First RIAA Lawsuit to Head to Trial 616
mamer-retrogamer writes "Out of 14,800 lawsuits the RIAA has filed in the past two years, none have gone to court - until now. Patricia Santangelo, a divorced mother of five living in Wappingers Falls, New York, found herself the target of an RIAA lawsuit and vows to contest it. Santangelo claims that she knows nothing about downloading music online and the likely culprit is not her but a friend's child who used her computer. The RIAA disagrees."
I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Insightful)
No jury in the world would come down on a person for downloading a few songs when the corporation suing is insanely rich and greedy. Even if she were guilty, I would give her a slap on the wrist at most. Go after the people selling the pirated music!
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Of course the RIAA disagrees... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Song choices (Score:2, Insightful)
Not Good for the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
And as for those who claim they didn't download any music, the RIAA says that if defendants got a letter in the mail saying they or someone in their house illegally downloaded music, chances are it is true.
"The chances of it not being the right person or someone in that household are slim," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs at the RIAA. "Let's face it, what we're doing is on the right side here. What these users are doing is violating the copyright laws."
I call bullshit.
This is exactly why I have a second unsecured access point in my apartment piped to the internet. Plausible denyabilty. Who know who's using it? My modem's IP address could be connected to any one of the 50 apartments in my building.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I sort of side with the RIAA, maybe. (Score:3, Insightful)
The "somebody else did it" defense is common. But, what proof has been presented to support it?
Here, we have not seen what evidence has been presented (in a summary judgment motion or motion to dismiss).
Support her (Score:5, Insightful)
The right side? Yeah.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the RIAA lawyer's quote, "Let's face it, what we're doing is on the right side here."
We're back in that universe where shaking down divorced moms with five kids for $3,000 - $4,000 or the threat of tens of thousands in court fees and damages, all as punishment for the heinous crime of the download of six songs, is "the right side." It's even more fun when you consider the possibility it wasn't even her who did it. I don't know, how popular is Godsmack among that demographic?
The RIAA interoffice memos on these cases must read like tobacco company internal communications.
I agree with her. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are my 2 cents, and they're free.
Re:Support her (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, no. They are following the letter of the laws they purchased through a Free Market Government.
"Evil" is not in elections, or anything else. Evil is the willingness to fuck over someone for your own gain. Pure evil is when that gain is just for your own enjoyment.
The folks at the RIAA are willing to fuck over as many people as they can to ensure their own position in the distribution of music, a very profitable position. File sharing is dangerous, not just because people can download the latest lame Metallica song, but because it will allow people to distribute their own music. Yes, there's a lot of really, really bad stuff out there for free (some of it worse than Metallica's recent stuff), but as review sites progress, and the truly independent music scene evolves, people will be able to find the music they like, and the RIAA is cut out completely.
Independent music is doing to the RIAA what free software is doing to Microsoft-- making them stay up at night, even if it doesn't appear to be a real threat at the moment. P2P is essential for a solid independent music scene. The RIAA is trying not just to eliminate file sharing of copyrighted works (which is wrong, no matter how heavy-handed the bad guys are), but to paint all file sharing as evil.
If they can do that, they can destroy the truly independed music scene before it even gets started.
14,800 lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Gosh that sounds like organized crime....RIAA shaking down 14,800 people for money...extortion is what it sounds like to me...sounds like the RIAA should be concerned about The RICO ACT [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly. In the UK "single mother with five kids" generally means "Some slut wanting more money for nothing, screwed several guys and "forgot" condoms". Maybe it's not the same in the US but don't judge a person on the amount of kids their vagina have spewed out. She maybe a very nice lady with a marriage that fell apart, but we don't know that.
Secondly. They'll sue anyone they can get their hands on, if anything they perfer to sue single mothers with no hope of paying. After all way bother sueing someone like Bill Gates who can shrug and go "meh, sue me". When you can sue some poor woman who can't aford the lawsuit so just pays up? It's the same reason in prison no one tries to rape Bubba, he'll fight back and might just win.
Re:Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try. Free markets abhor the use of force. Government laws are legal uses of force, and not free markets.
Evil is the willingness to fuck over someone for your own gain. Pure evil is when that gain is just for your own enjoyment.
I agree. The teachers unions force me to pay their salaries. The army forces me to pay for wars. The RIAA doesn't force me to buy jack. Voters support teachers and soldiers.
Independent music is doing to the RIAA what free software is doing to Microsoft-- making them stay up at night, even if it doesn't appear to be a real threat at the moment.
I've been in the indie scene for 10 years. I just financed two indie albums. I go to 100+ concerts per year. Most indie music is crap. The RIAA sees no threat there. They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.
If they can do that, they can destroy the truly independed music scene before it even gets started.
And anyone who voted is to blame for creating laws that created the RIAA.
Re:Song choices (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that a subtle mesage there on your part or what? If she is knowingly aware and does nothing to prevent it there might be some violations of law (accessory or negligence are my only guesses)... but if she's not aware and it happens in her house - she didn't do it and she's not liable, its that simple.
Kevin
Whatever the outcome, the RIAA loses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
"You infringed on our copyright!"
"It wasn't me, just somebody who used my computer."
"It was probably you because, let's face it, copyright infringement is illegal!"
Court Costs for the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
My congratulations... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, throw the book at this vile negligent mother.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Amerika, fool! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Court Costs for the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA, meet Sony's DRM trojan-net! (Score:3, Insightful)
I have an excellent idea for you: Borrow Sony's DRM trojanware, (the trojan-net is already up and running) have it illegally download songs on selected people's computers, then fly in with a juicy lawsuit!
I'm sure a few scripts could even mail out the summons automatically, with a quick link to a Paypal account in case they would prefer to settle out of court!
Three (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
willie
Re:Who to blame more than the RIAA? (Score:2, Insightful)
The voters aren't evil. They're ignorant. They are also stupid for voting when so ignorant. But it isn't evil unless it is gross negligence or intentional.
Most people would rather vote for the congressman who agrees with them on the war and abortion that the one who agrees with the on copyright. You have to rank issues, and for most people copyright is WAY THE HELL DOWN THERE.
Why don't we just blame YOU? If you know so much about it, go start a campaign. Go tell people. Don't just sit back and whine about people don't looking at this issue. Make them look at it. Local news stations and papers are often short on material. Try to get one of them to run a piece on these crazy laws. Get some outrage going.
But don't just sit back and decide the voters are evil. How useful do you think that really is?
Logic check (Score:5, Insightful)
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occured at your IP address. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why single out the IP address as such a watershed in the chain of accountability that the burden of proof flips? To see what I'm getting at, what makes IP addresses so special, as compared to (for example):
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occurred in your city. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occurred under a screen name you frequently use. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
--MarkusQ
Re:The way around it all (Score:3, Insightful)
There were a few cases on this where video rental places wanted to keep pristine their originals, and rent out the backup copies. Even if done on a one-to-one basis, this isn't legal, because when the physical possession of the original CD is transferred, any archival backups (in any form) must either be transferred with the CD or destroyed. It doesn't matter that you are all owners -- the point of an archival bakcup is so that you don't have to go out and buy a new CD when the original gets destroyed, not so that you can listen to the CD at two different places at the same time.
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't pretend the the demographics of a person don't apply to a legal case. In some cases, it can have everything to do with it.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Insightful)
The woman is being accused of commiting a crime.
No, this is civil court, which hs a different legal standard and no possibility of jail time.
Stick to the Facts (Score:1, Insightful)
> a divorced mother of five...
>
And exactly what does this have to do with the merits of
the case?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:She should be more aggressive (Score:1, Insightful)
The M$ defence... (Score:3, Insightful)
My client's computer uses a M$ OS. It was taken over by a hacker via BackOrifice. She did not download any music files. The defense holds that the hacker that installed BackOrifice use my client's computer as screen to download the files for his/her use.
Most folks, as my client, are not computer scientist, nerds, programers, etc.. They do not have the expertise to be able to deal with the clever manipulations of OS that hackers do. Do you really want to convict a person on the basis of the charges leveled by the RIAA. They need to explain, in detail, just how they ***know*** that my client was the one download the files that they allege that my client downloaded. Further they need to prove that my client did not at the time of the downloads that they allege, already legally possess the right to the music that the alleged files contained.
Re:Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA sees no threat there. They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.
I don't recall a referendum on the DMCA, just a bunch of Senators, so what you really mean is that Congress supported it. I rather doubt a majority of people would support the law if they knew its implications.
Even if RIAA wins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:1, Insightful)
The loophole is that there is no punishment for jurors who blatantly disregard the law when considering their verdict. Therefore, jurors do have th power to decide based on their conscience, or their political viewpoint, or their mood of the day, or a flip of a coin. (Perhaps someone should set up a website describing your right and duty to flip a coin to decide a verdict - then that would make it the right thing to do!)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they would. Just not on a female mother of five. If she were a male, they definitely would screw him over.
<cynic mode>You mean a white female, mother of five.</cynic mode>
Actually, the corruption of the justice system has more to do with money then race. But even given that disadvantage I have a hard time buying that a jury would stick it to an individual who downloaded/shared a few songs. And isn't the burden of proof on RIAA to prove that it was actually her that did it? How the hell are they going to do that based on an IP address?
Kudos to her for fighting them. It's easy for us /.'ers to say that we would do the same -- think of the money she is spending and the nonsense she is going through.
Re:She should be more aggressive (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't find my GameBoy. I think you might have it. I'll be over around 3 tommorrow to toss your house and see if a Gameboy turns up, at which point, I'll take it home with me, then sue you for something. Have a nice day, and please be a nice host and have refreshments for me when I show up.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Insightful)
First thing to do is challenge how they got the IP, oh wait, it's IPA now, they're trying to hijack the use of "IP". We all know they're not doing any of the work themselves, they're just hiring "agents" who secretly enter people's computers to search for music files. If another company said it's true, then it must be true because large corporations and their contractors would *never* ever even think of saying anything that isn't true or do anything moraly questionable, like . It's possible they're borrowing the server IP logs of some RIAA bashing message boards, adding a couple songs, file sizes and time stamps and suddenly it goes from "you said something bad about our cartel" to "you're stealing sound". Ok, so it may not happen that way, but does snyone really know how the RIAA gets that information? People are challenging breathalizers because the firmware use closed source. It's all about the money, places in Vegas used, possibly still try, to rig slot machines to pay out fewer jackpots resulting in fewer payouts and more PROFIT. It may be unlikely, but still slightly possible.
And the claims of lost billions due to what they call "piracy". I'd like to see some proof of that too. Yes, there are people who borrow audio files using the Internets, but does anyone really know how many and how much revenuse is lost because of it? I know people with large music collections they didn't buy, but I know more people with hundreds of pounds of records and CDs. My favorite stats are $250billion lost and 3% of sales lost. That's like claiming 3% of their sales is $250billion, do a little math and see that those "stats" are very questionable, they may be large corporations, but I don't think they're worth that much.
They make up stats of lost PROFITs and inflate claims of "piracy" and like to pull a SCO and sue people to offset lower sales due to poor quality products. Their cases need to be thrown out until they produce some real proof.
As for a jury deciding for defendant, not everyone reads
Assuming this really does get to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Song choices (Score:1, Insightful)
You can NOT prevent all that you are saying there. It is impossible. Dont try to say that it is possible because its not. I am not saying that you shouldnt try but kids can always find ways around things. Most kids today knows how to turn off filters and firewalls while their parents dont know that so can you really prevent downloading music? No, so dont sit there and think you can. Get yourself some kids and you will know you cant prevent everything.
And if that first you say is true then Bush IS responsible for torture and war crimes and other crimes against humantiy but if he can say he is not then this mother can say she is not responsible for what her kids are doing (and perhaps doing it against her rules but that we dont know anything about so what else is she to do oh master of rasing kids?).