RIAA Pays $107,951 to Alleged Filesharer
Written by Ben Jones on August 14, 2008It has been something of a David and Goliath battle, but the first skirmishes in the war on file sharing are over. While the RIAA jubilantly claimed success last year, it is another case that has has now silenced the RIAA, as it avoids drawing attention to the case it never had.
If you read a mainstream media news report about file sharing or talk to a reporter about (illicit) filesharing, you would think that the only case involving the RIAA was Capitol V Thomas, a case that made news nationwide for the size of the fines. However, there are a number of cases going on around the country, cases where the RIAA did not win.
One of the most under-reported is Atlantic V Anderson, which has taken over 3 years from start to finish. The RIAA eventually dropped it with prejudice, meaning they accept the fault was theirs in this case. A similar thing happened in the case against another alleged filesharer, Foster, but both cases were relatively under-reported in mainstream media.
Copyright law, like most other aspects of civil law, allows for the prevailing party to recoup legal fees and costs incurred in the case. This is exactly what Foster and Anderson did, with success. The Foster case was awarded over $68,000 in attorney fees and costs. Likewise, the Anderson case was awarded fees and costs but of a substantially greater amount; $107,834 to be precise, in an order dated July 28th 2008.
It is encouraging to finally hear that last night, the RIAA and the member companies that were involved in the case finally paid the fees (they refused first), putting an end to this protracted legal wrangling. The amount paid was not, however, $107,834 but a figure of $107,951 , a figure which takes into account interest accrued due to delay.
It should be noted that while this is the end of Atlantic V Anderson, it is not the end of Anderson V Atlantic, the case where Ms Anderson is taking her former accusers to task over their practices in this field. It is a heartening victory, and one that is spurring the tide.
So, with Thomas looking to head to a mistrial, making the $222,000 judgment null and void, the two largest decisions in the RIAA’s ‘war on downloading’ have been against them. In both cases the RIAA admitted it was wrong, and ordered to pay the fees.
Thanks to Recording Industry Vs People
Previously: Sharing 2999 Songs, 199 Movies Becomes ‘Safe’ in Germany
Next: The Pirate Bay Sees Boost in Italian Traffic Following ‘Block’
44 Responses
LOL
owned
Cum Under A Rock And Hope For The Best Buddy (Y)
cover ya nanny in blood then laugh
Does that money include the cost of all the time and turmoil the 3 year case has caused, or does it only cover the legal and related fees? If the RIAA can put arbitrary numbers on how our actions cost them money, then Anderson should be able to do the same and be awarded accordingly.
On another note, this needs to hit the mainstream news. In this battle to win the herts and minds of the common consumer, we need to inform them of the falibility of the industry.
That said, thanks for the news TF and a big W for the community, w00t!
epic lulz
owned bitches.
i would like to direct you to my asshole in which you can lick.. RIAA faggots.
@5 ianal, i believe the main thought behind most concepts in law is ensure the party suffering harm is made whole again, ie they’ll get their money back maybe a little for their time but nothing to celebrate about. its not meant to be a lottery regardless of what some auto injury lawyers would have you believe.
I’m really glad Ms. Anderson could win and come away with some money for her troubles. Maybe Anderson v Atlantic will set some sort of precedent. We’ll see I guess. Great article, as always.
RIAA PWNED !
RIAA is playing game with the law, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
It’s a game god damit, we should join in, maybe we win also :)
die RIAA, serves you right bitches.
I haven’t bought an RIAA CD in over six years. What about you guys? Helping them on their way to the grave.
EPPPIIIIICCCCCCC!!!!!! FAAAAAIIIILLLLLL!!!!!! hahahaha
what about the financial losses from having to miss work and go to court?
100k+ for such a long case… I can’t really say if that’s enough at all or too much already (I’m not familiar with court costs at all, luckily), but it’s nice to hear that they get PAID AT ALL…
And why did this NOT shine up in mainstream media? Because it’s all about cash, corruption and RIAA’s reputation… bitches…
RIAA = failboat
pwned bitches xD
“The RIAA eventually dropped it with prejudice, meaning they accept the fault was theirs in this case.”
A dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiff may not turn around and re-file, not that the plaintiff admits fault for a bogus case. Nit-picky, maybe, but whatever.
Let them how how it feels when they charge huge amount against poor families…
A lesson should be taught to them!
Hope now they stop suing innocent people…
I wish they loose all other cases from here on and become bankrupt!;-)
Corking… =]
“I haven’t bought an RIAA CD in over six years. What about you guys? Helping them on their way to the grave.”
I haven’t bought any RIAA music and I haven’t bought any MPAA movies (with the exception of one).
#17 “A dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiff may not turn around and re-file…”
This would depend on the type of dismissal (voluntary or involuntary), in a voluntary dismissal the plaintiff is basically withdrawing their claim, the “with prejudice” would indicate admission of wrongful prosecution, even if they don’t specifically say so in the motion.
Is anyone else getting tired of these MORONS at RIAA and the other 4 letter agencies?
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
F A K I NG N 1 GGG 3 RZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let me guess the money comes out of the artists pay when the RIAA losses and when they win they don’t let the artists see a penny of the money that they exploit from people(well claiming to protect the artists).
That should be “unlike most other aspects of civil law.” In the US, you generally don’t get attorney’s fees.
OOOOOWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD
*Slams fist into the table with furious rage*
This is a good step in the right direction. A better step would be to see them get their asses handed to them under RICO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act) for their protection-money-esque scheme of “Pay us a load of money or we sue you for damages grossly exceeding reality.”
Remember what happened to MediaDefender? If the RIAA’s emails ever became public (via hacker or subpoena), I strongly suspect there would be ample evidence to nail them on extortion, racketeering, and obstruction of justice. Possibly also bribery and fraud, but those would be moot since it only takes two of the above to nail them for triple damages in court.
Bring it in front of a judge who’s already dinged them for their “creative” use of legal chicanery, and they’re hosed.
The RIAA should stop being so stupid and stop suing the wrong people. A lot fo the so-called “File-sharers” don’t have a clue about how to file0share in the first place.
In this dismal state of affairs, the best method of effecting change is not through the corrupt legal system, but rather through extralegal methods. The law itself is corrupt, and why should we follow anything corrupt? The logical solution is civil disobedience. Without radical civil disobedience, we will forever be meek and ineffectual, because it is a signal of our submission to a corrupt law. Legal methods, like the ones that I observe the EFF to be doing, can never change anything in a climate where the law itself is corrupt, and where the public will not care about petty unfortunate file-sharers. As long as we continue to fight solely through legal methods, we will forever be ignorable, because legal methods are far too weak.
One of the greatest problems is that we file-sharers are generally ignored or not noticed. The public will pay attention only if we are not too weak, and that shall come only with radical civil disobedience. Thus, it is important to adopt the tactics of radical suffragettes. They include chaining ourselves to railings and the destruction of the property of the RIAA, or the MPAA, and the disruption of political party meetings.
@28
No, it would be better if their homes were destroyed. Somebody needs to go there and smash their homes to pieces.
HAHAHAHA!
I love your American English, “owned”! So full of meaning. So now I am gonna use it:
OWNED! owned! OwNeD! oWnEd!
RIAA ought to be sued for mental trauma too. imagine the stigma of being prosecuted, until he was proved innocent, he carried the stigma of a pirate. sue their asses. just the legal fees wont help. that will make the RIAA honchos tone down their rhetoric.
Imagine all the money that could be invested in music at a grassroots if the Riaa stopped wasting money on suing companies. While I’m able to make livelihood as a musician myself, I have seen countless friends give up because of the costs of going on tour at an early stage in your career
Up your ass, RIAA
When you say things like: ‘Nationwide’ and ‘the country’, shouldn’t you specify which country you are talking about?? There are much more international readers than you might expect… (stupid americans;)
Much as I appreciate the claim of creative people to get paid for their efforts by those who benefit from them, I despise with a passion those who leech on the creative talents as well as the consumers by abusing the legal systems of this world by artificially inflated claims.
Bwahahahaha, kickass.
I’m so ashamed to be a filesharer after reading these comments. It’s like 90% of you are 12 years old.
@37
“Leech” is inaccurate. The purpose of those creative works is to spread them out to as many people as possible. The purpose of creating art is for it to be seen by as many as possible. For someone else to see it or hear it is essentially what is good for the artist. Moreover, they are not “leeching” - art is inspiration for art, and if people see it freely, they would be inspired to create it themselves. You may think that money is the only benefit art can create, but this is far from the truth. In actuality, art has a beneficial effect on society, and the more people see it, the more people will be inspired by it and participate in creating art themselves, or inspired in some other way.
@39
I have a real problem of the use of the word “immature” in the manner that you have used. For one thing, the word “immature” is very imprecise, and I have never understood what the word “immature” meant, and I do not expect those you are speaking towards to understand it either. Moreover, you implicitly state that immaturity is somehow a bad thing, and you do not know that, nor do I, especially since this kind of assertion cannot be determined without knowing what exactly immaturity is.
what else is there to say about this?
The comments, and the article itself, say enough.
I see tables turning hmmm…..
plague the net with this glorious news of their defeat.
if their media dogs won’t speak of this loss then it is up to the victimized consumers to wave the flag.
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.