AfterDawn: Tech news

RIAA pays $108,000 in lawyer fees, sets precedent

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 15 Aug 2008 3:07 User comments (19)

RIAA pays $108,000 in lawyer fees, sets precedent The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has fully paid $108,000 USD restitution to P2P defendant Tanya Anderson for lawyer's fees incurred during Tanya's year long winning case against the group.
Over the years, the RIAA has sued tens of thousands of file sharers and many have settled for, on average, $3000 USD. However, a few accused file sharers have fought back and let the cases go to court. Recently the RIAA has suffered a few setbacks in their quest to stop piracy through lawsuits however, including the case of Tanya Anderson. Andersen was accused of downloading and sharing hundreds of rap songs under the username "gotenkito" but the RIAA failed to prove that she had any of the files or that she had even downloaded any of them at all.

Although Ms. Anderson won the case, and got paid for the RIAA's waste of the court's time it is important to note that Ms. Anderson's lawyer fees exceeded $300,000 USD and the $107,834 paid back by the RIAA will obviously not fulfill all her requirements. It does however set a precedent that will hopefully push more lawyers to take on cases for accused file sharers, seeing the amount of possible fees that can be had.

"Together with the $117.03 off accumulated post-judgment interest, the total amount of the $107,951.03 has been fully paid and satisfied by the Judgment Creditors," reads the judges statement.

Anderson will now move on the offensive, suing the RIAA as part of a civil suit over "malicious prosecution" of innocent citizens.

I fully believe that $108,000 USD could have been better spent by the record labels to find new talent or a better business model, but I guess losing a court battle over a few downloaded tracks is okay too.

Previous Next  

19 user comments

115.8.2008 3:32

This is great news. Hopefully more judges will see things as clearly as this judge.(yeah, right.) One thing I will pray for is that Ms Anderson wins her civil suit against the riaa. As the old saying goes, "you go girl!"

215.8.2008 3:52

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
I fully believe that $108,000 USD could have been better spent by the record labels to find new talent or a better business model, but I guess losing a court battle over a few downloaded tracks is okay too.
Agreed, they could easily find and "sign" several artists or start changing their business model, I am sure $100k+ would easily pay for a tenth (at least) of the costs needed to restructure and improve their business model.

Peace

EDITED by Pop_Smith: Fixed quote tag
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Aug 2008 @ 16:38

315.8.2008 7:14

I'm glad to see she's going on the offensive now.

415.8.2008 9:50

I love reading articles like this. I'm so happy for her but the RIAA should have been made to pay all the fees and not just partial.

They accused her and put her through all this pain only to lose due to no proof of their claims so she should get full compensation.

Let's hope the civil suit goes just as well. As for the RIAA, YOU SUCK !!!!

515.8.2008 10:02

It's a good start, that's for sure.

I'd like to see a trend of this nature begin.



615.8.2008 10:57
Icanbe
Inactive

Originally posted by 7thsinger:
It's a good start, that's for sure.

I'd like to see a trend of this nature begin.
Well hopefully, this will get the ball rolling.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when that cheque was written.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Aug 2008 @ 10:57

715.8.2008 12:06

If the defendents lawyer incurred over $300,000 in fees, try to imagine the fees the RIAA paid to their own lawyers. I am willing to bet it was around $400,000 - $500,000. I don't think it hurt them to write a $100,000 check as much as it did to write a $400,000 check to some lawyer that blew their case and hurt future cases. But, I believe, the rulers in the RIAA high office and the music companies will pay anything to cover up the fact that they missed the digital music bandwagon and now need to blame copyright infringers for their mistakes. They have to answer to stockholders you know.

815.8.2008 12:32

I'm less concerned about how much they had to pay. For me the satisfaction comes through the principle that they had to pay.




915.8.2008 14:10

Poor Tanya, she won and yet still lost. Damn bloodsucking lawyers!

1015.8.2008 16:33

This may be a mute point. They have done the smart thing and paid off our law makers to pass the pirate bill. The senate bill hasn't been spelled out to my knollage. I think the drift will be that the feds will police the internet and not the RIAA thugs. They will use tax dollars to turn the US into a police state. Politicians are the cheapist way to go. They don't care if they waste billions of tax dollars to ream voters as long as they get paid doing it.

1115.8.2008 16:47

I still can't believe people BUY music when you have the RIAA going after a single, disabled mother living on social security! But then again, most of us still buy stuff from China.

1216.8.2008 15:54

Was Ms. Anderson accused of downloading or uploading songs, because I thought that the case was for uploading songs, but in this article it says that she was accused of downloading.

1317.8.2008 13:54

Originally posted by 7thsinger:
It's a good start, that's for sure.

I'd like to see a trend of this nature begin.
Yep, it proves that the giant can be slayed. Hope she takes them for a ride in her civil suit.

1417.8.2008 16:43

logola, apparently you have been keeping track. I is about downloading copy righted stuff. However, you can't be successfully sued for that. They have let persons copy material for decades so you can't start now because you want the money. The copy right law allows for some copying as long as you do not distribute. By leaving her downloaded music in a uploadable folder the RIAA claimed she was distributing. The fuss is still all about was she distributing. The RIAA let her statement that she didn't know that she was sharing go. That has come back to haut them. They were assuming ignorance is no excuse. However, the justise system is not so sure they made their case. If someone takes something from you without your knowing that may not be distribution. To put it more clearly, to make their case the RIAA has to prove that she was truely distributing as defigned in the copy right law. They closed that door by not taking issue with her claim that she did not even know Kazza was on after it was shut it off.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Aug 2008 @ 7:29

1517.8.2008 21:15

If I remember correctly didn't the courts award her more than 300,000.00 to begin with and then when the RIAA whined that it was too high to another court of appeals they reduced it to 100,000 plus. Seems to me that her award should have been left alone.

But as we have been seeing time and again from these RIAA morons, if the judgment isn't in their favor in the tens of thousands of dollars range, then they whine that they shouldn't have to pay anything to their victims who often have put themselves in hock till the second millennium trying to pay lawyers fees and fight this crap.

The courts are now starting to look very closely at the arguments offered by the RIAA and are starting to see a pattern wherein they have no proof, only what they presume is proof and a presumption of the law is no proof at all despite what they claim.

I'm waiting for the courts to decide that MediaSentry did, in fact, pass themselves off as licensed investigators when in fact they are not and that their so called investigations were illegal as were their ways of obtaining their so called proof.

I don't care what either the RIAA or the MPAA claim when they say that all they need is the assumption that there are files on someones computer to invade someone's privacy. Nor do I believe that they have the right to invade your computer and they aren't going to be held responsible if they crash your system.

Hacking is hacking and that is illegal. Course most of what they are doing is illegal.

1619.8.2008 9:15

RIAA has consistently been overly greedy and will go to unethical and often illegal methods to try to satisfy that greed. If they gave persons culpable but innocent in the minds of the public, a break and not try to fine the rest out of existence they would be getting the court's aid. Instead they want to screw the innocent for no good reason. The most innocent are the ones that had the Geek Squad set up their wireless network and it was set up as opened. I am sure the Geek Squad's contract makes them blameless in the case of a law suit. I am sure less than 1 house hold in 10 can even grasp the concept of an opened wireless network. My sister in-law has had someone tapped into her network for years and she will not do anything about it. Her hubby feels I am full of crap or is suffering from computer phobia. Speaking of computer phobia, I have a neighbor whos kids both have disk ipods. I asked the guy how did they get the music? Even after explaining he could get sued he did not want to let me check his computers out. For all we know, he has a computer with Kazza running 24/7 with lots of files in the shared folder. This is the real public how can they be accountable for others actions? Are they all criminally stupid?

1719.8.2008 20:03

Originally posted by logola:
Was Ms. Anderson accused of downloading or uploading songs, because I thought that the case was for uploading songs, but in this article it says that she was accused of downloading.
Very good point, I substituted the the word "sharing" with "downloading", it has been replaced now. She downloaded the songs, then made the mistake of sharing them (keeping them in shared folder for others on the network).

As was said in the post below yours, there have been no significant cases for only downloading but for those who upload or share copyrighted content.

1820.8.2008 11:16

Most excellent =^0^=

1920.8.2008 17:29
vudoo
Inactive

RIAA TROLLS WHO MAY READ!!!

Hey morons while your at it why not try and sue the very labels that encode none copy protected CD's and MPAA why not sue the makers of the licensed copies of the Very DvD's sold at Wal Mart for allowing copyright infringement by not having a strong enough copy protection scheme which allows for open distribution of copyrighted work. Hey even better why not sue Wal Mart for every DvD that you find on p2p for Wal Mart in selling a DvD to someone who has a copy program installed on their computer is in your eyes called distribution. You could even try and sue the salesperson who sold the DvD to the person caught file sharing because he or she did not ask the person who took the DvD off the shelf rather or not they owned or installed a copy program on their computer. This in your eyes again is called willful encouragement of copyright infringement (ake Kazaa, Grokster). And after you try and sue Wal Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City and everyone involved in selling the inferior protected DvD's why not sue the founder of your very organization for acting as stupid as an elementry school child fighting over a lunch box. Grow the fuck up and start making p2p work for you. I've discussed AEM (Ad Enforcement Management) and other ways to make p2p pay you and the artists. However you think you know it all. You finally start to sell Mp3's instead of DRMed music on Rhapsody, iTunes however you still don't sell the entire catalog for certain artists especially for the Die Hard Progressive Rocker. You have yourselves to blame and I hope the RIAA is sued to non existence for the criminal acts they've been practicing for at least 6 yrs. Suck it up and Die!!!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive