AfterDawn: Tech news

P2P defendant Tanya Anderson awarded lawyer fees

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 15 May 2008 17:18 User comments (17)

P2P defendant Tanya Anderson awarded lawyer fees Tanya Anderson, the P2P defendant that was accused by the record industry of stealing music but fought the charges and eventually won has just had another victory, having a significant amount of her substantial fees paid for by the bully record industry.
The music industry reps that originally sued her; Atlantic Recording, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and BMG Music wanted the usual settlement fund of about $3000 USD but Anderson denied their claims and took it to court. She would eventually have the complaints against her dropped, but not before she was over $300,000 USD in the hole with legal fees.

Because of the fact that the charges against her were dropped, she was entitled to make a claim for attorney fees and did see a victory, although not a full one. According to the judge presiding over the case, "Andersen now requests an award of attorney fees in the amount of$298,995.00 and costs in the amount of $5,387.05." The music industry however, fought back against that claim and got the award lowered. The judge ordered that "Andersen should be awarded attorney fees in the amount of$103,175. Andersen's Bill of Costs in the amount of $4,659 should be APPROVED."

Although not all the money she was hoping for, its still good to see Tanya Anderson get some help to pay her extensive fees.

Previous Next  

17 user comments

115.5.2008 17:22

Chalk one up for the good guys (and gals) !!!

215.5.2008 17:30

Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.

This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(

315.5.2008 17:35

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.

This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.

"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition


415.5.2008 18:53

Thats BS... They should have to pay 100% of her fees.

515.5.2008 19:25

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.

This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(

Originally posted by iluvendo:
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.
Good point, but I personally still agree with Pop_Smith's view. Sure, a good chunk of the fees may have been paid by the EFF, but it's the principle. The RIAA should be going after the big fish, not soccer moms [if she's not, correct me please]. Their methods have proven them to be a bunch of weasels. They ShOuLd pay for the trouble she was put through.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 May 2008 @ 22:34

615.5.2008 22:17

Sons of bit**s

716.5.2008 0:46

I would have to agree with pop here. This is more of a win for the riaa. Regardless of the EFF's help the riaa should have been penalized for their actions in the form of compensation for legal fees incurred by Anderson. Average Joe wouldn't have gotten away with 1/3 the leagal fees! It juts proves the golden rule once again.....

He who has the gold makes the rules and to h*ll with everyone else.

816.5.2008 1:01

Originally posted by H0bbes:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.

This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(

Originally posted by iluvendo:
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.
Good point, but I personally still agree with Pop_Smith's view. Sure, a good chunk of the fees may have been paid by the EFF, but it's the principle.
Quote:
The RIAA should be going after the big fish, not soccer moms [if she's not, correct me please]. Their methods have proven them to be a bunch of weasels. They ShOuLd pay for the trouble she was put through
.


The RIAA's methods are to make an example of those with limited means (then all others with limited means would never dare to go against the RIAA). IF Microsoft did what they (RIAA) said Anderson did, Do you think the RIAA would go after M$, with all their billions ? Bill Gates would eat the RIAA alive in court!

"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition


916.5.2008 2:50
nobrainer
Inactive

Originally posted by Blackjax:
I would have to agree with pop here. This is more of a win for the riaa. Regardless of the EFF's help the riaa should have been penalized for their actions in the form of compensation for legal fees incurred by Anderson. Average Joe wouldn't have gotten away with 1/3 the leagal fees! It juts proves the golden rule once again.....

He who has the gold makes the rules and to h*ll with everyone else.
yes, especially when they was being hypocritical in regards to needing more than 1 lawyer when they used upto 6 at any one time, but Tanya has relieved the highest ever pay out. this case is a start, and Tanya's malicious prosecution suit is still ongoing against the RIAA. What would be interesting is seeing the RIAA's lawyer expenses for this case.

ars have covered this here;
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...ainst-riaa.html

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 May 2008 @ 3:02

1016.5.2008 10:54

i gotta agree that the RIAA are the real winners here, Anderson still owes her lawyer $200,000 forget the fact that she might have been getting help from the EFF the general public dont see that. all this case has accomplished is to show people that if you fight the $3000 settlement fund you will end up paying someone $200,000 in legal fees even if you win in court.

something like this was the best kind of advertisement the RIAA could have got for a mere $103,000, it will help to keep those settlement fees coming in without having to go to court.

1116.5.2008 10:59
goodswipe
Inactive

She should have sold thongs like Jamie Thomas...

1216.5.2008 11:45

WTF. She Didnt even get half of the 300000.

1316.5.2008 16:57
RNR1995
Inactive

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.

This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Agreed, this is Crap, THE JUDGE IS AN A HOLE for letting the RIAA ruin someone's life. What she should get back it TWICE her lawyer fees, maybe that would stop lawsuit abuse. "How much justice can you afford"
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 May 2008 @ 9:58

1417.5.2008 0:32

Without knowing the particular State or Federal laws, I am forced to base my observations on "common sense" & equity.

A large corporation can afford to take an individual to court, however, most individuals cannot afford to defend themselves due to the high cost of legals fees involved.

If the person/corporation (plaintiff) loses the case or withdraws, then the individual is out the cost of defending themselves. As these costs were incurred soley due to the actions of the plaintiff, then as a matter of equity the defendant should be awarded the actual cost that is charged by the lawyers.

The actions of the presiding Judge have supported the RIA and AGAIN re-enforced the concept that if you attempt to defend yourself against a pernicious/"shotgun" suit, you will still be penalized financially.

The judiciary should be sending a clear message to the initiator of such suits .... "Commence frivolous claims against individuals and lose or withdraw & you will be hammered .. not only with the legal fees of the defendant, but also punitive damages".

This decision SUCKS!!

1517.5.2008 13:12

With jerks like Bush in the White House what quality of judiciary does one expect !!!

In all such suits it should be a precondition that the person being sued would be fully compensated for the time & earnings loss, lawyers fees, other actual costs like transportation & what have you + PUNITIVE damages against the complainant , RIAA, for filing unsubstantiated, intimidating and nuisance value suits.

The judge should have taken the chapter out of Paul Newman movie "The Verdict" and awarded more than what Ms. Anderson actually claimed.

1617.5.2008 13:30

What this all boils down to is that one is guilty until any proof is brought to light and then the innocent are still punished..

It doesn't matter what type of case it is from a simple law suit to a murder trial.

My uncle was accused of murder and during the trial, the real culprit was found by accident, he confessed and was arrested.

Meanwhile, my uncle lost his career, his house, and all of his savings. The police investigators harassed his family to the point that his wife divorced him and moved away.

There wasn't even an apology from the court, he was released homeless and penniless onto the streets while the district attorney, the judge, and the police collectively patted each other on their backs expressing well the judicial system works.

The whole judicial system is made up of crooked a**holes and their lower cousins, lawyers....

1717.5.2008 20:19
freezkat
Inactive

Bill Clinton was courted by the recording industry also.

Odd...Al Gore never said anything about releasing CFCs as Tipper was burning Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin records.

Don't get me wrong I'm a blue state guy

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive