|
|
| The Commentary | The Outcome |
Tanya Andersen: RIAA's Grim Reaper?by George Ziemann -- January 17, 2008 Andersen's malicious prosecution lawsuit accuses the RIAA of invasion of privacy, deceptive business practices, libel, slander, and a host of other misdeeds, saying that the RIAA has "engaged in a coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme of threatening and intimidating litigation in an attempt to maintain its music distribution monopoly." Her complaint contains some very disturbing allegations, including one that labels attempted to contact her then eight-year-old daughter under false pretenses without Andersen's permission. Andersen is seeking class-action status for her lawsuit, which would allow anyone who was "sued or were threatened with sued by Defendants for file-sharing, downloading or other similar activities, who have not actually engaged in actual copyright infringement" to join the lawsuit. The RIAA has denied any wrongdoing
and has moved for dismissal of the lawsuit. |
???
|
| The Commentary | The Outcome |
Tanya Andersen: RIAA's Grim Reaper?by George Ziemann -- June 27, 2007 I saw this in my daily alert from Slashdot, followed the link to Groklaw, which opens with: "You probably want to read this complaint just posted on Recording Industry vs. the People, Andersen v. Atlantic et al [PDF]. I think we may be watching history being made before our eyes. The worm is turning." Go. Read it. Tanya Andersen is suing the RIAA. She may very well be the one that truly destroys the RIAA. At the very least, this will probably stop all the lawsuits. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. Read all the way to the end because there is a big finish. Spoilers ahead. It is a simple, straightforward account of the lengths to which the RIAA went in her particular case, knowing full well the entire time that they had absolutely no evidence whatsoever, which is why the RIAA eventually dropped the case, on the eve of a summary judgment. If you actually read the decision in the Napster case, Judge Marilyn Patel determined that the RIAA was a monopoly, had colluded against Napster, and probably had abused their copyrights in the process, but Napster was bad first, so it was justified. Tanya Andersen didn't do anything wrong, so there is no justification this time. There is no "...but..." for them to weasel out on this time. But wait... It gets better. Go back and look at page 12. "In May 2004, for health reasons, Ms. Andersen had been forced to leave her position as a case manager at the Department of Justice at the time she was targeted by the defendants..." Oops. They were hunting for children and soccer moms and netted someone from the DOJ who may be very well-versed in the art of proving extortion, RICO violations, fraud and malicious prosecution. We all knew it would happen sooner or later. The RIAA sued the wrong person. She wants a jury trial. But page 33 is best. Andersen wants a "judgment that defendants have forfeited their exclusive rights, if any, which they possess in and to the sound recordings they allege her to have infringed." If karma really works, Metallica is on the list. |
Andersen Wins Attorneys FeesSeptember, 2007 The RIAA's case against Tanya Andersen was dismissed with prejudice and attorneys fees were awarded to Andersen. Andersens counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, enabling her to proceed with a class action lawsuit. The RIAA appealed. January 17, 2008 Judge James A. Redden, US District Court judge in Oregon, reaffirmed the award of attorneys' fees and the dismissal of Andersen's counterclaims against the RIAA without prejudice so that her class-action lawsuit against the record labels for malicious prosecution can move ahead. (story at ARS Technica)
|