Once Again (With Feeling): RIAA Told To Pay Tanya Andersen's Legal Fees

from the pay-up,-fellas dept

Mon, Jul 28th 2008 11:26pm — Mike Masnick

Despite suing the wrong person multiple times, the RIAA has always pushed back when asked to pay for the legal fees of those wrongfully sued. Tanya Andersen has fought back pretty hard on that claim (and then sued the RIAA separately on other charges as well). Despite multiple tries, the court has repeatedly sided with Andersen pointing out:

Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required to produce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.

Back in May, the court again sided with Andersen on the issue of legal fees, and has now entered its final ruling telling the RIAA to pay up nearly $108k to cover Andersen's legal fees in defending herself all these years.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: legal fees, riaa, tanya andersen
Companies: riaa

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mogilny, 28 Jul 2008 @ 11:52pm

LegalTechDirt?
This is not a complaint, just an observation. There is a lot of articles on the legal aspect of tech news. Maybe you guys need to focus on this 'vertical' (i hate this term) and rename your site LegalTechDirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2008 @ 12:00am
  
  Re: LegalTechDirt?
  Sadly this is America, where a lawsuit is attached to everything, Much of what is wrong with the tech world here is that it is too quick to sue. This is what usually reveals the problems Mike is trying to get across.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:35am
    
    Re: Re: LegalTechDirt?
    I think I will sue for Techdirt misrepresenting itself with its name. Sounds good. I win. You owe me $12.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John M, 28 Jul 2008 @ 11:58pm

Hopefully the *IAA will learn to think twice about suing someone until they have a solid case. So many BS suits they've filed over the years...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasnt me, 29 Jul 2008 @ 12:16am

sadly RIAA will probably opt for appealing and re-appealing, spending more that the 108K and extra fees for the follow up suits instead of paying up and moving on.

I do hope all the ppl appreciate what she is going through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil, 29 Jul 2008 @ 2:53am
  
  Re:
  Well the RIAA has to do something with the money they have received so far. They just can't give it to the artists they are supposedly defending can they? None of the artists(as far as I have read/heard) have received a dime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin, 29 Jul 2008 @ 4:25am
  
  Re:
  sadly RIAA will probably opt for appealing and re-appealing, spending more that the 108K and extra fees for the follow up suits instead of paying up and moving on.
  
  Of course they will. They've built their cases on a house of cards, and their strategy is to divide, intimidate, and conquer. The business model is simple:
  
  1. Send out thousands of letters accusing people of infringement. Tell them that they can settle up for $5000, or be sued for a couple million dollars in damages.
  
  2. To ensure that people just cough up the money instead of fighting, sue the shit out of anyone who challenges you. Make it clear to everyone else that choosing to NOT pay up will cost them far more than just paying the extortion man.
  
  3. Never lose a case. If someone ever set the precedent of actually beating their claims, then more and more people will resist until the business model isn't profitable any longer. So that means make sure that the case never gets to trial by dragging out discovery, offering a settlement, dropping the charges, whatever it takes.
  
  4. Under no circumstances pay attorney's fees. If people find out that they not only can fight back, but also stand a good chance of not having to pay to defend themselves from the specious charges then a lot more people will be choosing not to settle. Not only does that diminish revenue from the "pay up" letters, but it also costs a lot more for the RIAA in attorney's fees.
  
  5. Profit!
  
  They'll do anything that they can to avoid paying up, because if they do pay up then the house of cards collapses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 29 Jul 2008 @ 2:41am

The circus
The RIAA has repeatedly shown that it is not interested in whatever legal rights a person may or may not have. What they are trying to do is to scare people into paying money, that it is hard to prove they actually owe. As Mike and many others have said in the past. Why don't they just realize that their business model is outdated, and therefore change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thom, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:09am

Re:LegalTechDirt
TechDirt is fine. When a lawyer is involved there's always someone pulling something dirty - and that usually includes the lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never know, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:27am

At one point or another it quits being a trial between the plaintiff and the defendant and becomes a lawyer’s circus. The longer they can drag it out the more they get paid. I'm just astounded that the judicial system has sat through this dog and pony show for so long and haven’t investigated just what the RIAA is trying to do, as it wasn't plan enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eleete, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:37am

The Larger Goal
Hopefully this will lend credence to her case against the RIAA for racketeering and other charges. That would be the big victory in all this, especially if it reaches class action. As with many cases like this, the judge is sending a message that what they did was wrong, but no one bothers to adjust the laws so that their actions have no merit. It's hard to shake a finger at the **AA when our politicians tweak countless laws in their favor and grant them longer terms on their monopolies. $108,000 is a drop in the bucket for these associations. They've earned much more than that with these strategies and probably will for some time to come until our polluticians realize who their constituents really are. The laws they create provide incentive for this innovative behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:57am

Re: LegalTechDirt?
It's not TechDirt's fault that some of the more entertaining news involves the RIAA, AP, or anyone else (willing to sue / issue DMCA takedown notices for no good reason), being stupid in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
William, 29 Jul 2008 @ 6:37am

Every story on here is just more condescending whining about the big-evil-corporations. Shouldn't you be making YouTube videos about conspiracy theories? Definitely taking this site off of my iGoogle homepage.

Toodles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Reason, 29 Jul 2008 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Buh-bye. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2008 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    So what you are saying is that reason has left? Hmmm...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 29 Jul 2008 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  Every story on here is just more condescending whining about the big-evil-corporations
  
  I find this hilarious.
  
  When I write about copyright, people say that I'm whining about big-evil-corporations.
  
  When I write about patents, people say that I'm shilling for big-evil-corporations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ben, 30 Jul 2008 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    comon now mike, you should know by now you can't win :P Next best thing to do is laugh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2008 @ 5:35pm
  
  Re:
  William -> Every story on here is just more condescending whining about the big-evil-corporations. Shouldn't you be making YouTube videos about conspiracy theories? Definitely taking this site off of my iGoogle homepage.
  
  And you are not a whiner, I presume
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Amazing Steve, 30 Jul 2008 @ 8:39am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, we're all crushed by your departure. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out chuckles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 29 Jul 2008 @ 6:38am

I hope the RIAA keeps fighting this in court, because it just means the amount they have to pay gets larger and larger. They screwed up, as they have been doing all along, and they need to be forced to pay for their screw ups. If every one fought them instead of paying a few thousand in extortion fee's, they would be forced out of business. The RIAA is going to fall apart because of their own stubborn stupidity, but their lawyers will get rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 29 Jul 2008 @ 6:18pm

Maybe Anderson needs to attach some RIAA property and hold a sheriffs sale, with a court order of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, 30 Jul 2008 @ 4:05am

Big companies = BIG BULLIES !
Whats the deal with these big companies and their total disrequard for their customers?!Suing innocent people is just SICKENING!I hope everyone wins and the dam companies go broke!Go to hell all you scumbag companies that think youre bigger than the LAW!Go out of business too!Who needs ya!Its like pay up or be sued.Jerks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]