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]Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Funny)
A male mother of five has bigger problems than the RIAA.
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 he
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
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually did a study like this, and though i doubt it was one of the ones you read, i did indeed examine the relationship between sales and new album releases. in fact, my final model found three statistically significant variables that accounted for most of the variation in record sales (at the 95% confidence level).
those three variables were %change in GDP (year on year), Personal Consumption Expenditures (which helps account for peopl
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:4, Funny)
This woman stole our IP.
How do you know?
Because her ISP gave us her IP.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Informative)
Two words: pro bono. There are tons of lawyers out there itching like mad to take this case. And lawyers are supposed to spend a certain percentage of their hours working for free, in order to 'give back to the community'. Seriously [cornell.edu].
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:4, Funny)
I thought pro bono meant you were for extending copyrights indefinitely.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:4, Informative)
No [levellers.org] they're [totse.com] not [jurorsrule.com].
This is one of the biggest lies that Judges and Lawyers to this day try and convince jurors.
Jurors not only have the right, they have the duty to decide whether the Judge is being a cockhead, the law is stupid, or that dumb slut had it coming.
Next time you think Jurors are required to decide on facts, or don't have the ability to rewrite law from the box, I urge you to pay attention at the next Michael Jackson molostation case, or if ever OJ Simpson decides to remarry.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Funny)
Seems unlikely to me.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you been selected to jury duty? I remember being screened for a jury in a trial where one of the lawyers asked the jury whether they would pass a guilty verdict for battery if a defendent had touched the toe of someone that had asked them not to touch it. Everyone, but me, said they would. Felony conviction for touching someone's toe. I think you grossly overestimate the free thinking capabilities of your fellow citizens.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's usual for the judge to instruct the jury "if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt the defendent downloaded these songs
This might sound a bit far out but I have a remote suspicion the reason none of these cases has ever gone to court is because an anonymous person steps in to pay the usual $3000 fine and the defendant, having been threate
It's not piracy! (Score:5, Funny)
Just because its ridiculously expensive doesn't mean that you can call it 'pirated music'. Jeez, people these days call anything at all 'piracy'.
The correct term for this crime is 'price-fixing'.
Juries can judge the law (Score:5, Informative)
Just another one of those things that isn't taught in US public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more significant than the common sense aspect (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, a court of law has numerous restrictions on the ways in which "common sense" can be applied. A perfect example would be when a jury is instructed to disregard testimony it just heard, even if the basis for the instruction is not that the testimony is false or misleading. Honestly, a lot of jurors are intimidated by court rooms and lawyers and judges, and find themselves contemp
Re:It's more significant than the common sense asp (Score:5, Informative)
Ohio for instance, untill reletivly recent, didn't have any laws pertaining to self defense. If you punched a guy that was clubbing you, you were just as guilty of asault as the original asaulter. Jurry nullification has basicaly made the asault laws unenforcable or at least weakened them to the a point were a prosecuter couln't win a case by charging a man being beaten for fighting back. In that situation, the law was deam unjust and unenforcable. This still leave someone the burdon of proving the facts were as claimed though. It isn't an out for someoen to provoke a fight and then pretend to be inocent so it can still be enforced.
Jurry nullification in this case could come in the form of you have to be certain a said person was the one actualy responcible for the copyright infraction. In a civil trial you have a lot more roo for dougbt then a criminal trial so nullification could actualy just implse stronger requirments for proof while keeping the laws enforcable for those blatently violating it. Analogies suck in these situations because you can change what parts of the laws that can be applied by the actions of the jurry. Copyright law is pretty specific in that the person violating it is the one causing harm. The store that let sold you the cds or cassete tapes even though it was likley you were going to copy somehtign doesn't get charged with anyhting. Simularly, you providing your computer to someoen else, shouldn't automaticaly mean you are guilty of somethign thye might have done or somethign that a mistake might have made people think you have done.
This will be an interesting case to watch unfoled. I'm sure the evidence and the weight the evidence carries with be questioned and it may become somethign admissable but unenforcable by the rulling of the jurry. IE, ip logs and screen names (with auto logons) are not enough to prove you were at your computer at a certain time and participating in ceretain activities or had control over those activities or if the listing of names of copy protected material actualy means the protected works were availible and the copy was actualyt being violated. (garage bands cover songs and create thier own songs with the same names and song already names and can distribute them) If the jurry negates or nullifies any of this evidence it will be hard to prove anyone did anything.
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:4, Funny)
A jury can then judge the crime, the law AND the defendant as they'll know all 3.
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:4, Interesting)
The phrase "a jury of your peers" has nothing to do with the American legal system, really. It was an English Commonlaw right that guaranteed a nobleman couldn't be tried by peasants. The only holdover I know of that it still has is that an officer facing a court martial can choose for his jury to only be fellow commissioned officers and not enlisted personnel or warrant officers.
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Juries can judge the law (Score:3, Informative)
This is very useful because just like when a judge nullifies a law, setting a precedent, a jury nullification is just as powerful and this would set an incredible precendent fo
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Informative)
It's a civil case, and people are not found "guilty" or "not guilty" in civil matters. The jury will be ruling either with or against the plantiff, and it is up to the jury to determine the amount of damages.
There are plenty of cases where juries have ruled with the plantiff but refused to award damages of more than, say, $1 - a token amount that indicates while the plantiff was correct, the jury did not feel they should be awarded much money.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Informative)
No, she's not.
She is the respondant against whom the petitioner is seeking relief. If she had actually stolen something from these people, the state would prosecute her; as it is, she may or may not be found liable for damages done to the petitioner. Ironically enough, she would probably be in better shape if this *were* a criminal matter: criminal convictions require demonstrable harm, intent, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil actions merely requ
Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the statute considers reproduction to be infringing, regardless of which direction you do it in. And courts have found both uploading and downloading to be infringing.
Song choices (Score:5, Funny)
What? No Limp Bizkit? No Britney Spears? No Kanye West?
Re:Song choices (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Song choices (Score:3, Informative)
The Home Owner is not responsable for everything that goes on in the home. If Timmy is shooting smack in his bedroom and goes down for it at school because of a drug test or an arrest, Mom and Dad don't do the time.
I think the whole parenting/privacy thing of kids and computers got handled here after Columbine on
Re:Song choices (Score:5, Informative)
From Electronic Frontier Foundation, Memorandum, Date: November 1, 2005, To: Defense counsel in RIAA and MPAA individual file sharing suits, Chris Conley, EFF Legal Intern, Re: parental Liability for Copyright Infringement by Minor Children [eff.org]
For more details, read the whole thing.
Re:My congratulations... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here.
Of course the RIAA disagrees... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course the RIAA disagrees... (Score:2)
14,800 down, 47,600 to go?
My question for the legally saavy: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My question for the legally saavy: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My question for the legally saavy: (Score:5, Informative)
The case would set precedent. The strength of the precedent, however, depends on how far the case goes. If the district court says "X," then it needs to be consistant with "X" in the future (unless it has a darn good reason not to be). But the case might get appealed. The court of appeals sets precedent for itself and all courts lower that are in the same circuit. The Supreme Court sets precedent for all circuit and districts courts.
This is how it would work in application: The district court rules "X" regarding the case. If "X" is favorable to the RIAA then it will bring future cases to the same district court. If "X" is not favorable to the RIAA then it will bring the next case to a different court that does not need to pay attention to the decision of the first court, or the RIAA may appeal the decision of the district court.
If there is an appeal, the the same scenario as above applies. If the decision on appeal is favorable to the RIAA then the RIAA will bring future cases to any district court in that same circuit because all of the district courts are bound by the precedent set by the court of appeals.
If the court of appeals decision is not favorable to the RIAA then it will bring future cases in an entirely different district because all of the district courts must follow that same unfavorable holding. Or, alternatively, the RIAA may appeal the unfavorable court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court.
The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court all have the choice as to whether or not to hear arguments on the district court cases. The vast majority of cases never make it past a district court.
Really it's all more complex than this, but that's the basics.
Not Good for the RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Does being a divorced mother of five make you immune from having to obey the law?
I'm not saying that I agree with the RIAA on this issue, but the burden of proof in civil court is "preponderance of the evidence," and has nothing to do with
Jury nullification notwithstanding, the jury must decide for the plaintiff or defense based on the evidence presented in court, not the ideology, for or against, pertaining to downloading music on the Internet.
My two cents, and IANAL, but I have spend a LOT of time on the witness stand as an expert witness.
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
However, I do have something to add: a link to FIJA, [fija.org] the Fully Informed Juror Association.
Basically, if you disagree with the law, as a juror, you do not have to decide based on the law. You can say "not guilty" even though the prosecutor has pictures of the accused taking a toke from a bong.
Re:Not Good for the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
The jurors are supposed to and expected to vote based on the laws. That's why the judge's instructions specifically instruct them to consider the evidence and detemine whether the defendant broke the law.
From the Juror's handbook found at the above referenced fija.org:
"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))
Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969))."
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!)
Jury nullification is not a loophole, it exists to remind the government that it has a fourth branch..."The People".
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.
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!"
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Informative)
You DO realize that, when you have to explain why you have this "plausible deniability", twelve random people grabbed out of a pool screened for experts in computer science*, you'll only look like a theif, right?
*: Yes, having expert knowledge of a case can get you excluded from a jury. Experts should be on the witness stand and on the record, not in the jury box and the back door.
Re:It's about time (Score:3)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Informative)
No. I mean, it's not my opinion. It's the law.
Doctors do not sit on juries about medicine. Police officers do not sit on juries about crime. Teachers do not sit on juries about teachers. My wife was rejected for jury duty when she said she was an EMT.
It's a slippery slope towards juries which are selected for a lack of knowledge, which is no longer a jury of one's peers. Either the jurors are allowed to use the facts which they
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
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Why? Because bullies always pick on the little guy. Sure, they'll take on a divorced mom of 5! It beats admitting that their whole system is based on flawed logic, bad technology, and an outmoded system of copyrighting. Of course, now they'll be forced to admit most of this in open court, on the record. It should be interesting to see how their paid legal hacks try and discredit her.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
She maybe a very nice lady with a marriage that fell apart, but we don't know that.
Actually, we do [thejournalnews.com] (www.thejournalnews.com).
Patricia Santangelo is in many ways the embodiment of the suburban mom. She is the mother of five children, ranging in age from 6 to 19. She is divorced, living in Wappingers Falls after growing up in Yorktown and Putnam County. At 42, she works as a property manager for a real estate company and is trying to get her own business off the ground.
Who to blame more than the RIAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
The voters elected a Congress with no concern for their enumerated and severely powers. Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Independents are equally evil.
The voters continue to vote, robbing everyone of their basic rights. The crazy majority has given their power away to a government more concerned with growing its power.
Don't confuse the RIAA with evil. You, the voter, are evil. They just followed the letter of the laws you wanted.
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.
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.
I
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.
Re:Who to blame more than the RIAA? (Score:2)
Unless this is meant as some sort of satire, which I hope to GOD it is and I sincerely apologize for missing the sarcasm you probably meant to inflect, this is hardly the fault of the masses. If the actions of the masses defined ANY law at all, 65+ MILLION people trading songs would set a precedent saying trading was just fine.
Slashdot spends almost half of its time posting stories rega
Re:Who to blame more than the RIAA? (Score:4, Informative)
Your attempts to put every voter, party and politician in the "stupid" basket is an insult to those who fight this kind of nonsense.
Instead of blaming others (a very immature tactic) consider the things you might actually do to fight this:
* Join the EFF
* Write your congressperson/senators when they do something you really like or don't like
* Tell other people how you feel outside of slashdot
* dont buy RIAA/MPAA labels, borrow them from the library if you must have them
* Join the ACLU
Dont confuse us, the intelligent and active, with lame and lazy who complain and do little, or nothing, else.
What have *you* done lately?
Where do I sign up? (Score:2, Funny)
My god. It is like going to a Rolls Royce dealer to steal a car and taking the Geo Metro from the Used lot.
Seriously, I'd take RIAA a bit more seriously if they placed value on the song based on market value like the judge did in the My Sweet Lord case [vwh.net].
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).
Re:I sort of side with the RIAA, maybe. (Score:2)
Not that I'm implying that's bad or anything - please don't sue me.
Support her (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Support her (Score:2, 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.
Re:The right side? Yeah.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a divorced mother of five, but I am a 40 yo married father of two. And I happen to like Godsmack. OT, I know, but it is possible for her to have been interested in those songs.
I agree with her. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are my 2 cents, and they're free.
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:14,800 lawsuits (Score:4, Interesting)
No wonder it takes two years for a murder suspect to stand trial, 23 months to deal with the paperwork of RIAA lawsuits, one month to pick a date everyone can agree on that ain't a holiday.
I love America, but baby, sometimes you make my blood boil.
Re:14,800 lawsuits (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know the average settlement cost is $3,000. After 14,800 lawsuits that's $44.4 million. I don't really know the law in this area but is that $44.4 million even taxed? Or did they just make $44.4m sans some minor legal fees? And if they did just make this huge sum of money, how much of it is going to the artist who was 'starving to death' because of 'piracy'? $44.4m over 2 years would be about $61,000 a day, or about $2,500 an hour, that's a crazy $0.70 per second.
I could be totally wrong though.
Re:14,800 lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
that's a crazy $0.70 per second
You gotta admit it's a lot more profitable shakedown, er, business plan, than selling SCO licenses to Linux users.
Re:14,800 lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
I guess the other 14,000+ lawsuits are still under negotiation, though possibly some have been dropped, such as the one against the dead grandmother... That's still $9M, though. Hmm, d'you think anyone from the IRS reads SlashDot??
Whatever the outcome, the RIAA loses (Score:5, Insightful)
She should be more aggressive (Score:5, Interesting)
She could ask the ACLU to defend her on that basis and they might very well jump at the idea.
I've always hated that provision of the law (DMCA), which allows them to just bypass the courts and hire the cheapest lawyer/firm on the block to use their very deep lawyer funds chest to threaten the average joe with massive suits and see them capitulate, regardless of whether or not they are guilty.
You can't use a badly formulated law to punish the unjust and expect complete compliance from the masses.
Further, when copyright (copywrong?) can be extended to insane lengths of time far beyond what was intended (e.g. steamboat willie) and fair use takes a back seat to corporate profits, can we be very surprised at the disrespect/disobediance thses laws are receiving?
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.
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!
Pete Ashdown (Score:3, Informative)
Possiblity of Innocence (Score:5, Interesting)
These I suspect have been root-kitted to act as zombies or proxies. These people have no idea what kinds of traffic is running through their machines and connection. It sounds as if such people are getting sued in some instances, but probably don't the know well enough to realize what is happening.
It doesn't seem to me that a list of bittorrent peers associated with a copyrighted file proves guilt. The environment is too insecure to guarantee who the actual source is. It seems to me the RIAA should have to prove a couple things:
1) That they downloaded the file with the copyrighted name and verified that the content is actually the copyrighted material.
2) That the activity from the IP address of the peer being charged actually represents the activity of a particular machine's owner. They would probably need to confiscate the machine for this - is this feesible? Just charging the owner of a connection seems unreliable, many machines can sit on a home or business network. Can one be held responsible for hijacked traffic running through their pipe?
Where this is headed it seems is a battle over regulating net communication. The RIAA will begin to push technical mandates through congress to make the internet more "secure," which will be difficult at best without implementing lots of centralized control and monitoring. How long till we have sign our packets with keys? Then how long till "sponsored" packets become free, while others cost?
A recent slashdot story featuring Doc Searl's opinion piece, Saving the Net from the pipeholders" [weblogs.com] sum's up this position very well. It's kind of long, but but offers an insightful view of what's ahead, and is worth reading for anyone with interest in the future net as a decentralized, unprejudiced peer to peer medium.
RIAA problem fester, won't fix it - revolting (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA for shame. Crows about "rights" while fueling the festering problems. 30+ yrs is enough, put up or shut up and get out. The current regime is simply an obnoxious, parasitic force begging to be slapped down hard by an angry public. I am kind of morbidly curious to see the public reaction if and when the court system fails again.
Assistance (Score:4, Informative)
However, Santangelo is listed, [yahoo.com] in case anyone wants to snail-mail her some help.
Santangelo lives about ten minutes from me. I'm going to try to round up some friends to picket and toss eggs and CDs at the RIAA scumbags on her day in court!
The RIAA better hope.. (Score:4, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense [wikipedia.org] (actually it was only on a google cache version)
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.
Even if RIAA wins... (Score:5, Insightful)
Damages (Score:4, Informative)
The RIAA can sue for ... wait for it (it'll make you sick) ... $750 to 30K per song. That's without proving willful (intentional) action. If the RIAA can prove intent, the statutory limit is $150K per song.
That doesn't mean they'll get the maximum, but that's the values given in the US Code. See 17 USC 504 [cornell.edu].
That's why I think people cave, the possibility is out there that they will lose everything they own.
Outrageous? Absolutely. Thank our past congresscritters and Presidents for that one. Oh, and the likes of Disney and the heirs of Gerschwin, for that matter.
Assuming this really does get to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do not recall correctly. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Court Costs for the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:hmmm..... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Monitor P2P network
2. set up settlement hotline
3. Sent threatening letter (something like hundreds of thousands of dolars if you go to court, a more "resonable" ammount if you settle)
4. Profit!!
Three (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The way around it all (Score:3, Insightful)