AfterDawn: Tech news

RIAA trying to dodge legal fees after dropping case

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 18 Oct 2007 22:59 User comments (31)

RIAA trying to dodge legal fees after dropping case Despite their humiliating retreat in the P2P copyright infringement case against Tanya Anderson, the RIAA is acting as though they won the case and arguing in court that they shouldn't have to pay her legal bills because she's probably guilty.
As crazy as it sounds, RIAA lawyer William Patton wrote in his brief to the judge deciding the matter "It would be an extraordinary coincidence indeed if this defendant had nothing to do with infringement at issue in this matter." That's right. The RIAA is saying she shouldn't be treated as though she was exonerated when they dropped the case for a lack of evidence. And the legal argument appears to be that they're reasonably sure they're right. What the legal precedent for such an argument would be is unclear at this time.

Meanwhile, Anderson's lawyers have said her legal tab "may exceed the amount the RIAA is publicly crowing about in the absurd verdict against Jammie Thomas." Of course, the exact amount in fees they can collect would be up to the judge.

Anderson plans to use the money to pay for a countersuit she plans to file against the RIAA. That countersuit, also in the Oregon federal court, seeks class-action status to represent "those who were sued or were threatened with suit by defendants for file-sharing, downloading or other similar activities, who have not actually engaged in actual copyright infringement." The lawsuit alleges "the class is comprised of many thousands of individuals."

Source: Wired

Previous Next  

31 user comments

119.10.2007 1:42

all i can say is I am rooting for the underdog here becuase it sounds as if Anderson and her lawyers will be opening the litigation floodgates of hell on the riaa.
I truly believe you get what you give in this life. Now it may be time for the riaa to bend over and take it up their's since this is what they have been doing for..... how long is it now?

219.10.2007 4:12
WierdName
Inactive

We can only hope that this, in addition to the RIAA's many screw-ups lately, will put them under. They may have started with good intentions, but now they just want money.

319.10.2007 5:56
BitLittle
Inactive

Originally posted by WierdName:
We can only hope that this, in addition to the RIAA's many screw-ups lately, will put them under. They may have started with good intentions, but now they just want money.
I almost agree with. It`s very sorry that money rule the world.

419.10.2007 6:06

Though I'm certain she is guilty of sharing the files, I support her in these cases 100%, anything that hurts the RIAA is ok in my book. :P

519.10.2007 7:52

If all she needs is more money to file a countersuit against the RIAA, then I am sure she can get the money she needs from taking a collection online. If she were to get even $0.50 from everyone who downloaded at least one file illegally, then she would probably become a millionaire.

I would love to see the RIAA have to payback all of the money that it stole from the people that were sued!

619.10.2007 8:02

Originally posted by maryjayne:
If all she needs is more money to file a counter suit against the RIAA, then I am sure she can get the money she needs from taking a collection online. If she were to get even $0.50 from everyone who downloaded at least one file illegally, then she would probably become a millionaire.
If you got $0.01 dollars from everyone who ever downloaded something illegally, you would be the richest person on the planet.

719.10.2007 11:39
morguex
Inactive

Hey RIAA
Here's a news flash for you, The law is black and white, not grey.
Either your guilty or your not in the eyes of the law.
You can't be partly guilty or partly innocent.
So take your lumps and pay up your fee's.
But keep that cheque book open, cause your going to need a whole lot in the future.

Peace all

819.10.2007 12:45

I am sorry you drag someone to court then drop it since you can't win, you should pay every drop the other side spent on your frivolous case...

919.10.2007 13:27

Originally posted by nintenut:
Though I'm certain she is guilty of sharing the files, I support her in these cases 100%, anything that hurts the RIAA is ok in my book. :P
Sorry Sir but you are INNOCENT UNTILL POROVEN GUILTY not the other way around if she was convicted then your right. You cant just claim someone committed a crime you have to prove it with somthing called evidence they dropped the case for LACK of evidence meaning they could not show Anderson did anything wrong.

1019.10.2007 14:01

Quote:
...arguing in court that they shouldn't have to pay her legal bills because she's probably guilty.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I don't know if the judge will laugh, or be angry. But he's going to shoot down the RIAA on that one... I assume this is the same judge that already ruled that there was so little evidence, that it would ba a waste of time (and an injustice to Tanya Anderson) to bring case before a jury.

1119.10.2007 14:13

While I hope that she is successful in taking the RIAA to court, you will find that there is an extremely high price for being innocent. She is in a better position in that a private party, [RIAA], is the one making the original accusation. If the police were the accuser, she would be out of luck.

One of my shoestring relatives was accused and arrested for a crime by the police. He was in jail for 2 1/2 years during the long trial. During that time, he lost his family mostly due to police harassment and lack of income, he lost his home, cars, bank account and career. The police placed him in jail cells with known violent criminals that beat him several times. At the end, it was found that another person had committed the crime. He was aquited and released to the street with nothing more than the clothes on his back. Meanwhile, the courts officers were collectively thumping there chests and stating how well the justice system works in that an innocent person was not convicted. They added that if one is innocent, they have nothing to worry about...

If you check out the laws, the system [courts, police, etc...]cannot be sued unless it is shown that malice and forethought was at play.

1219.10.2007 20:02

Originally posted by dufas:
While I hope that she is successful in taking the RIAA to court, you will find that there is an extremely high price for being innocent. She is in a better position in that a private party, [RIAA], is the one making the original accusation. If the police were the accuser, she would be out of luck.

One of my shoestring relatives was accused and arrested for a crime by the police. He was in jail for 2 1/2 years during the long trial. During that time, he lost his family mostly due to police harassment and lack of income, he lost his home, cars, bank account and career. The police placed him in jail cells with known violent criminals that beat him several times. At the end, it was found that another person had committed the crime. He was aquited and released to the street with nothing more than the clothes on his back. Meanwhile, the courts officers were collectively thumping there chests and stating how well the justice system works in that an innocent person was not convicted. They added that if one is innocent, they have nothing to worry about...

If you check out the laws, the system [courts, police, etc...]cannot be sued unless it is shown that malice and forethought was at play.
i think one u sue u mess the person life , even a tiny acussation on tv and that should be punished and you should receive something as payback, apublic apologie or money or whatever. cuz my friend's dad was acussed of something he din't do and had to leave the country his he couldn't get a job, a total failure of the system. althought this doesn't happen all the time we all know that withouth it we wouldn't be safe.

1319.10.2007 22:35

Quote:
Originally posted by nintenut:
Though I'm certain she is guilty of sharing the files, I support her in these cases 100%, anything that hurts the RIAA is ok in my book. :P
Sorry Sir but you are INNOCENT UNTILL POROVEN GUILTY not the other way around if she was convicted then your right. You cant just claim someone committed a crime you have to prove it with somthing called evidence they dropped the case for LACK of evidence meaning they could not show Anderson did anything wrong.
She had 24 music files in her Kazaa folder, that's proof enough for me.
Don't get me wrong, I support any damage to the RIAA possible, but I have no doubt in my mind that she illegally downloaded songs at one point.

1420.10.2007 15:04

Quote:
If you got $0.01 dollars from everyone who ever downloaded something illegally, you would be the richest person on the planet.
That's not true at all! You'd need like 8 dollars from every person on the planet.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2007 @ 15:04

1520.10.2007 15:24

Originally posted by nintenut:
Though I'm certain she is guilty of sharing the files, I support her in these cases 100%, anything that hurts the RIAA is ok in my book. :P
that is a completely idiotic thing to say. you are certain because you have no idea who she is or any evidence at all?

1620.10.2007 15:31

Quote:
Originally posted by nintenut:
Though I'm certain she is guilty of sharing the files, I support her in these cases 100%, anything that hurts the RIAA is ok in my book. :P
that is a completely idiotic thing to say. you are certain because you have no idea who she is or any evidence at all?

She had Kazaa installed on her computer, she had 24 music files in the Kazaa folder, something got uploaded at one point.

And regardless, it's a *bleep* comment to a news article and an opinion, stop being a troll and go outside.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Oct 2007 @ 16:04

1720.10.2007 15:52

Ah, the RIAA...
If there's anything worse than a gang of Nazis, it's a gang of cheap, skinflint Nazis.

1820.10.2007 19:42

Random thought here...
If we think the RIAA is bad about how hard they're grasping their rapidly emptying sack of gold, just think how horrible the repercussions will be when the same thing happens to the Big Oil companies. It's starting already and arguably, been going on for a while now.

It's despicable how the RIAA is tormenting the poorest and in fact, some of the most indebted people in America. Hey, I got no problem with them charging 15 bucks for a CD. They got a right to make as much money as they can. God bless 'em for doing it too, but Christ, when your product is out-dated and isn't selling anymore, it's time to move on. It's because they fell asleep at the wheel of their corporate semi-truck that they're in the situation they're in. They should just learn their lesson and innovate next time (invent even? :O> MOVE ON!! lol

1921.10.2007 18:23

Originally posted by cart0181:
Random thought here...
If we think the RIAA is bad about how hard they're grasping their rapidly emptying sack of gold, just think how horrible the repercussions will be when the same thing happens to the Big Oil companies. It's starting already and arguably, been going on for a while now.

Big oil has been posting record profits not emptying their sacks of gold. When your president comes from oil, has no morals, and knows war will help his friends, you will make as much as you want.

2021.10.2007 20:21

@jacsac I think you slightly misunderstood what I was saying. I was referring to the declining supply of crude petroleum (as the "sack"). I am well aware that recently an oil company dislodged Walmart as the number one Fortune 500 company. As for the "it" in "it's starting already," I'm referring to the infantile gyrations such a company may have when their product becomes obsolete, such as those displayed by the organization that is the topic of the article. Speaking of which, I'm sure some would appreciate if you kept your president bashing to yourself and commented on the article.

2121.10.2007 20:48
WierdName
Inactive

Originally posted by cart0181:
...Speaking of which, I'm sure some would appreciate if you kept your president bashing to yourself and commented on the article.
I would. I'm getting annoyed of all the president bashing going on. Sure he's not very good, but he's still way better than Kerry would have been. Also, a lot of people are blaming stuff on him that isn't really even connected to him. Not to mention straying off topic in these threads only results in it being closed.

2222.10.2007 9:14

I know this is off topic…

dufas, you are so right! We should be able to sue the court system for errors! I am for the death penalty in theory only. The DNA testing for those on death row showed only 50% of those people were guilty! If the persons could fight back the states would go broke!

Our courts SUCK! Our justice system needs overhauling!

The police are only looking to find someone to hang the crime on. They could care less who did it. They will not even log evidence that might not help convict who ever is the easiest to convict. That means they actually know the prime suspect probably did not do it. They think their job is just to convict someone.

The courts are a joke and are an arena for lawyers to do their thing not for justice!

All witnesses should take the stand using a lie detector. Yes, we all know it does not always work on the criminally insane. Some of them are so far gone they do not know what is real. It does work more than 99.9% of the time.
The court proceedings ought to be video taped so the jurors should be able to review the tapes.
Jurors should be able to take notes.
Jurors should be able to ask questions to who ever.
Forensic test facilities should get known stuff to test 10% of the time. The accuracy of the lab should always be part of the test results for a court case.
When picking a jury to decide in an engineering problem all engineers are eliminated. The reverse ought to be true. The jury should all be engineers.

My hats off to a jury that let someone go who might have been guilty. They knew from watching CSI that there were tests the police should have run to prove the person was guilty. Because the police did not, there was reasonable doubt. I am sure the tests were not run because they were trying to convict.

2322.10.2007 10:24
morguex
Inactive

CSI? O god, most of that stuff they do on that show is not real, But the sad part is alot of juries think that it is.

2422.10.2007 11:33

I don't just think it is the president who is a bum. Any politician (sadly almost all) who caters to special interests (RIAA) are what is the problem in the United States. How is it that you can download a song for a buck or less but if you steal one it costs thousands? Corporations have more rights than citizens and are protected from people when people are the one's who should be protected from corporate interests. Our system is letting multi-million dollar organizations bring inflated lawsuits against single mothers, elderly, and dead people.

2522.10.2007 12:17

Mez

While the police do cover up evidence that would prove a person innocent and many times will plant evidence, lie, and otherwise distort the truth in order to obtain a conviction, and they also protect their own when it comes to wrong doing. [The 200 plus false convictions base on false evidence presented by the LA Rampart division police or here locally, a drunk policeman, hit, killed, and ran from running down a 13 year old school kid....It took three months for the police to decide if he was drunk, The DA dropped all but one charge, the cop continued to receive pay while he was placed on 'administrative leave']

But as far as forensic tests are concerned, the CSI TV shows push forensics into science fiction. Many of the tests are based in truth but carried much further than is actually possible at this time. Others are based on future possibilities or things that scientists and engineers are now working on and trying to perfect. Even when these new systems are perfected, it will take sometime for the courts to accept the results. Each will have to go through many legal trials before they will be confirmed. It took several years before fingerprints was a proven evidence just as was DNA.

Our local police have stated some dismay over the CSI TV shows in that they wished that forensics was that easy and accurate plus the showing of what police look for is educating those that would involve themselves in a criminal act what to do and what not to do in order to minimize an evidence trail....

Full TV CSI type evidence gathering will probably become a reality sometime in the future and each day, the science is growing closer, but, for now, much of it is fantasy...

2623.10.2007 17:49

LOL!!! i think they should be made to pay dble the legal fees for wasting tax payers time and money :P

2723.10.2007 20:57

Originally posted by dufas:
Mez

While the police do cover up evidence that would prove a person innocent and many times will plant evidence, lie, and otherwise distort the truth in order to obtain a conviction, and they also protect their own when it comes to wrong doing. [The 200 plus false convictions base on false evidence presented by the LA Rampart division police or here locally, a drunk policeman, hit, killed, and ran from running down a 13 year old school kid....It took three months for the police to decide if he was drunk, The DA dropped all but one charge, the cop continued to receive pay while he was placed on 'administrative leave']

But as far as forensic tests are concerned, the CSI TV shows push forensics into science fiction. Many of the tests are based in truth but carried much further than is actually possible at this time. Others are based on future possibilities or things that scientists and engineers are now working on and trying to perfect. Even when these new systems are perfected, it will take sometime for the courts to accept the results. Each will have to go through many legal trials before they will be confirmed. It took several years before fingerprints was a proven evidence just as was DNA.

Our local police have stated some dismay over the CSI TV shows in that they wished that forensics was that easy and accurate plus the showing of what police look for is educating those that would involve themselves in a criminal act what to do and what not to do in order to minimize an evidence trail....

Full TV CSI type evidence gathering will probably become a reality sometime in the future and each day, the science is growing closer, but, for now, much of it is fantasy...
If people want to be dim/dumb and believe everythign they see/read then fine, some people are that way, I enjoy CSI for the most part (hate new york) they do alot of speeding up on stuff as well as padding the science of it.

anyway don't pick on shows because of dumb people,you have people stat burning songs about guns and ignore the guns themselfs (which is not a bad idea,however guns and media are equals in bellited scapegaots)

2823.10.2007 21:17
WierdName
Inactive

@ZippyDSM-
You mean everything on TV is not real and that guns aren't the problem but the people that use them? Wow, I gotta rethink everything now...
Lol, just kidding.

2923.10.2007 21:32

Originally posted by WierdName:
@ZippyDSM-
You mean everything on TV is not real and that guns aren't the problem but the people that use them? Wow, I gotta rethink everything now...
Lol, just kidding.
I am still recalling the reaction Glen beck had when he talked to DL hugly, about wallmart banning songs about guns but not guns them selfs,Glenn through his head back and the eyes went white when DL said they ban songs abotu guns but not guns,of coarse Glen drinks the media is the problem koolaid(sorry the bored morlistic elite have been burning books,baning reading and other things to protect the masses from them selfs...god forbid if you help them and feed them and such...) , neither should be banned because people can be stupid, we have laws to punish stupid people for being stupid.

If anythign both guns and media are blamed for most of the wrongs in the world when its more like life happens deal with it and move on, if you blame everythign you wont be leaving your room LOL

3023.10.2007 21:46
WierdName
Inactive

@ZippyDSM-
Not sure if I understand you correctly. If I do though, I agree. People need to start realizing a lot of the problems are the people using/behind whatever and that it's not necessarily the object/thing itself.

EDIT- We are straying off topic though.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 23 Oct 2007 @ 21:47

3123.10.2007 21:59

Originally posted by WierdName:
@ZippyDSM-
Not sure if I understand you correctly. If I do though, I agree. People need to start realizing a lot of the problems are the people using/behind whatever and that it's not necessarily the object/thing itself.

EDIT- We are straying off topic though.
LOL let me say this much more, neo cons blame songs about guns(media) neo libs blame guns,both are elites a few times removed from reality and wish to make the populace that much easier to control(they always did with the march against reading,song/dance,theater,film,music, radio,comics,video games,ect,ect).

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive