Farin Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 [big]Beaverton woman wins $108,000 against recording industry[/big] [smaller]Posted by The Oregonian May 14, 2008 17:49PM[/smaller] An Oregon federal magistrate has awarded nearly $108,000 to a Beaverton single mother who said the recording industry falsely accused her of illegally downloading music. The money represents Tanya Andersen's attorney fees and costs in successfully fighting a lawsuit filed by the recording industry against her. 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 (RIAA) 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. -- Ashbel S. Green; tonygreen@news.oregonian.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 ...they sued a single person? A completely harmless person on top of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted May 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 ...they sued a single person? A completely harmless person on top of that? don't they always? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I didn't realise they really pick out people like that. I thought it'd at least be someone who's downloaded a few thousand tracks and then passed them on again or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamisammy29 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 ...they sued a single person? A completely harmless person on top of that? I don't think she's entirely harmless. And I'm sure Lars Ullrich would agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viaene Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 They should sue a single person, for it's the organisations that provide illegal downloads that sould be picked out. She shouldn't sue the music industry because they're having a hard time with all those pirates I wouldn't want to be the judge for that trail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 I don't think she's entirely harmless. And I'm sure Lars Ullrich would agree with me. Yes, all four feet nothing of pissy Danish Lars fury such as he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 LARS LIKE DRUMS! LARS HATE NAPSTER! RAAAAAWR! ...meow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted May 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 LARS LIKE DRUMS! LARS HATE NAPSTER! RAAAAAWR! ...meow Careful Tim. If Lars ever reads this, he'll get angry and bite you on the knee cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 They should sue a single person, for it's the organisations that provide illegal downloads that sould be picked out. She shouldn't sue the music industry because they're having a hard time with all those pirates Not sure if I'm understanding this... she shouldn't sue the deep pockets music industry for erroneously causing her to shell out $108,000 of her own money to defend herself against a bogus claim? I get it. You're being facetious, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 They should sue a single person, for it's the organisations that provide illegal downloads that sould be picked out. She shouldn't sue the music industry because they're having a hard time with all those pirates He´s right. What will the little Mottolas eat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viaene Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 The music industry dropped the charges of illegal downloading because of a lack of evidence. So the woman didn't necessary have to charge them back, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 She knew she´d win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted May 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 The music industry dropped the charges of illegal downloading because of a lack of evidence. after two years of legal battle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viaene Posted May 24, 2008 Report Share Posted May 24, 2008 hmm, I suppose in that case I would be angry at them too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now