|
P2P defendant Tanya Anderson awarded lawyer fees
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 15 May, 2008
Tanya Anderson, the P2P defendant that was accused by the record industry of stealing music but fought the charges and eventually won has just had another victory, having a significant amount of her substantial fees paid for by the bully record industry.
The music industry reps that originally sued her; Atlantic Recording, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and BMG Music ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. May 2008 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Chalk one up for the good guys (and gals) !!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
15. May 2008 @ 17:30 |
Link to this message
|
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.
This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. May 2008 @ 17:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.
This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
 |
|
rosedog
Member
|
15. May 2008 @ 18:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thats BS... They should have to pay 100% of her fees.
|
Junior Member
1 product review
|
15. May 2008 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.
This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Originally posted by iluvendo:
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.
Good point, but I personally still agree with Pop_Smith's view. Sure, a good chunk of the fees may have been paid by the EFF, but it's the principle. The RIAA should be going after the big fish, not soccer moms [if she's not, correct me please]. Their methods have proven them to be a bunch of weasels. They ShOuLd pay for the trouble she was put through.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. May 2008 @ 22:34
|
Newbie
|
15. May 2008 @ 22:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sons of bit**s
|
Member
|
16. May 2008 @ 00:46 |
Link to this message
|
I would have to agree with pop here. This is more of a win for the riaa. Regardless of the EFF's help the riaa should have been penalized for their actions in the form of compensation for legal fees incurred by Anderson. Average Joe wouldn't have gotten away with 1/3 the leagal fees! It juts proves the golden rule once again.....
He who has the gold makes the rules and to h*ll with everyone else.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
16. May 2008 @ 01:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by H0bbes:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.
This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Originally posted by iluvendo:
Not necessarily as we do not know how much (if any) of the legal fees she was actually out. I believe EFF was helping her, and absorbed a large chunk of the defense fees.
Good point, but I personally still agree with Pop_Smith's view. Sure, a good chunk of the fees may have been paid by the EFF, but it's the principle. Quote:
The RIAA should be going after the big fish, not soccer moms [if she's not, correct me please]. Their methods have proven them to be a bunch of weasels. They ShOuLd pay for the trouble she was put through
.
The RIAA's methods are to make an example of those with limited means (then all others with limited means would never dare to go against the RIAA). IF Microsoft did what they (RIAA) said Anderson did, Do you think the RIAA would go after M$, with all their billions ? Bill Gates would eat the RIAA alive in court!
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
|
|
nobrainer
Suspended permanently
|
16. May 2008 @ 02:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Blackjax:
I would have to agree with pop here. This is more of a win for the riaa. Regardless of the EFF's help the riaa should have been penalized for their actions in the form of compensation for legal fees incurred by Anderson. Average Joe wouldn't have gotten away with 1/3 the leagal fees! It juts proves the golden rule once again.....
He who has the gold makes the rules and to h*ll with everyone else.
yes, especially when they was being hypocritical in regards to needing more than 1 lawyer when they used upto 6 at any one time, but Tanya has relieved the highest ever pay out. this case is a start, and Tanya's malicious prosecution suit is still ongoing against the RIAA. What would be interesting is seeing the RIAA's lawyer expenses for this case.
ars have covered this here;
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...ainst-riaa.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. May 2008 @ 03:02
|
|
tin23uk
Junior Member
1 product review
|
16. May 2008 @ 10:54 |
Link to this message
|
i gotta agree that the RIAA are the real winners here, Anderson still owes her lawyer $200,000 forget the fact that she might have been getting help from the EFF the general public dont see that. all this case has accomplished is to show people that if you fight the $3000 settlement fund you will end up paying someone $200,000 in legal fees even if you win in court.
something like this was the best kind of advertisement the RIAA could have got for a mere $103,000, it will help to keep those settlement fees coming in without having to go to court.
|
|
goodswipe
Suspended permanently
|
16. May 2008 @ 10:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
She should have sold thongs like Jamie Thomas...
|
Member
|
16. May 2008 @ 11:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
WTF. She Didnt even get half of the 300000.
|
|
RNR1995
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. May 2008 @ 16:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Actually I think this is crap, sure she had some of her legal fee's paid but it looks like the RIAA suckered the judge into approving payment reduction to 1/3 of the amount they really should have paid her.
This looks like more of a win for the RIAA then for Tanya. :(
Agreed, this is Crap, THE JUDGE IS AN A HOLE for letting the RIAA ruin someone's life. What she should get back it TWICE her lawyer fees, maybe that would stop lawsuit abuse. "How much justice can you afford"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. May 2008 @ 09:58
|
|
vbdragon
Newbie
|
17. May 2008 @ 00:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Without knowing the particular State or Federal laws, I am forced to base my observations on "common sense" & equity.
A large corporation can afford to take an individual to court, however, most individuals cannot afford to defend themselves due to the high cost of legals fees involved.
If the person/corporation (plaintiff) loses the case or withdraws, then the individual is out the cost of defending themselves. As these costs were incurred soley due to the actions of the plaintiff, then as a matter of equity the defendant should be awarded the actual cost that is charged by the lawyers.
The actions of the presiding Judge have supported the RIA and AGAIN re-enforced the concept that if you attempt to defend yourself against a pernicious/"shotgun" suit, you will still be penalized financially.
The judiciary should be sending a clear message to the initiator of such suits .... "Commence frivolous claims against individuals and lose or withdraw & you will be hammered .. not only with the legal fees of the defendant, but also punitive damages".
This decision SUCKS!!
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
17. May 2008 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
With jerks like Bush in the White House what quality of judiciary does one expect !!!
In all such suits it should be a precondition that the person being sued would be fully compensated for the time & earnings loss, lawyers fees, other actual costs like transportation & what have you + PUNITIVE damages against the complainant , RIAA, for filing unsubstantiated, intimidating and nuisance value suits.
The judge should have taken the chapter out of Paul Newman movie "The Verdict" and awarded more than what Ms. Anderson actually claimed.
|
|
dufas
Member
|
17. May 2008 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
What this all boils down to is that one is guilty until any proof is brought to light and then the innocent are still punished..
It doesn't matter what type of case it is from a simple law suit to a murder trial.
My uncle was accused of murder and during the trial, the real culprit was found by accident, he confessed and was arrested.
Meanwhile, my uncle lost his career, his house, and all of his savings. The police investigators harassed his family to the point that his wife divorced him and moved away.
There wasn't even an apology from the court, he was released homeless and penniless onto the streets while the district attorney, the judge, and the police collectively patted each other on their backs expressing well the judicial system works.
The whole judicial system is made up of crooked a**holes and their lower cousins, lawyers....
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
freezkat
Account closed as per user's own request
|
17. May 2008 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
Bill Clinton was courted by the recording industry also.
Odd...Al Gore never said anything about releasing CFCs as Tipper was burning Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin records.
Don't get me wrong I'm a blue state guy
|
