            They should stop saying RIAA because the RIAA WANT people to blame them. They have one role - represent the record companies.

            If instead of saying 'RIAA sued blah' we said 'Atlantic records, who distribute music by the following bands ... sued blah' then the record companies start to take a public beating.

            At the moment, the record companies are committing vile acts and hiding behind the RIAA. If they started to take some public flak for their actions, they might think twice before committing them.

            Hell, all f
            • by mengel (13619)
              Ahh... Now I see your point.

              It hadn't occurred to me that people might not be associating particular record labels with the RIAA... but you're right, many people probably are not, which is why they're having the association do it for them.

              I was thinking more along the lines of "It isn't just Atlantic records, all of the RIAA members are party to this..."

              • by Builder (103701)
                I did a straw poll in the office and asked who was suing who, and all anyone came back with was 'The RIAA'.

                So from a sample of 50 people, the record companies are coming out of this smelling like roses, when they should be smelling like shit.
        • The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents [ilrweb.com], you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.

          Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.

          The RIAA isn't a separate group from the individual record companies, the RIAA IS those companies. So therefore, if you are being
    • by HRogge (973545)
      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...
    • by Reziac (43301) *
      Nah, it's just that the RIAA are really slow learners. Have some pity for the disabled members of our society!! ;)

    • The civil court system in the US really needs an update.. maybe vista?
      "You are attempting to screw over the populace, Allow or Deny?"

      On second thought, I think Microsoft has pre-programmed that answer...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:31AM (#19395371)
    The most effective tactic they used to make me stop pirating music was to produce music that wasn't worth listening to.
    • by Ilex (261136) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:49AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Mattintosh (758112)

        blah blah blah... heads of Industry executives... blah blah blah... uncrackable...


        Not likely. Let's bash some heads.
      • by MooUK (905450)
        Wait, so I can bash the heads of the industry executives in as long as I pay them?

        Sounds like a decent deal to me!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by statusbar (314703)
      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++
  • by Himring (646324) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:37AM (#19395449) Homepage Journal
    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...."

    • by u-bend (1095729)
      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.
    • by palewook (1101845)
      in the end, this story might end up on the small screen as a movie of the week.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Yeah, it would be a good movie.

        Here's a good article [p2pnet.net] to start the research with.
        • by Reziac (43301) *
          Maybe someone should pitch it as a TV movie of the week. Imagine the irony if a TV-production branch of some cartel wound up producing a docudrama about their own audio-branch's evildoings :)

          Seriously, it might be a good project for some production-arts student, to ultimately be released into the public domain for maximum exposure.

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by canajin56 (660655)
      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 n
      • by Himring (646324)
        huh?
      • You need to be able to draw connections that may not be so obvious.

        The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents [ilrweb.com], you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.

        Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.

        So you are mistaken. It isn't just Atlantic su
    • 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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)

      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 birthd

      • by Himring (646324)
        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
      • The fact that she is disabled, and on a fixed income has nothing to do with a civil case in which she is being sued for tens of thousands of dollars that she will never be able to pay due to this fact?? You are right, how could that possibly be relevant to anything??
      • by dbIII (701233)
        It's how we treat those less able to defend themselves that establishes our worth as a society. This extra bit of information makes those that bring these poorly researched charges look a little bit more like the barbarians they are.
  • ... 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!
  • by packetmon (977047) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:42AM (#19395517) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by kharchenko (303729)
      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 :)
    • by CmdrGravy (645153)
      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
  • 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.
    • by dbIII (701233)
      If that's the case then could it be the crime "demanding money with menaces"?
    • by Ant P. (974313)
      I'd think a more apt comparison to this case would be rape.

      The amount of trauma caused, from being dragged through 2 years of court over deliberately false claims, is probably the same. Forget compensation, they should be pushing for 20-to-life sentences for every single RIAA suit involved in these cases.
  • by spazmonkey (920425) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @08:51AM (#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.
    • 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....
    • by Aladrin (926209)
      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
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR (28044)
      "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
      • by einhverfr (238914)
        If it is corporate policy, than the people who set the policy should be held personally accounable. Maybe Hilary Rosen should be named as a codefendant of counterclaims?
    • by SQLGuru (980662) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @09:05AM (#19395825) Journal
      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
      • Could we possible get their corporate phone book turned over to all the telemarketing companies?
        That could be a start.
    • by Himring (646324)
      You never find 'em. Typically, they end up as a questionable heap of charred bones with a hint of gasoline....

  • by T_ConX (783573)
    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?
    • 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 g
  • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DakotaSmith (937647)

      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 b

  • by Henry V .009 (518000) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @09:18AM (#19396043) Journal
    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.
    • by aegisalpha (58712)
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Paradise Pete (33184)
      Yes, but did she steal songs?

      I don't think there were any missing.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @11:11AM (#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?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by 10Brett-T (11197)

        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?

        Arrrr... and this be Oregon, where unauthorized access of computers [lightlink.com] be aggressively prosecuted [lightlink.com], so the former be too.

      • by dbIII (701233)
        Isn't hacking into people's computers considered a criminal offence as distinct from the civil offence of file sharing? If they really did access her computer without permission there should be legal consequences - especially given the recent high profile extadition for someone that had done nothing more.
  • by canajin56 (660655) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @09:23AM (#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.
    • 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.
  • by rajkiran_g (634912) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @10:43AM (#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?

    • by Benanov (583592)
      The pirate bay used to have an artificial screenshot generator. You might be able to find it with a quick search.
    • by einhverfr (238914)
      I would think that the question would become one of bad faith regarding the RIAA. IANAL, though. (I.e. the evidence itself doesn't say much, so you have to decide whether to trust the source-- this is not a criminal case so a different standard of admissibility would be used).

      In short, the question is the screenshot and the witness. Impeach the witness and the screenshot doesn't count for much. Same would go for log files, and the like.

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.

Working...