Tanya Andersen finally gets money for attorney’s fees awarded to her by a federal judge back in May, and now plans to go after the RIAA for malicious prosecution.
The shoe is finally on the other foot with news that Tanya Andersen, the single mother in Portland, Oregon, received a settlement fee from the RIAA instead of the other way around.
Unlike many other file-sharing defendants whom have decided to quickly settle with the RIAA out of fear or unwillingness to hassle with the courts and expensive attorney costs, Andersen decided to put up fight for the mere reason that she is innocent. She could have settled quietly by paying them a few thousand dollars to go away, but she hadn’t illegally downloaded any music tracks so she refused to pay.
“Have you considered paying to get the RIAA off your back?” she said in an interview with P2P.net last year. “Nope. I don’t believe I should pay for something I did not do.”
Innocence of the RIAA’s accusations has never deterred them before, and so the RIAA then sued Andersen in US federal court. The case eventually took a drastic after it was unable to prove that she was the one responsible for using KaZaA to illegally download some 1,406 music tracks. For the RIAA then wanted to depose her 10yo daughter who was only 7yo at the time of the alleged infringement! Talk about grasping at straws.
So eventually, in the absence of any real evidence to support the false accusations, they were forced to withdraw the lawsuit, with prejudice.
Andersen then asked the federal court to require the RIAA to pay her attorneys’ fees and costs and US Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta so ruled back in May of this year that they should in the amount of $103,175. The RIAA’s lawyers had tried to get Andersen to settle for $30,000, a fraction of her costs, but she refused. Then they offered to pay $80,000, which she also refused.
Thus, several days ago she finally received the money awarded by Judge Acosta.
“Together with the $117.03 off accumulated post-judgment interest, the total amount of the $107.951.03 has been fully paid and satisfied by the Judgment Creditors,” says an official document.
However, the case is far from over for now it enters Phase II, whereby she’s seeking damages for malicious prosecution.
Here are some of the highlights from the complaint:
(1.3)…Defendants falsely claimed that they could identify individual copyright infringers. Defendants knew this to be untrue but used illegally obtained information to threaten, harass and intimidate thousands of individuals including Ms. Andersen. The scheme and conspiracy included as a component the filing of tens of thousands of sham lawsuits disregarding whether any particular lawsuit was actually supported by any admissible proof against the individual sued. The sham lawsuits were filed first anonymously, clogging the federal courts with thousands of cases against “John” and “Jane Doe”. Lawsuits were later filed against dead people, people without computers, children and other totally innocent individuals, including Tanya Andersen. The primary purpose of the sham lawsuit filed against Tanya Andersen was not to petition the government to seek appropriate relief from the Courts. Rather, the baseless sham lawsuit against her (and those against many thousands of other individuals) was intended to spread public fear and intimidation by harassment, extortion and coercion.
(1.4) As an RIAA senior spokeswoman admitted early on in the campaign, the lawsuits had no relationship to or regard for the evidence actually available against individual victims like Tanya Andersen. The RIAA “explained” that the public campaign of intimidation being waged by Defendants was like fishing with a “driftnet”: “When you fish with a net, you are going to catch a few dolphin.”
With the RIAA losing many a legal battle around the country, most importantly those centered around a false “making available” theory, this lawsuit could be just another important nail in the coffin of what has been a ridiculous campaign from the get go. To compare innocent people to “dolphins” is especially egregious.
Whatever they’re never stopping filesharing and they know it. By the way I LOVE that plate lol
Threats and intimidation…sounds like the bully down the street doesn’t it? And we all know the reality of what a bully is right…a COWARD.
This is why suing file-sharers will never be effective. Log files and trace routes are not an end-all smoking gun. They’ll have to prove that the individual in question was downloading/uploading music. Scare tactics is their only weapon.
@shawn…NOTHING is definite or set in stone in case like this as long as we’re still in the reign of King Dubya I. The little always gets screwed.
Go Go Tanya! Rip them off!
Now she can sue for malicious prosecution that she is awarded her fee.. That shows that the judge awarded her compensation and that they had no evidence and still continued to prosecute. Now she will definitely win this case.
@Open U
I should think so.
hip hip. Hooray!
(A) (1.3)…Defendants falsely claimed that they could identify individual copyright infringers.
(B) Defendants knew this to be untrue but used illegally obtained information to threaten harass and intimidate thousands of individuals including Ms. Andersen.
Item (A) at the very least should put damper on future lawsuits no? I mean especially when IP addresses can be spoofed so easily.