Interview With RIAA Lawsuit Target Tanya Andersen

You might remember Tanya. She was falsely accused by the RIAA of sharing over 1,000 songs. Rather than admit they had the wrong person, the RIAA lawyers just wouldn’t quit.

Marketplace interviewed Tanya, who is now seeking class action status for her lawsuit against the big recording labels. According to Marketplace, Tanya is accusing them of “fraud, malicious prosecution, libel and slander, invasion of privacy, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright laws and colluding to engage in widespread extortion and racketeering.”

No pause in music industry’s tough play [Marketplace](Thanks, Andy!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Buran says:

    Yep, among geek news circles this has been known for years… I can’t believe it is taking this long for these people to be stomped into the dirt.

    STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS — this is what you’re paying for!

  2. Jon Parker says:

    I wish this would get some major play in big media. Publicity is the only thing that even has a chance of stopping this.

  3. I almost wish I would get sued by the RIAA so that I could do this whole counter-suing thing…

    P.S. Totally off topic, but – whoo! They used my tip! Proof it works!

  4. bravo369 says:

    I’m glad some judges are smart enough to throw out these cases. This is just extortion by the RIAA. There is another case out there in which the defense got the RIAA’s own expert to admit there were no copyrighted files on the harddrive, admitted there are multiple ways to clone an IP address, that IP address does not prove what PC is sitting behind the router, that MediaSentry’s ‘logs’ don’t show a MAC address so you can’t verify anything. So how is that case still in court and not either A. Thrown out by the judge for lack of evidence or B. dropped by the RIAA for lack of evidence.

  5. lincolnparadox says:

    @Buran: The biggest problem with a boycott against the RIAA is that they claim rights over all modern music, even from artists/companies who do not belong to their organization. Even local venues have been prevented from letting local artists play, because they couldn’t afford the RIAA fees.

    If you really want to sidestep paying the RIAA, either buy directly from the artist (via there websites) or buy used: records, 8-tracks, tapes and CDs.



  6. Buran says:

    @lincolnparadox: I think one of those local artists needs to sue them for falsely claiming copyright over something they don’t have rights to.

  7. Buran says:

    @lincolnparadox: Yes, but then someone still has to buy it originally in order for you to buy it used.

    Show ’em that you’re willing to go without entirely rather than support extortion.

  8. Erik_the_Awful says:

    1. I’ve been boycotting the RIAA since Metallica sued the old Napster.

    2. Buying commercial music is worse then shooting yourself in the foot. It’s like paying someone to shoot you in the foot repeatedly. A portion of the profits of music purchases goes to lobby congress to reduce/remove copy rights and fair use rights. A portion of the profits of music purchases goes to sue people like Tonya Anderson.

    3. Tonya Anderson is a hero. She’s standing up for all our rights. (Sure she’s standing up for her own rights first, but if she wins we all win.)

    We need to setup a web site so we can donate to her legal defense fund and or send her a bunch of flowers.

    Before you go thinking I’m overstating the hero bit, think about how much your stomach grinds over just calling your Favorite Cell Phone Provider over a screwed up bill. Multiply that by a large number to get the feeling of any legal action. Add lots of zeros and you have something close to the effect of fighting a legal battle with a large organization.

    Tonya kicks ass.

  9. supra606 says:


    Agreed. Where can I donate?

  10. spinachdip says:

    @lincolnparadox: I second the suggestion on buying directly from artists. Buying music and merchandise on the road or from their website is the most effective way to support independent artists, since it eliminates the middleman and they don’t have many other revenue channels.

    With big label artists, it’s less of an issue since they’re probably not going to make a lot of money, if at all, from CD sales.

  11. RICO’s coming home!

  12. magus_melchior says:

    Ack, missed yesterday’s Marketplace. I’d listen to the show, but I’m not installing Realplayer on this computer.

    A great start for media exposure, but the bigger outlets (except Fox) should pick this up and run with it.

  13. ikiceman says:

    Another example of a huge corporation trying to ruin an innocent life. When things like this happen, can anyone really say that capitalism is working for the average American?

  14. stenk says:

    @magus_melchior: Try Real Alternative!

    On topic

    This is just disgusting that they continue to ruin peoples lives without any thought!

    Good on Tanya Anderson! Sorry to hear that it had to affect your child also! Thats just not on in my opinion.

  15. arachnophilia says:

    @lincolnparadox: If you really want to sidestep paying the RIAA, either buy directly from the artist (via there websites) or buy used: records, 8-tracks, tapes and CDs.

    i’m not entirely convinced they wouldn’t see that as a threat to their market share, too.

  16. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    At least buying used is not continuing to pay the toads. Although I do remember a few years back they were lobbying to get a law extorting money (royalties) from used CD sales. What a great law that would have been! It would have given the fuckwad labels more incentive to sign shitty acts (so the cd gets sold and re-sold and re-sold and re-sold and they get their pound of flesh everytime).

  17. Bobg says:

    I listen to classical music, Yanni, Enya or Celtic; not your biggest sellers. I don’t download on the file sharing sites and wouldn’t know how to do it. Since this mess started with RIAA I haven’t bought a CD and I won’t. The public could stop this ruthless extortion by the RIAA by everyone would stop buying the product. Why not a nation-wide boycott of the music industry? There’s pletty of outlets for music; radio, cable, your existing stash of CD’s, etc. How long are we going to be harassed by these greedy SOB’s?

  18. Cowboys_fan says:

    @Erik_the_Awful: Though I agree with you, I would stop short of calling her a HERO!

  19. lincolnparadox says:

    @arachnophilia: They probably would, but it would be a heck of a lot harder for the RIAA to nail you.

    I guess the thing to keep in mind is: don’t share your music over the internet. They can’t easily prosecute you for trading CDs or mp3s on flash drives. They don’t have a right to break into your computer without cause. But once you send data, there’s a record and these guys will swoop in like vultures.

    Personally, I think music is meant to be shared. I also think that consumers should pay their loyalty to the people that make the music, the artists, not the people that sell the music to us.

  20. Fist-o™ says:

    I have a question: If the RIAA is engaging in obviously illegal activities, (False allegations, threats, harassment, etc.), why isn’t a *criminal case* being established against them? That is what just doesn’t make sense to me. How can they blatantly overstep the LAW, time and time again, and get away with it?!? Certainly some lawyer(s) could make money off of a criminal case against the record labels who engage in this activity. I just don’t understand.

    If I were to draft a letter to a random person in a random state, and accuse them of sharing my copyrighted material, do you think that I, Mr. Schmeckendeugler would survive such an outrageous attempt at blatantly scamming them? Of course not! Then how can they get away with it, just because they are a large corporate entity?

  21. EmmaC says:

    While I sympathize with this woman’s case and hope she wins at the least the cost of her legal bills, people need to pay for the music they download. Musicians (and I am related to one) need to make a living to and most barely eke out one. They are creating a product and if you want to own the product, one should buy it–not steal it.

  22. corberlaw says:

    Vampires and the RIAA
    Ever notice how vampires operate? They suck your blood all the while making you think that they are doing you the favor.

    It really does appear that the RIAA and its net representative, Sound Exchange, operate under the same principle.

    The RIAA has the Copyright Royalty Board under its thumb and appears to dictate web policy to that board, the RIAA tells webcasters what they will pay or else they go to jail or get sued. This seems to be coercion to me.

    So, in effect, the RIAA sets royalty payments unilaterally, sucks the funds from the webcasters and makes them think that the RIAA did them the favor.

    If the RIAA had its way, there’d be no webcasting at all. Each note of music would have to be bought from one of the RIAA’s constituent members. No more free music of any kind, no more fair use would exist, nothing without payment. Pay through the nose, then give up your nose.

    One thing that webcasters forget as victims of this policy, they could put a stop to it fast. Just stop webcasting music. When the public starts complaining to Congress to do something about it, perhaps the RIAA can be controlled by reason and not avarice.

    Victimizers often forget that if they destroy the victim, their victimization ceases and they have no source left from which to suck.

    Unfortunately, the so-called musical performance artists contribute to this victimization by profiting from the RIAA’s activities, whether vicariously or otherwise. You can’t take your profits with a clear conscience when the agency collecting for you is known to be set on destroying the source of those profits.

    Musicians can create music without an audience, but do they really want that?

    Just some thoughts.

    BRIAN LEE CORBER, CORBERLAW@AOL.COM, Panorama City, California 91412-4656, 818-786-7133.