The attorney fee award is separate from a national class action lawsuit Andersen filed against the recording industry last year.
Andersen's legal battle with the Recording Industry Association of America has gained national attention as a case of David vs. Goliath. Her suit accuses the industry of a waging a "campaign of threat and intimidation" against her and others who have never illegally downloaded music.
"While we respectfully disagree with the magistrate judge's decision to award extraneous fees -- including on counterclaims that the defendant herself brought and dropped -- it is important to note this decision is only a recommendation and falls significantly short of defendant's requests. We will likely file an objection in short order," said Cara Duckworth director of communications for the Recording Industry Association of America.
The recording industry has taken legal steps against thousands of people suspected of illegally downloading music since 2003.
The industry sued Andersen in 2005, but dropped the case last year after failing to turn up evidence that she illegally downloaded music.
Congratulations to Tanya. It's nice to see that one person can not only defend herself but turn the system against bloodthirsty, big-time corporate lawyers. Hopefully decisions like these will teach the RIAA to be more careful about who they put in their cross-hairs.
Beaverton woman wins $108,000 against recording industry [The Oregonian] (Thanks to Nick!)
]]>Heh, that said, we're on the same side of this RIAA thing, so... Friends? :)
]]>On the original topic, the most important thing to come out of this is precedent. The RIAA is going to drag out paying that for years, and it's really not that much money. What we need is either a multi-hundred-million dollar fine, or to just start executing executives.
Actually, executing executives is a good solution to a lot of problems.
]]>I'm waiting for you to list the dozens of measures that Conservatives have pushed into law that benefit consumers over entrenched, monied interests. Guess I'll be waiting for a while, huh?
Anyway, we're done.
]]>That's because of a new rule: The worst company of the year has to actually provide products or services to consumers. RIAA MEMBERS would be eligible, but the RIAA itself is not.
I'm not sure if serving legal papers counts, though, so maybe they should be eligible.
]]>However I will say I strongly support constructionalism of the constitution, and they are typical conservatives.
I hate the RIAA because they pick on weak. In most of my beliefs, I am a republican. However I am not a zealot, nor am I the poster boy for republicans. I still have free thought. My main issue with RIAA, is at some level, the government is involved. Thats a no no. And I think they make absurd frivolous law suits. That cost all of us money.
So, can I hate the RIAA and be republican too? pretty please?
]]>Show where Conservatives have pushed for a vast array of Consumer-empowering legislation over empowering entrenched interests and Big Business. It should be easy. Right?
Yet again, you're at odds with your ideology. You hate (hate!!) the RIAA, yet your party is the most likely of the two to sell us down the river for a couple grand in contributions. And underaged, naked boys.
]]>Also, to say republicans are against consumers rights, is vastly incorrect. So thanks again for your worthless commentary on that. Would I be at CONSUMERIST as a republican if I was not for consumer advocacy?
Also, I dont anyone has said this yet, and it must be said, f@$$% the riaa
]]>There are tons of good bands out there that aren't being pimped on tv or radio, and a lot of them have no intention of ever going mainstream. It's not always about tying to make a bajillion dollars, most of the time these guys are stoked just to get a meal and gas money.
Support your local music scene!
]]>@SacraBos: They dont get as much as you pay if you go through TicketMaster.com though.
]]>@SacraBos A magistrate isn't a judge, and a judge has to sign off on the whole thing. The magistrate makes findings and recommendations, and both sides are able to file exceptions/objections, and the judge will take all that into consideration before signing off on it. Judges usually go along with a magistrate's findings though. But the RIAA can't file an appeal until a judge enters the judgment officially.
]]>@verucalise: You are very sadly misinformed. Maybe do some research before making such a moronic post.
]]>I got some Newegg love to dispense!
]]>"the slip is licensed under a creative commons attribution non-commercial share alike license.
we encourage you to
remix it
share it with your friends,
post it on your blog,
play it on your podcast,
give it to strangers,
etc.
©2008 NIN"
]]>Don't share files, use www.last.fm/YouTube/etc, buy CD's/DVD's used, don't feed the RIAA - go to a concert. Live performances are the only place musicians really make any money.
]]>"While we respectfully disagree (*) with the magistrate judge's decision to award extraneous (*) fees - including on counterclaims that the defendant herself brought and dropped (*) - it is important to note this decision is only a recommendation (*) and falls significantly short (*) of defendant's requests. We will likely file an objection in short order (*)."
]]>i don't think $108,000 is nearly enough. This seems to have been going on for years. Hopefully she wins her class action and RIAA has to pay millions upon millions of dollars, has to disband and we never hear from them again.
]]>Let's hope it doesn't get overturned on appeal.
]]>Nice to see any victory at all, I'm glad she fought back. Teach them mother f*ckers to have EVIDENCE before bringing a frivolous case upon innocent people....
THANK YOU, LARS ULRICH.
]]>Heck yeah! Awesome victory for the "little guy".
]]>