The RIAA Wants To Interrogate Your 10 Year-Old

Tanya Andersen, a 42 year-old mother on disability accused of downloading “gangster rap”, doesn’t want the RIAA to interrogate her 10 year-old. The RIAA says the 10 year-old is a material witness. Tanya’s motion to the court argues:

“Emphasizing whether they can subject this young girl to distress, plaintiffs ignore whether they should. The should aspect of this evaluation is easy: Mrs. Andersen and her daughter should not be subjected to any more abuse in this litigation whatsoever.”

Tanya’s motion goes on to say that the plaintiffs know she is not the kazaa user who downloaded and shared music files, and that “a 5 minute Google search is all that was necessary to establish this and avoid the stress and damages to Ms. Andersen and her daughter.”—MEGHANN MARCO

Tanya Andersen’s Motion
RIAA Response
RIAA attacks 10-yr-old girl (7 at time of alleged download) [BoingBoing]


Edit Your Comment

  1. CumaeanSibyl says:

    I wouldn’t argue that a 10-year-old should be exempt from testifying in civil cases as a rule, even though it might cause distress. On the other hand, this is the world’s dumbest lawsuit, and anyone with an ounce of sense ought to be exempt from participating.

  2. eldergias says:

    I am honestly surprised that someone has not sued the RIAA for obtaining their contact information from the ISPs under false pretenses or for trying to place unconstitutional stipulations in their settlement agreements. A company cannot make a person give up their right to fair legal trials just as a person can’t enter into an agreement whereby they become a slave. No matter how you word it, nothing short of constitutional amendments can give up people’s constitutional rights. If I were to become a billionaire I would make that RIAA’s life a nightmare of legal battles and lawsuits.

  3. whysteriastar says:

    The RIAA makes me sick, that’s why I support independant labels and unsigned bands as much as possible. These are musicans that allow downloads of their music in order to actually get fans to come to shows and buy cds.

  4. royal72 says:

    guilty till proven innocent.

    little off topic, but i’m quite surprised (unless i missed it) that no company has started selling legal insurance as in coverage for the cost of lawyers, time off of work, etc.

  5. DXDawg says:

    We offer legal insurance at my office here in Georgia… it’s quite cheap, too.

  6. Nicholai says:

    This it just stupid. Downright stupid. The RIAA is now officially
    100% monster. Were talking about downloading a song, not killing somebody.

  7. Ikki says:

    @royal72: There’s a company in Sweden that offers this service for about $20 a year. I forgot what they were called, but I remember that if they play the odds, they can come out with a moderate profit.

    Although American/Canadian legal services are a different matter…

  8. superlayne says:

    That poor girl probably doesn’t even know what’s going on.


  9. gardencat says:

    Over and over, the RIAA has been so very reckless in determining who will be slapped with a lawsuit next.

    When The Consumerist sent the RIAA “The Lucky Golden Shit Trophy” they should have kept the golden part and just sent them a pile of the real thing.