P2P defendant Tanya Anderson awarded lawyer fees

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 wanted the usual settlement fund of about $3000 USD but Anderson denied their claims and took it to court. She would eventually have the complaints against her dropped, but not before she was over $300,000 USD in the hole with legal fees.

Because of the fact that the charges against her were dropped, she was entitled to make a claim for attorney fees and did see a victory, although not a full one. According to the judge presiding over the case, "Andersen now requests an award of attorney fees in the amount of$298,995.00 and costs in the amount of $5,387.05." The music industry however, fought back against that claim and got the award lowered. The judge ordered that "Andersen should be awarded attorney fees in the amount of$103,175. Andersen's Bill of Costs in the amount of $4,659 should be APPROVED."

Although not all the money she was hoping for, its still good to see Tanya Anderson get some help to pay her extensive fees.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 15 May 2008 17:18

Advertisement - News comments available below the ad

17 comments

iluvendo

Chalk one up for the good guys (and gals) !!!

15.5.2008 17:22 #1

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. :(

15.5.2008 17:30 #2

iluvendo

If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck!
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aquisition

15.5.2008 17:35 #3

rosedog

Thats BS... They should have to pay 100% of her fees.

15.5.2008 18:53 #4

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. 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.

15.5.2008 19:25 #5

area_51

Sons of bit**s

15.5.2008 22:17 #6

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.

16.5.2008 00:46 #7

iluvendo

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!

If it wasn't for bad luck, I'd have no luck!
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aquisition

16.5.2008 01:01 #8

nobrainer

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

The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.

16.5.2008 02:50 #9

tin23uk

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.

16.5.2008 10:54 #10

goodswipe

She should have sold thongs like Jamie Thomas...

16.5.2008 10:59 #11

mmalyszko

WTF. She Didnt even get half of the 300000.

16.5.2008 11:45 #12

RNR1995

16.5.2008 16:57 #13

vbdragon

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!!

17.5.2008 00:32 #14

pmshah

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.

17.5.2008 13:12 #15

dufas

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....

17.5.2008 13:30 #16

freezkat

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

17.5.2008 20:19 #17

AfterDawn: News