Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA Drops its Case Against Tanya Andersen

Monday, June 04, 2007

RIAA Drops its Case Against Tanya Andersen

The RIAA has finally dropped its longstanding case against disabled single mother Tanya Andersen in Oregon, Atlantic v. Andersen

The dismissal 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.

Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice*

Ms. Andersen is represented by Lory Lybeck of Mercer Island, Washington.

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica
p2pnet.net
Slashdot
Heise Online (German)
Spiegel Online (German)
webwereld (Dutch)
Punto Informatico (Italian)
CBC News
p2pnet.net
MacWorld

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

14 comments:

AMD FanBoi said...: So if I get this right, she's the prevailing party, and has a good shot at her attorney's fees, if she choses to pursue them. And these fees are much higher than if the Plaintiffs had quit when they knew they really didn't have anything to start with, and weren't finding anything.; June 4, 2007 at 4:10:00 PM EDT
Scott said...: If the RIAA and M. Andersen reach an agreement on attorney's fees or damages, will information about this be entered into the public record?; June 4, 2007 at 4:34:00 PM EDT
StephenH said...: I think she should still pursue her counterclaims. I beleive that what the RIAA did to her by their unreliable investigations was illegal, and they should be punished for it. Hopefully, Tanya could establish a precedent that their phishing and forcing people to settle with no forensic evidence is illegal.; June 5, 2007 at 2:04:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: 1. Under Capitol v. Foster she is the prevailing party and eligible for an award of attorneys fees. The plaintiffs actually knew before the lawsuit was even commenced that she had not done it; she offered them the opportunity to inspect her hard drive. They turned it down and sued her anyway. This is a very very good case for attorneys fees.

2. If they enter into a settlement of the attorneys fees, I would anticipate that the RIAA would insist on secrecy.; June 5, 2007 at 6:35:00 PM EDT
Sanji Himura said...: Ray,

Warner v. Stubbs also says that if a counterclaim has clear independant judicial basis, then the counterclaim stands.(I'm not a lawyer) Accusing the RIAA under that state's and federal RICO statues, I think, should meet the Stubbs test.

What it all boils down to is the fact that can Ms. Andersen endure the RIAA machine just a bit longer to fight for her countersuit. I think that she has a case, and has actual proof, but again, I'm not her lawyer.; June 5, 2007 at 6:48:00 PM EDT
raybeckerman said...: I feel confident she and her wonderful lawyer are going to stay and fight.; June 5, 2007 at 7:09:00 PM EDT
Alter_Fritz said...: Ray, beware of the flying dutchman!

they could be pissed that you claim that the language they speak in the Netherlands (TLD .nl) is german.

webwereld (German)

;-); June 5, 2007 at 7:56:00 PM EDT
AMD FanBoi said...: sanji himura said: What it all boils down to is the fact that can Ms. Andersen endure the RIAA machine just a bit longer to fight for her countersuit

How about a lot longer? In Foster, the RIAA is dragging it out month by month, delay by delay, motion by motion. It looks like Ms. Foster will take as long to get her money as it took to get the case dismissed in her favor.; June 5, 2007 at 8:05:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: The webwereld article you give a link to is not in German, but in Dutch...; June 6, 2007 at 12:28:00 AM EDT
raybeckerman said...: thanks for pointing out to me that I mixed up Dutch with German......

i don't think it will take too much longer for a decision to come down in Capitol v. Foster.....i believe the briefing was just finished up.....; June 6, 2007 at 11:40:00 AM EDT
Interested Observer said...: Now that Ms Anderson has prevailed against the complaints and assuming she will prevail on her counterclaims could she then go against the plaintiff's and its law firms for malicious prosecution since they have a duty to ensure their claims are supported by the facts before bringing the case?; June 6, 2007 at 4:28:00 PM EDT
Jaaz Cole said...: Hopefully the counter-claims does not settle out of court. If it comes out in M. Anderson's favor, could this set the stage for others who counter claim to eventually build a Vexatious Litigation suit against the RIAA, or if it must be more directed/localized, a favored firm of theirs in any given state for which the build up of frivilous lawsuits qualifies as Vexatious?; June 7, 2007 at 4:16:00 AM EDT
Mark Brown said...: My concern (thanks again for posting this Ray)

is that if the RIAA agrees to attorney fees, but insists on a secret settlement....

Arguh...; June 13, 2007 at 1:59:00 PM EDT
jellie said...: (To add to markbnj): Or worse, continues to fight any award for attorney fees...; June 14, 2007 at 2:07:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove