Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Tanya Andersen asks court to fix her attorneys fees at $300k, RIAA says she should be limited to $30k

In Atlantic v. Andersen, where the Magistrate Judge and the District Court Judge have ruled that Tanya Andersen is entitled to her attorneys fees, after 3 years of defending herself from the RIAA, the parties have now filed their papers staking out their positions on how much the attorneys fees should be.

Ms. Andersen claims she should be awarded approximately $300,000.

The RIAA claims her fees should be limited to $30,000.

Declaration of Lory Lybeck*
Defendant's brief*
Plaintiffs' expert witness's declaration*
Plaintiffs' opposition brief*
Lory Lybeck reply declaration*
Tanya Andersen reply declaration*
Defendant's reply brief*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica

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


Alter_Fritz said...

Ms. Andersen claims she should be awarded approximately $300,000.

The RIAA claims her fees should be limited to $30,000.

Even with my rudimentary math capabilities I see here something interesting;
She only asks for 10 (ten) times what the RIAA is "suggesting"!

Given that they themself have no problem to ask for more then 1000 (one thousand) times for themself when they make demands, I guess this only 10 times higher figure should be granted easily!
Maybe 100 times would be reasonable too given the behaviour of the RIAA so far? ;-)

Anonymous said...

It was expensive to defend because the RIAA intended it to be.

That absolutely says it all.


Jadeic said...

Sorry - I mis-spoke when I asked the court to consider a 2x multiplier. I meant of course to say 20x. You owe me $3 million. Cough up, chicken.

PS I'm saving these papers as my best example yet of the definition of 'egregious' - an all-time favourite word.


Anonymous said...

Pretty amazing. The RIAA flys council in and some times has as many as 6 attorneys present in a hearing and they are saying that it is un reasonable for defense council to charge for travel or to ever have more than one attorney present, based on the RIAA's "Goose? Yes. Gander? No." standard. (And, of course, they ignore the fact that the defendant tried first, and unsuccessfully, to obtain local council. One attorney's office told the defendant her only option was to let the RIAA obtain a judgement and for her to declare bankruptcy--for something she didn't do.)

Their "experts" report was so sloppy that he marked defense council's appearance at the defendant's depo as un-reimbursable. Additionally the RIAA claim that specialized copyright council should only be paid at general practice rates in spite of the fact that the RIAA uses special council at specialized council rates. More Goose Not Gander thinking from the RIAA. Really repulsive.

raybeckerman said...

anonymous DM, I rejected your comment. Please review the comment policies and remember:

The RIAA has a habit of citing our blog to judges, so please keep comments dignified and worthy of the important issues we are discussing, in keeping with our comment policies.

If you want to criticize the RIAA's "expert", go ahead.... but do it in a dignified fashion, choosing your words carefully.

I believe that Mr. Markowitz's testimony is ridiculous, and no judge would take seriously what he had to say. I think he has made himself a laughingstock. An 'expert' with no credibility is worse than no expert at all, and Mr. Markowitz destroyed his credibility -- no doubt being well paid to do it. Of course he should be paid, while Mr. Lybeck works for 3 years for free.

Personally I agree with the adjective you used, but a judge reading this might well be offended by it. And Mr. Gabriel is constantly citing "Recording Industry vs. The People" to the courts.

Anonymous said...


I guess I don't have to criticize Mr. Markowitz any further since you've done it for me.

Interesting that we both agree on that word, yet neither of us can actually say it aloud.


Jadeic said...

And for our older contributors who, of course, have never blahhed a blah...

God bless you Lenny Bruce - gone but not forgotten!


Anonymous said...

And Mr. Gabriel is constantly citing "Recording Industry vs. The People" to the courts.

Considering how this site shows the RIAA's rank hypocrisy, technological ignorance, outright lies, and b.s., how does he find anything to actually cite?


Justin said...

Tanya Andersen requiring more than one attorney present at hearings? The RIAA attorneys would never dream of wasting resources and having more than 1 attorney present! Puhhhleaze!

Also covered here: