RIAA Drops Tanya Andersen Case 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."
two years (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:two years (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Re:two years (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:two years (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why should they stop saying RIAA? (Score:2)
To quote the RIAA presidentCary Sherman (regarding a different, but similar case):
Re: (Score:2)
If instead of saying 'RIAA sued blah' we said 'Atlantic records, who distribute music by the following bands
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
Re: (Score:2)
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..."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You are attempting to screw over the populace, Allow or Deny?"
On second thought, I think Microsoft has pre-programmed that answer...
how the RIAA beat me (Score:4, Funny)
Re:how the RIAA beat me (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Not likely. Let's bash some heads.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a decent deal to me!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
--jeffk++
The Trifecta! (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a good article [p2pnet.net] to start the research with.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a good thing Satan already installed the new Tenth Circle of Hell [theonion.com]!
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, for thoses of you like the last AC -- not all disabled people can't work, and not all people who don't work are disabled. Oh, and also EVERYONE IS NOT THE SAME. There, does that cover it better for you?
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
People vs. The Child (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Man, I thought the little girl was going to open up a can of whoopass after such a good start
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it was only a scant 8 years after he was released though... So it was practically in jail...heh..
Scare Tactics (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We need some personal accountability (Score:5, Insightful)
avoid? I think they need to be questioned. (Score:2)
which, after all, is against the law.
imagine, RIAA in gitmo
it's easy if you try....
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need some personal accountability (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:1)
That could be a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New slogan - "If he would do that to his own kids, imagine what he will do to yours!"
Swing... and a miss... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Swing... and a miss... (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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)
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
Yes, but did she steal songs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
I don't think there were any missing.
Re:Yes, but did she steal songs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Typo in Article, Title, and Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Typo in Article, Title, and Summary (Score:5, Informative)
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.
What can constitute adequate evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sung To "Its only rock n roll" by the stones ... (Score:2)
Re:poor girl (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
ew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)