Slashdot Mirror
Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
I think it's about time that someone is standing up to the **AA's in the world!
There's no place like localhost
Good this is getting ridiculous. Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.
Download Wars: Episode V - The Mom Strikes Back
Slashdot is now only one day behind. This was on digg.com yesterday.
Get with it guys. Your getting your trousers whipped!
Unfortunately, you can't kick a MPAA end.
Posted Yesterday
Runaround Suits
I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
When you can download the audio off bittorrent?
Hip Hip
Hooray!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
McMahon, Colleen
;)
Born 1951 in Columbus, OH
Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;
From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799
Way to go Clinton
*quickly ducks*
...but the judge said "So let's set another conference date for July 8th at, 9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then." She had 60 days to find a somewhat competant lawyer...
It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).
Seriously, it should be either *AA or ??AA. **AA is completely reduntant...
The RIAA might lose one to a determined defendant who attacks what at this point must be a kind of system the entertainment corps set up to sue individuals.
Good for her and everything, but "the tide" is not shifting to the RIAA's disadvantage.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think it's important to point out from the transcript that the mother blames Kazaa for this happening.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
People are going to mark this as a troll. But it seems like every small group has extra rights. The majority meanwhile is getting sued by these small pest groups. Aeithists sue to not have the pledge said in school because of "In God we trust". Muslims sue schools because of christmas plays. Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man. Blacks want reparations. And the RIAA wants to go after children who share. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. And at the same time, any American who likes France is a traitor.
Did I order French Fries? I meant Freedom Fries. I hope you did not get that on tape.
Lets hope that the RIAA starts loosing. Of course, that might be worse for the consumer, as the RIAA will go back to congress asking for more laws.
Either way we loose.
I guess the solution is closed networks where people are invited by trusted friends. Anyone know of any?? LOL
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Someone at the EFF or something should help this lady. It shouldn't be difficult to get her a civil trial attorney that wants to do this pro-bono.
It's refreshing to see this type of thing after all the crap of the past few years. Maybe if all those people that settled with the RIAA and forked over their savings to get off the "hook" would have fought them in front of a sympathetic judge things would be much different now.
...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Wouldn't sending out freely redistributable legal recordings of non-RIAA artists in order to promote them make more sense? http://creativecommons.org/ http://dmusic.com/
"OMG I can't believe they made streets, and now they accuse my son of jaywalking? OMGOMGOMG!"
Seriously, when someone commits a murder, don't blame the knife manufacturer. Even if it was a knife that said "MADE FOR MURDER" on the hilt.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
If you read the actual transcript, the judges gives her some time to find a lawyer. The only other interesting thing is that outside negotiations are off the table, and instead must go through the court now. BTW, sounds like a sons friend used her computer so the RIAA probably identified the right computer.
Vote for Pedro
19 And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
21 that my children had downloaded anything.
Yeah.... that'll happen.
They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.
It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?
Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".
What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?
What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?
What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?
There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.
And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?
Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?
Is the IP address infallible?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Its september now. The court date has already passed.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay. I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa 11 that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Look... I realize that not everyone is going to understand the legalities of P2P or the key players in the arena, but come on! Where have you been living? Under a rock? P2P has been on every freakin' news station and newspaper multiple times. Turn off the reality TV and pay attention to the world around you.
What is your penile percentile?
Did you notice in the transcript that the lawyer for RIAA never mentions the the words, "steal", or "theft" even once in the court proceedings? He only mentions COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!
Remember folks:
DOWNLOADING CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT!!
Ah you Americans always fun to watch... I don't know what the ACLU is, but surely blacks and homosexuals deserve representation...? What about black homosexuals being sued by the RIAA, the way you talk sounds like you'd prefer them not to be represented... I digress.... and btw, they are CHIPS, we invented them y'know, and the things you call chips, are CRISPS... of course refer you toa tion.htm
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/declarationofrevoc
Anyway I don't know what you have against blacks, they built your country, and as for homosexuals, they usually liven up the party...
Now if this is a troll, then surely the parent should be made a troll for inciting one...
An even cheaper way to f*ck over the RIAA is to just not buy any CDs.
Your method of the free distribution of CDs still gives them a target to attack and a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of "sharing" music.
The RIAA is interested in just *one* thing - money. That means they want everyone to buy their own copy of every CD or every downloaded song because that way they get even more money. Your demonstrations of "non-compliance" are irrelevant to the RIAA borg.
The solution to the RIAA problem is to remember that as a consumer in a capitalist society, you simply *don't* buy a product you do not think is value for money or is being sold by a corporation with dubious business or political motives - no matter how much you personally may *want* that product.
Do that and you start denting the profits of the record companies who, in turn, stop financing the RIAA because they're not achieving anything.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Read the whole transcript - it's pretty funny from the start:
;)
MS. SANTANGELO: I really don't know where to start. I wasn't sure, because I had just gotten served last week, that -- I haven't had a chance to -- they say here to get an attorney.
THE COURT: Well, it would be a good idea if you did.
MS. SANTANGELO: I really wasn't able to at this time. I have made phone calls to try to find an attorney.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. SANTANGELO: The reason why, when they called and they wanted to make a settlement, I no longer have that computer that the IP address was on, that they say the music was downloaded onto, because it had developed a major -- a lot of major viruses, apparently, and was wiped out and taken by my ex-husband. He was going to try to get it fixed. And I guess he has it down in North Carolina right now. So, at the time, I have nothing in front of me to say, okay, this is what happened. And I have five children, so I wasn't real sure how it had happened, to be honest.
THE COURT: I have some guesses.
MS. SANTANGELO: I realized when I looked at this that the downloads, I guess they call it Exhibit B, the screen name that this Kazaa was under doesn't belong to anyone in my family. And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with that my children had downloaded anything. Apparently, it belongs to a friend of my son, who is now 14.
THE COURT: I see.
MS. SANTANGELO: And I didn't know about it. And I really don't know where to go from here. And so I'm a little dumbfounded by the whole thing.
THE COURT: Yes, I know. I keep saying I live in -- although I've read the riot act to my own kids a hundred times --
MS. SANTANGELO: Oh, yeah, now I have.
THE COURT: -- I live in perpetual fear that something I don't know my kids are doing is going to come back and bite me in the butt. And the difference between you and me, Ms. Santangelo, if it happens to me, it will be in the headlines of the New York Post.
At the end of it all, it sounds like Ms. Santangelo has an ex-husband, more-internet-savy-than-her kids, her kids' friends, ISPs, unknown-to-her screen names, and a computer that she doesn't currently have physical access to, and no attorney to blame for her being sued by the RIAA. Sounds like she's taking this whole thing pretty seriously!
Ah well. At least it appears that she has a judge that understands a few of those arguments.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
coral cached linka ngelo/transcript050506.txt
http://riaalawsuits.us.nyud.net:8090/elektra_sant
At the moment the network mirror & mirrordot don't have the other article up, but maybe that's just me.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
5 THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see.
6 And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy
7 with her.
8 So let's set another conference date for July 8th at,
9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then.
July 8? This is Sept 1. Has anyone found a transcript from their July 8 conference? I want to read Part 2!
My defense is that my computer was infected by a trojan horse for many months without my knowledge :P
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
lives in the same world as you.
I know many peopel who don't knwo what kazza is, or more importantly, how it works.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The judge really didn't stand up to the RIAA, they just told the defendant to come back in 60 days with a lawyer.
I have no idea how the legal system works but, this whole thing seems to be an advertisment for the lawyer mentioned in the script. Is it customary to have that in there or is someone just trying to get publicity?
Only one thing to say: RIAA: 0wn3d by the law!
Pull my dongle!
Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer
Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for herI checked out their website and found this gem
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is great arguing by the entertainment corps.
Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.
The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
OUCH!!!
Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.
Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.
Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.
This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.
Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This lawywer blogged about this case yesterday at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005 /08/more-news-coverage-of-elektra-v.html
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest
Better yet, what she said was, Don't expect me to lure the virgin into the forest. Once you've brought her to me, she's under my protection, I decide, not you and your gang hidden away in the forest.
Infuriate left and right
It depends on the state you're in, and in some cases you are liable while in others you're not liable. Don't you just love the clarity of the law?
Check out what the Ohio Bar Association says about parental liability in Ohio.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Now they want people to "expire" just for copyright infringement??
I've long wondered just how much of the RIAA (and MPAA) posturing about "piracy" and peer-to-peer technology is just grandstanding to demonstrate some degree of ongoing relevance to the industry. Sure, the studios themselves are managed by people who are even more ethically-challenged, but their favored "industry trade groups", for all the time and money spent on suing filesharers, eradicating "piracy" and attempting to "re-educate" schoolchildren, haven't done much to staunch the bleeding, have they? If they even are bleeding
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Say you download 4000 songs, get sued by the RIAA, settle out of court for 2000 dollars. 50 cents a song, half of what you'd pay on itunes.
The Judge always seems to get it right..
Every lawsuit that is ever brought forth, the judgement resides in principal..
This poor lady had no idea this was going on, and frankly were here pubecent teenagers really damagings the recording industrys profits? The judge made a quick ruling probably because he had to take a leak, but when it comes down to it, the judge sees right through this lawyer and what exactly is going on. He is not going to be fooled...
RIAA get your fucking priorities straight. If you brought forth suit to a bootlegger who is making a full time $100,000 a year living on bootlegging, the judge might see in your favor.
Prosecuting this lady and her children is piss poor strategy to say the very least. If I were any sort of recording artist I would step right in as well to prevent some lady from getting fined over circumstances such as these..
I'm an author, and that means I'm an intellectual rights advocate. And quite frankly, I can see the basis for wanting to stop music piracy. And while recording artists are treated quite poorly in comparison to authors and actors, every time some music is pirated, it IS money that would have otherwise gone to the artist (and a lot more that would have gone to the recording studio, of which quite a bit should be going to the artist instead in my opinion, but that's another issue).
Unfortunately, the RIAA goes about it in such a thuggish way that it's just an embarassment, and makes it impossible to support them. It's like saying that guns are dangerous and some people might have some without a license, and then breaking into every house within five blocks and performing a search. The ends here just do not justify the means.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
(to parent and siblings)
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Actually, it almost looks like it is. The music industry guys seem to have dropped the ball big time with this one.
A little digging turns up a load of links to the various litigation documents, courtesy of defence lawyer Ray Beckerman's blog. If you read the defence's revised reply memorandum of law, they make a convincing (to me as a non-lawyer) argument for what appear to be two open-and-shut claims, which basically mean the plaintiffs have failed to make a case for the defendant to answer. If the court accepts that argument, presumably any of the the other stuff doesn't matter, because the music industry didn't file it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Interestingly, just before the conclusion, that defence memorandum reads
That sounds to me like not only are they trying to get this initial case dismissed, but also they're trying to block any attempt to bring any directly related case in future. I don't know how the appeal rules work if the court finds for the defence in this case, but given the defence's argument and the judge's apparent contempt for actions that don't give the defendant a fair chance to defend herself, it sounds as though this one's going to stop as dead as any music industry case ever can.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's what preview is for, huh?! Attn: Slashdot, it's 2k5, how about editing posts as long as there aren't yet replies?!
---
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
a harried, overworked stressed out recently divorced soccer mom and mother of five comes into a courtroom and she says she doesn't know what the hell is going on
you think she's stupid?
i think she's innocent
innocence has a funny way of appearing stupid to cynics in this world, you know?
but more important than that should be to you is this: it is upon this poor woman's back that an EXTREMELY cynical enterprise, the RIAA lawsuit mill, might actually be broken
so don't look your gift horse in the mouth
you should BLESS this woman and THANK her for being technically clueless!
there is a certain amount of knowledge in this world that is assumed to be necessary for you to survive: you have pay your taxes, you need a driver's license, etc.
but i hardly see that what you are saying is true at all: that the knowledge "p2 is bad" is common or even necessary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If he were anywhere else but in a court, it would have been most appropriate of the bailiff to shout "OMG PWNT, BITCH!"
if the RIAA tried to sue me i would not bother signing any papers and not bother to show up at any court appearances because i can not take this seriously, fsck em - the RIAA/MPAA are a joke...
--cant draw blood from a turnip
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Since IANAL, I can't answer that, but let's look at the transcript. The judge tells the defendant to try to find a lawyer, and allows time for this, squashing the plaintiff's attempt to get material from the defendant under oath before the legal advice is available. Then she tells the defendant she wants her to fight the case, and tells the plaintiff's lawyer that he has to present his case in court now they've started a lawsuit. Throughout, the judge is fairly clearly in favour of the defendant getting a fair day in court.
The one thing she doesn't do is give any indication of whether she thinks the defendant should actually win the case, and to my legally untrained mind, that seems to be the only thing that would have been inappropriate. In fact, I find it rather reassuring and highly appropriate that a judge was heavily in favour of a defendant fighting against a fair case in court, and not being intimidated into doing things that aren't in their best interests without the benefit of counsel.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So, lets say I go out and buy a DVD movie...
And I go out and buy a CD of music...
Then I go out and download every scene on that DVD from KAZAA or (insert your favorite file sharing thing here)...
Or I download every song off the CD from (share system)
Have I broken the law?
How do they know that I didn't buy it, how do they know that I don't have rights to make copies or download copies of something I have purchased...???
Hmmmm...methinks that something is smelling, and it wasn't beans and cabbage...
--E--
In Australia, it's fairly easy for a judge to classify an individual (client) as a "vexatious litigant" and require them to go through the courts to receive approval before they can bring suit against anyone, irrespective of their legal representation. We can't afford the court bandwidth to handle frivolous lawsuits, and judges here have little time for fools. Corporations are individuals in this context, I think (ianal). Does something along these lines appeal to the US judiciary? How difficult would it be to change that legal process in the USA?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Why isnt this +5 yet? Come on mods!
I might be nitpiking a small part of your reply but:
:-)
Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man.
That's right, and it's the MAN who's telling these people they cannot get married, even if the couple's GOD has no issue with it. Because the MAN's GOD doesn't approve of it, and the Man thinks everyone should follow what his God says, even if their own doesn't agree.
If you don't "settle" and it manages to go to trial, and you lose, what happens if you don't pay? I mean, I'm not up on the current law on that but like, remember that one case where the guy owed like $15,000,000 for like 3 songs or something stupid? What would they do, garnish his wages? Force him to pay it each week?
I'd just refuse. I mean who has the money to pay that kind of fee, even if they chose the settlement.
I just cannot see them putting some poor guy in jail...
"I murdered my family, friends and over a dozen people up and down the coast line. It all ended when the cops found me in the street pissing myself while eating shit out of a dog food can. So, why are you here?"
"...uh..I downloaded some Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan songs off the Internet"
Sure, they'll probably put them in the most lax prison there is, minimal security and whatnot. But still, prison for downloading music? Why should "the rich" be the only ones entertained? By rich I mean, those who can afford to drop $15 for a CD, or $25 for a DVD? I know guys who can't afford gas for their cars! And they don't drink or splurg their paychecks on stupid shit. They pay rent, little food and gas to get to work, and they still have a hard time affording GAS.
World's going to hell in a handbasket
Aw Frell this
My god, it's been four years or so since I heard that word!
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
There's a good interview with the lawyer at http://p2pnet.net/story/6062.
broken the law becasue Kazza will allow you to DISTRIBUTE those songs as well. I think you can turn that 'feature' off.
Historically, the RIAA go after distributers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I agree, but the problem with this is that the subsequent drop in sales will be blamed on piracy and they'll use that to push draconian and intrusive laws.
There should really be a good disclaimer for downloading kazaa. Something like:
"Warning, downloading music illegally may put your family in jail".
Im sure there is some kids who really just dont know its wrong. They figure, hey, they play music on the radio and it costs me nothing , why can't i just download a song I want to hear?
From http://www.stereophile.com/news/082205riaa/ ...
I wonder what the markup is on commercially produced CDs and DVDs ... 8000% ??
Such ... irony ... the recording industry complaining about the high price of pirated content ... cannot ... suppress ... gales of laughter ...
How about defaultuser@kazaa.com from 68.163.90.13?
It looks more like the judge was preventing her from being lead into a guilty plea or lucrative settlement by some fast-talking RIAA lawyer than defending her. There's a difference between an officer of the court defending the legal rights of a defendant who appeared to be not fully knowledgeable on the subject and acting as her defence attorney.
I do like her possible cover story of viruses, probably kazaa spyware, and having someone take it out to be cleaned and the hdd gets wiped in the process. Who knows if the alleged mp3 collection was copied before the hdd was wiped or even if it was really wiped. If she's no longer the owner of the PC, the chances of the RIAA getting posession of it are even closer to zero. Then the only question is the credibility of the logs the RIAA probably bought from someone else. The only way to prove some has "infringing" files would be to examine their PC and I have no idea how easy of not it is to obtain someone's property for a civil suit.
Does IP still mean Internet Protocol or has it been overtaken by intelectual property? It almost seems like the RIAA is trying to combine them. What does the RIAA lawyer mean when they ask: "Does your computer have IP on it?"
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Oh my god people are dying. Lets stop everything and wait until that day when people cease to die.
Is there a place where one can give donations to help fund her legal costs? I'd gladly send her a good $20 or so, and if enough other people do so as well, it might really make a difference. Plus, if she wins the case, everyone benefits.
but at a personal rate, which is half his normal rate.
He expects the courts to order the RIAA to pay the bill wheh they loose;which is not uncommon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Once you learn that 'legal' and 'illegal' aren't necessarily synonymous with 'right' and 'wrong,' well, it's all downhill from there."
I completely agree. That's why I'm saying it's ludicrous for all the asshats to jump out of the woodwork saying "Omg, how could a parent say they didn't know what their kids were doing!!" Well frankly, it's pretty easy for kids to do stuff their parents don't know about. You were all kids, you know this to be true. Parents do their best to teach kids right and wrong and to give them that moral compass, but in the end (and in this case) it's just not enough because that moral compass isn't sufficiently complex to cover (among others) copyright.
Either children must be forced (possibly to their detriment) to memorize the U.S. Code (because it's not just whether it's wrong in their own or their parents' eyes); or they must be present with their parents or some other liable party at all times.
Everyone who wants to 'blame the mom', I hope you see just how infeasible the solutions are, and in that light, temper your criticism.
Sorry to rant.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Yes, but the current proceedings will have very little if anything to do with the final outcome, so really, this is all just a bit of masturbation going around about whether it's good spin or bad.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
https://130.207.211.15/projects/mtsim
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
where do you think the french came from??
It won't let me post the other documents because it considers the citations in them as "junk characters"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I give a fuck. Apparently shooting looters is more important than saving people's lives. Someone needs to get their viewpoint adjusted:
5 247845,00.html
:v)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-
Vik
"I no longer have that computer that the IP address was on, that they say the music was downloaded onto, because it had developed a major -- a lot of major viruses, apparently, and was wiped out and taken by my ex-husband. He was going to try to get it fixed. And I guess he has it down in North Carolina right now."
Hmm...how convenient. The computer has been wiped and taken out of state by her ex, who presumably also lives out of state.
While I do hope the RIAA loses this case, Ms Santangelo may not be the poster woman for innocence we'd all like to have for the first RIAA trial.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5 247845,00.html
To be fair here the looters are starting to get in the way of search and rescue. There are reports of them shooting at rescue helicopters, officers and even people just trying to escape the destruction.The people who really need their viewpoint adjusted are the looters, especially the ones shooting at rescue helicopters. If they weren't doing that then it wouldn't be necessary to bother with them at this point.
Thank you for creating a "Missing Victims" thread! I too am looking for something. Sometime in the past 3-4 months, my lawnmower has disappeared. My garage is still there, and everything else inside seems to be accounted for. I don't know if it was Katrina, or possibly one of my kids that took it. Thank you for your help.
An even cheaper way to f*ck over the RIAA is to just not buy any CDs.
I can't believe people still sell this one. Let's be completely honest...they don't give a damn about the 3 cds a year that 1/2 a dozen slashdotters won't buy.
If you really want to hurt them, instruct your fund manager for your retirement fund to not invest in any RIAA member companies or fund products that have them in their portfolios. Share price scares CEOs far more than consumers ever will...but that takes commitment and a serious investment in your beliefs.
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards!
Andy Out!
I'm not sure the CEOs will be too concerned about 1/2 a dozen slashdotters not investing their hundreds of dollars in their billion dollar corporations either...
From the transcript (emphasis mine):
... The defendant was served on April 25th, and her time to expire does not --
[RIAA]:
[Judge]: Her time to answer.
[RIAA]: -- time to answer does not expire until May 15th.
Ahh...so just suing people isn't good enough...now we see what they really want!!
It is when the looters are shooting at the rescue workers - they called off the air-ambulances when one of them was shot at.
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
Nice job in "Appealing to Pity". Look it up some time and avoid making the mistake again.
Trusted computing will hopefully end illegal file swapping (and probably 100 other things that are legal and very useful). As much as I hate it, I have to support it.
The Golden Age is almost gone and crippled computers are the way of the future.
Enjoy...
I just wish Slashdot stopped posting summaries like that. We're adults; we don't need rhetoric spoonfed to us.
First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing.
"Extortion fee?" They identified an IP address from her computer that was infringing on their copyrighted materials, and so they legally went after her. I don't see "extortion" thrown around when people are demanding to sue companies that violate the copyright of the GPL.
I just think people use the RIAA as a scapegoat too often just to justify piracy. Five years ago, Slashdot, editors included, were ADVOCATING that they go after individual downloaders and lay off the companies like Napster. Five years later, they're doing just that, and suddenly that's wrong too.
"Sufferin' succotash."
How about that? It's an asshole grammar nazi, who doesn't even know what the hell they're talking about.
The GP's grammar was just fine.
You, on the other hand, just suck.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
After reading this I expected to read that Judge McMahon had called the RIAA lawyer a Nazi.
For Christ's sake, people, it's not the job of the government to make sure that nothing illegal could possibly be done with some piece of equipment you own. Either educate yourself about it or secure it. I'm completely sick of righteous ignorance.
I'm an author too, I write software. I'm an intellectual rights advocate as well. I advocate considerably shorter copyright terms and an entire restructuring of the patent system. Copyright is completely broken by the existence of copyright terms lasting for life + 75/95 years. Copyright should last a maximum of 28 years. Given the extremely efficient means of distribution and production that we have today as opposed to 200 years ago, I would even support shorter terms. Special interests and politicians like Sonny Bono have stolen what rightfully belongs in the public domain. In doing so, they have created an environment where the people at large see no reason to respect the system. Because the system is so imbalanced, people feel no shame infringing on an author's copyright. Who here would refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" to their child in public on grounds of infringing Time Warner's intellectual property?
Additionally, they've created an environment where innovation is no longer possible. An author cannot build on the work of others because once written, the work is monopolized perpetually. Due to the system we have now, innovation is dragging to a halt. The systems that made this country mighty are now killing it. Look at how horribly broken the patent system has become. Numerous 'businesses' exist solely to patent everything thinkable and sue anyone who dares to create. Empty shell companies do nothing but collect 'Intellectual Property' and sue others who attempt to make an idea into reality.
The fundamental reason for copyright, patents and the whole morass of 'intellectual property' is to encourage innovation and progress, not to impede it. The only way to restore intellectual rights is to restore balance to the system. Even if they weren't suing grandmothers and children, I'd feel no pity for the RIAA. They and their lobbyists have only brought this upon themselves. Massive and flagrant infringement is the symptom, not the disease.
ACLU - oppressing the majority for x years!!
The point is valid though. The largest chunk of money we can 'vote' with is that which is managed for us, typically invested in the stock market. Pensions are the number one. If you want to wield your economic clout then fuck where your coffee comes from, decide where your pension is invested. Combine the pension funds of thousands of slashdotters and you could be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
without prejudice
Can you name some of those cases, I'd like to take a look at that them? I am not aware of any of the cases actually being litigated yet.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yes, well, I guess it comes down to just how much weight Sony vs. Universal still carries with the judiciary. Apparently it doesn't mean much to the Supreme Court: ironic considering it was a Supreme Court decision in the first place.
That's what the RIAA's been running around saying. According to just about everyone else I've read, the only thing that happened in the Grokster case is that the Supremes said you can't go around advertising a program as being for copyright infringement.
To my knowledge, Kazaa's never been promoted in that way. But I suppose that's a matter for a court to decide.
Kythe
I have READ and RE-READ your post several TIMES and I still have FUCKING idea what the HELL you are TALKING about. Babelfish was equally confused; PLEASE translate to ENGLISH.
everything in moderation
I happen to run an independent label and I can tell you that file-sharing and digital distribution has been the best thing to happen to indie music possibly in forever. I used to be able to point to MP3.com as an example of a really progressive distribution channel but, well, we all know that story.
The other side of the coin is that in addition to not buying that new Nickelback CD is that you can't download their stuff either. Remember, if you're boycotting them and downloading their stuff, you really might be infringing copyright. That's not cool, AND the RIAA can sue you if they want. My personal opinion is that an artist can do whatever they damn well please, but they ought to do right by their fans. I don't have many fans but I certainly don't think that harrassing them for listening to my music is a very nice way to treat people.
As an indie artist/label I pretty much don't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I know that my job is simply to please two groups of people: artists and fans (not consumers; I learned in elementary school that 'consumers' were vultures and rodents that fed off the dead bodies of more productive life forms; I don't like that comparison). In short, I know that nobody gives two shits about the label; they listen to the music, not it's distributor.
Have some humility, RIAA. It'll do you good.
hell ya fight them. even her defence thinks the riaa case is weak for many reasion. due to file sharing laws being undifined right now. yes thers the dcma but it doesent strech that far. its abought dam time. it only took 13,000 people to bend over and kiss there ass befor someone stood up to them and so far seems to have a easy win. i think if she does indeed win it will set a standerd for other people to say hey wait i can fight them. if the riaa starts losing cases ad i mean enough of them not just 1. and people throwing in cost and damages bla bla making the riaa pay them the riaa will back off so will the mpaa they will be forced to rethink. im not a music priet but i do indded share mp3s mostly custom stuff remixes etc game sound. if i ever got a letter i could easy prove that they do no real checks on what people are downloadsing just looking at there traffic i could easly fry them.
Generations have grown up in the US taping music off of the radio and sharing albums with friends. Now with the Internet, it's just easier.
That is why the people of the US don't see anything wrong in p2p - it's basically what was done for decades, only easier, and can be done without knowing the people. But it's the same idea.
That's what the **AA are fighting,
I misread where you were comeing from.... doh! :)
without prejudice
I mean that seriously. In dealings between business and business, and business and consumers, the government is the final authority in disputes. If you can't get somebody to do what the law (or the contract) tells them to do, lawsuits are your recourse.
Most of the time, it never comes to that. The dry cleaner gives you back your shirts; the bank honors your checks; the contractor finishes your house. If that doesn't happen, your final recourse is a lawsuit. Every single business transaction has, at the back, the notion that you could, in extremis, ask the courts to resolve any dispute.
Most people never have to. But then, most people aren't faced with literally tens of thousands (millions, probably) of potential customers making an end-run around their real business model (selling CDs) and getting it for free.
The law suits aren't their business model. Their business model is selling CDs. The law suits are where they go when people break the law and upset their business model.
Look, I hate defending those RIAA**holes. They're being complete jackasses about this, and there are all sorts of recourses they can and should be taking besides suing people. The first step, as with the dry cleaner, the bank, and the roofing contractor, is asking nicely. I'm afraid they're long past that stage. Check this thread and you'll find an awful lot of people who feel that it's their right to download music for free. And as long as the RIAA find they have to turn to the ultimate recourse, they will do so. They'll file lawsuits. Lots of 'em.
Bullshit. If I was so inclined, I could sit down and burn 500 copies of Metallica's last album. I wouldn't even consider buying one of them, let alone 500. If those 500 copies just sit in my basement, then how can you possibly justify such a blanket statement? Where has Metallica lost any money?
A more down to earth example: I'm very poor at the moment. I have $9.13 in my bank account and lint in my wallet. With bills and creditors and obscene gas prices, there is no way in HELL I would consider buying a CD right now. So yeah, I've downloaded a couple albums. One or two of them I will probably buy, when I have the money again. Some of them I will not buy, and I would not have bought them anyway. Even if I didn't have the option of downloading music, under no circumstances would I be buying CDs at the moment... I'd make do with the CDs I already have and the radio.
It's one thing to suggest that piracy as a whole costs artists money (though this is very debatable. I'd claim that it only costs the high-profile artists money, and actually helps out the small artists. Personally, I care more about supporting independant artists than making sure Britney has enough zeros on her check, but that's just my opinion), but to suggest a 1:1 correlation of copyright infringment and loss of a sale is, franky, pure stupidity. My friend at UF has only a little more money than me, and last I checked he literally had 50+ gigs of music...
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
----------------
1 MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we
2 think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no,
3 I did not do this under oath.
4 The other thing is that --
5 THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified
6 complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So
7 she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
8 MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
-------------
own3d
...with decades of provable payola, collusion to fix prices, accounting tricks to make hundred million dollar movies always look like losses, screwing talent out of any decent cut, and etc that someplace sometime some DA might apply RICO to them, because it sure fits. They should be the last people pointing fingers and accusing someone of being a crook.
In addition to their representation of commercial and corporate clients, multinational organizations and creative artists, the firm's lawyers are encouraged to devote a substantial portion of their time to representing individuals subjected to governmental abuse, discrimination and other infringements upon constitutional or statutory rights.
Ummm, ok, so why are they (or he/she) helping her? This isn't governmental abuse, as the RIAA isn't an agent of the government. This has nothing to do with discrimination. She has no constitutional or statutory right to obtain copyrighted materials without paying for them or to facilitate others' doing so; not even the defendant is trying to claim "fair use".
This is not to say that she is guilty, or even (supposing someone else in the family actually did do something) that she should be held responsible. I'm just saying that it is incorrect to infer that any of these things are implicated because she is receiving counsel from a lawyer of this firm.
As IANAL, I don't really know the ins and outs of these things, but it seems to me that her lawyer might have something of a conflict of interest. After all, the firm specifically notes that its lawyers represent "creative artists". At a minimum, if I was one of those artists, or an exec for a company in the "artistic business" that was a client, I'd certainly question how effectively the lawyers there were representing my cause. Of course lawyers are supposed to be able to vigorously argue on behalf of their clients' interests whether they personally agree or not, but (rumor has it) that lawyers are human, and thus I would have a certain degree of doubt.
Heinlein put it best.
------
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You welcome our
([.]*)[AA]
overlords?
Aka why the hell include lineshifts? Not to mention that that regexp is also otherwise all fsckered up. Behold my double-pedant regexp powers!
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
No religion owns the word marriage. If marriage is an act before my God, than the "marriage" of Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists is no more legitimate to me (and presumably my God) than homosexuality or polyandry. Since our country honors religious plurality, and our laws are faith-neutral, legal marriage is clearly not an act before my God. Legalized gay marriage doesn't step on my denomination's toes any more or less than the legal infidel marriage that is status quo.
So the argument of "oppressing our church" by use of a word to mean something other than what a church wants is a red herring. On the contrary, the church is using its majority status to suppress the gay community. You see this in their other arguments--"then we'd have to let people marry animals too;" the implied comparison is appalling. The only legitimate question is how the law will address bigamy, but we have adequate precedent for that.
Rewriting our laws to replace each instance of the word "marriage" with something else, as has been suggested, is impractical and pointless. Next week we'll have to change "copyright" because it doesn't suit some powerful lobby.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
Uhh... my understanding is that most of these kids are 12+ yro, at which point they should be able to understand the difference between sharing and stealing. When back when I was 12, and I was downloading Commander Keen games off BBS, I was well aware that what I was doing fell somewhat outside the ken of "sharing". These kids aren't stupid, they aren't as naive as you think. I know some 14 year-olds who code better than coworkers.
I am glad people are standing up against this. We should all write a letter and make a call on these peoples behlaf.
Her lawyer says that they have no case because they did not claim that any unauthorized user downloaded the songs from her.
They only alleged (1) that the songs were "available for download" and (2) that they had downloaded them and determined that it was their property.
One is not copyright infringement. To have copyright infringement, copying or distribution has to happen. Making them available without more is not illegal until someone downloads them from you.
Two is also not copyright infringement because the people downloading the files are agents of the copyright holder and are authorized to make copies of the material.
Since the plaintiffs didn't allege any specific instance of copyright infringement, the case should be dismissed.
It seems to me (being a lawyer myself) that the plaintiffs could prove that copyright infringement probably occurred... but that's not the issue.
The issue is that they have to allege specific instances of infringement. If they don't allege actual instances of infringement, they don't get a chance to prove anything.
A win on this point would destroy nearly all of the RIAA's litigation against Kazaa users, because the RIAA cannot determine what others have downloaded from Kazaa... only what they have downloaded. It might be a different story for Bittorrent users.
That's great lawyering!
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. - Gandhi
First you win. Then they fight you. Then they laugh at you. Then they ignore you. - Iraq
Since when are facts sexist?
This woman is a mom, a mother, and likely a former wife (if she isn't still married). If any of these nouns describer her, how is that sexist?
I'm a fat, middle aged, balding man. That describes me. Is that sexist too?
F*ck being politically correct - I am a man; she is a mom.
I'm a honky to some people.
Facts are't *ist at all.
"Do that and you start denting the profits of the record companies who, in turn, stop financing the RIAA because they're not achieving anything."
Most likely they'll just blame the loss of sales on downloaded illegal music, and fund the riaa even MORE!
Copyright is becoming more and more a problem of civil liberty.
Any law that serves as an excuse to probe people's homes for "illegal activities" (the existence or inexistence of which does not harm any person) and bring them to court, possibly destroying their lives, must be abolished.
Copyright started out as a means to cover the costs of distribution and only affected those who could copy: Publishers. It gave incentive to distribute works for the inspiration of all and into the public domain.
Copyright ended up as a means to monopolize the use of content for high financial gains and now affects citizens in their homes. It gives incentive to create popular works that cannot inspire new works because no derivative works are allowed. It never ends up in the public domain.
Copyright is now wrong, abolish it.
Firstly from my standpoint he seems to approach everything with an attempt to appear almost as benevolent as a mother of 5, hence setting the tone of voice accordingly and the non-aggressive approach.
Secondly, the complaint didn't follow due process, why is this? Many here ridicule it, but I suspect it is part of the strategy, in which its ultimate goal is to make an agreement in court between plaintiff and defendant to sort the matter outside of the court, more specifically at the conference settlement center. It would serve several purposes which make sense, court and judge keeps their schedule open and plaintiff has a very good chance of a settlement that fits their agenda. That the plaintiff representative suggest she meets at the conference center without an attorney, to "facilitate things" nails it for me. A good settlement early is a hell of a lot better than a long drag in court; they have a lot to loose here.
Around here it's
May the force be with you. (And also with you, we lift up our sabres, with lift them up to the Lord (Sith))
You want to present an opposing viewpoint, fine, but I'm afraid you've just misrepresented my book rather badly. In fact, even just looking it up on Amazon.com would have told you that it isn't a strategy guide.
It is, however, one of the few books that traces MMORPGs to their roots in the 1960s. It is the ONLY place in print where the real story of the suicide of Shawn Woolley is covered (and I am very grateful to his mother for checking the chapter to make certain that I had the chain of events right).
And, in fact, all of my sources are credited in the bibliography, and those who contributed some material were compensated.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
In other words, if it weren't for copyright, there would be no need for the GPL. It exists because of copyright.
Beep! Wrong! If it wasn't for copyright, GPL wouldn't exist, correct. But if we didn't have copyright, the need wouldn't exist (in part the need would still exist!), but the GPL would be unenforcable - it builds very heavily on traditional copyright to make the one important restriction it includes - derivative works should only be redistributable under the same license. This restriction wouldn't be possible to make without traditional copyright - in fact, no restrictions at all would be possible to make, mooting the point of any kind of licensing scheme totally...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
it does NOT work. Like it does not work in DVDs and iTMS files.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Well Bloody Finally, stand up to the bloated agency known as the RIAA. Anyone contacted by them should fight back for the reason they are trying to stop a impossible thing. The Internet is Freedom, anyone can use it for anything imaginable (even sex toys people). Music downloaded or shared is free, over things like eDonkey and the Virus filled Kaaza service. All The RIAA can do with there lame ass *We traced your ip* is call you, frankly I think that if they can trace ips then do it right. They dont know how easy it is to spoof a ip. Hide under one while your online, for god sakes Script Kiddies do it. They are nothing but a agency trying to fight freedom of music and downloading, They will find this task impossible as more people fight back for the rights to do what they want.
Network admins really are f'ing morons.
Law class isn't that big.
But if you're not buying CDs, doesn't that mean that you're giving them the ability to say "oh, look, we're losing sales, it must be all the piracy, we need tougher laws"?
Not buying CDs is a good thing, of course, but you also need to be very open about your reasons. Write to the RIAA, write in your blog, write an opinion piece for your local newspaper - because otherwise, the RIAA will just misrepresent your actions in the worst way possible and use them to justify asking for even more power.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The mom doesn't recognize the screen name because it is probably a Kazaa screen name set up by whoever set up the Kazaa.
I am the author of the blog "Recording Industry vs. The People", and one of the lawyers representing Patti Santangelo and other victims of the RIAA lawsuits in the New York City metropolitan area.
There is, rightly, a lot of concern on how regular people can handle the economic imbalance in these lawsuits.
And there are in existence certain tools: (a) the copyright law's fee-shifting provisions, (b) Federal Rule 11, which bars lawyers from signing frivolous litigation documents, and (c) the willingness of some lawyers to take reduced fees, or to do some work without a fee at all.
My reading on the internet over the last several weeks, and especially of this thread on slashdot last night and this morning, gave me an idea for another possible tool.
I decided to try something a little innovative this morning, and added 'pay-per-click' advertising to our blog, http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com, and to its companion site hosting the litigation documents, http://info.riaalawsuits.us , with all proceeds from the ads to be used to help defray legal fees and disbursements of our clients defending the RIAA litigations.
I've never seen or done anything like this before, so I don't know how it will work out, but just thought you guys -- who have been fabulous in your passionate, thoughtful, and sometimes even scholarly exegesis of the Elektra v. Santangelo litigation documents -- would like to know.
Best regards,
Ray Beckerman
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Another alternative to screw the record companies and get the music you want is to buy used CDs. No money to the record companies and, if you're discriminating, as-good-as-new CDs for you. Note that this will not improve the quality of music distributed by the major record companies.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
The second conference actually took place on August 5th.
I appeared for Ms. Santangelo.
The RIAA plaintiffs were represented by MaryAnn Penny of the Cowan Leibowitz firm in New York City and by Timothy Congrove, a partner in Shook Hardy & Bacon, in Kansas City, Missouri.
Mr. Congrove participated by telephone, rather than in person, and he spoke for the plaintiffs.
The judge concentrated on the dismissal motion and asked Mr. Congrove to justify his position. Mr. Congrove said he would be citing cases in his brief on August 8th, but the judge wanted him to cite his cases then and there.
The first case he cited was a case we had ourselves cited as a reason for dismissing the complaint.
He made his arguments, and I made mine, and the judge had many piercing questions.
She indicated that she would decide the motion after all the papers had been submitted.
I am attempting to obtain a transcript of the proceedings, and when I do will post it at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com./
Thanks for your interest.
Best regards,
Ray Beckerman
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I would say that Maschio came quite close to being in contempt of court here. The Court had to go out of its way to censure him.
This is typical of the attitude that the RIAA has towards the courts. they expect the court to, in effect, rubber stamp the RIAA's private laws and fines.
Maschio quite brazenly tried to reverse the courts decision that council for both sides discuss the matter, instead insisting that Santangelo be dragged into the RIAA's private interrogation chamber, so that they may have their way with her. Maschio tried this no less than three times. If the judge was not so lienient with him, he would have been considered to be in contempt.
It's clear that simply going before a court to force someone into private arbitration is a waste of the courts time, and the judge made that clear. Hopefully more judges will beging to realise they are being taken for granted by large corporations.
May the Maths Be with you!
Not knowing is not a legal defense. Her kids were using Kazza and so she's responsible. She is doing a good job of playing up the poor ignorant mother bit though. But then she claims that she didn't have an IP address because she moved or canceled her ISP account, or doesn't have the computer anymore, or something like that, yea... yea... that's it... I don't even have a computer.
When it comes down to it, the RIAA subpoenead her ISP and their records indicate that it was her account. That makes her responsible.
Sure, the judge is going to give her a fair shake, but I'll bet you that the RIAA has a solid case and so will win.
http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/exAexAto complaint.pdf
Lit, Foo Fighters, 3EB, UB40, Godsmack, and Incubus. Probably not the mom who downloaded them.
I for one, welcome our new Gandhi meme overlords!d =13459296
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160847&ci
2 in same day!
I didn't think perjury was a standard part of RIAA lawsuits!
"And annexed as Exhibit B is a list of musical compositions obtained from the defendant's computer as of 11-4-04, which was the date of capture."
Obtained from the defendant's computer? Bull$hit! They did a "data capture" on 11-04-2004, which is a packet dump of Kazaa traffic to and from her computer. How the he11 can they say they OBTAINED these "musical compositions" from her computer?
"By that logic, Germany and Italy would be completely screwed. Especially the latter, since they'd have to pay the descendants of the Celts who suffered so much under their oppression two thousand years ago."
Perhaps but not necessarily. It is not a matter of how much the oppressed suffered which justifies repatriation by descendants of the oppressors. It is a question of how much monetary benefit do the descendants of the oppressors today CONTINUE to enjoy because of crimes of their ancestors.
Is it wrong to benefit from the proceeds of crime?
Do we accept that the descendants of yesterdays oppressed would have likely inherited what was taken from their ancestors had it not been wrongfully deprived them by their ancient oppressors? Do we believe
that todays descendants of ancient oppressors are in possession of wealth which was derived from the WRONGFUL possession in the past?
Are these not the basic issues?
I don't know what happened to the Celts at the hands of Germans or Italians. But I am also aware that germany was quite trounced during WWI and have a hunch that it would be difficult to establish that it derives any benefits today from its crimes 2000 years ago. But I would not deny that perhaps reparations are owed. It is certainly something which could be argued.
But purpose of reparation is NOT punitive.
Todays germans bare no moral responsibility for crimes which may have been perpetrated by their ancestors. Just as rich white folk of today are not morally responsible for slavery. However there is no JUST argument say they should be allowed to benefit from crimes perpetrated by their ancestors.
At least... no argument more persuasive than what I've heard around here which is : "that's bullshit!"
"Even if you were right, denying reparations wouldn't be bigotry unless it stemmed from hatred of the race the reparations were going to be given to."
I never said it was bigotry. But I will say that denying reparations (where they are established in a just and fair way) is theft. And denying the very principle of reparations itself is just simply embracing the principle that criminals should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their crimes.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
I think we have a new way of saying, "Bullshit!".
"My cracker ancestors came to the US after being persecuted by the Russians well after the end of slavery in the US. Why should any of my money go to people who's ancestors were on a different continent than mine?"
I'm not at all sure what you are talking about. Who's talking about *your* money?
"Owning slaves back then wasn't a crime, either. It wasn't a moral thing, but it was legal."
So what? If I accidentally burn your house down, I didn't do anything illegal either. But I still have to make reparations.. what's up with that?
Would you be satisfied if a law was passed making it a crime to possess the proceeds of slavery? If you admit it is a moral crime (which you seem to do), why would you then take the immoral position of hiding behind a legal technicallity?
"To go the complete asshole route: Take a look at Africa. I'd argue that the decendants of US slaves have it better than most who are still in Africa."
Well at least you admit that you are an asshole.
The western world has been fucking Africa since it was discovered. The only reason descendants of slaves are better off in America than the people of Africa, is that the West is STILL fucking Africa.
Just as we are trying are hardest to fuck south america. Except that south american's are now largely descendants of europeans (since we murdered something like 90% of the original inhabitants), so we treat south american's better than African's who are black.
A Religious leader of what country called for the assassination of the leader of what sovereign country simply for threatening to not sell its own oil to America. You'd think that American's belief THEY own that oil.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Nice examples, but I'm afraid they don't fit the challenge.
Example number one, the remixing, occupies a similar IP space as fanfiction. You're not taking a theme you hear elsewhere and creating a unique and original theme inspired by it - you're taking somebody's theme and playing with it directly. In software terms, that's like taking the MS Office source code and directly reworking it without permission. Sorry, but that doesn't stifle innovation - that forces people to come up with their own music rather than ripping off somebody else's, and therefore enforces innovation.
Example number two, the Internet radio stations, again, doesn't stifle innovation. It's not preventing the people from expanding the technology - it's requiring them to actually pay for their content. Unfortunately, it looks like it's another case of the RIAA abusing copyright law (and we're talking about legitimate usage of the law here, not the abuses of it), but in and of itself it's not stifling innovation.
Example number three isn't a case of stifling innovation either. Bittorrent itself can be used to pirate IP, but it can just as often be used for legimate purposes, and often is. What happened is that Bram Cohen wrote a manifesto in 1999 stating that he specifically wrote programs to break the law, and after that manifesto was discovered, it has been reflected onto Bittorrent, which was developed two years later. It's the case of somebody putting their foot into their mouth and it coming back to haunt them, not copyright law being bad.
Example number four is the closest you come, but it still doesn't make the cut. It's a case of researchers being uncertain as to the application of a new law - but that happens more often than you'd think. I was working in social housing, writing policy among other things, when the new Canadian privacy legislation (PIPEDA) was brought into force. Everybody I talked to figured that it would take around five years to learn what was required by the act, and to modify policy accordingly. When I left to go after my second degree, they were still working out what it all meant. It doesn't mean that the research hasn't been done, it doesn't mean that the research can't be done (in fact, the article quotes a section of the DMCA that specifically allows that sort of research) - it just means that the terms under which it can be done are still in the process of being understood.
I think one of the problems here is that people are confusing legimate use of a law with abuse of a law. The RIAA abuses copyright law like a bunch of bandits, in my opinion. If I have to fight a legitimate battle, I think they'd probably hurt my case in the end just because of the tactics they use. Copyright law does NOT allow a corporation to create phony warrants and seize a store's merchandise (and I still can't believe that the RIAA wasn't hit with criminal charges for that). For that matter, strictly speaking, I don't even think that an infringement lawsuit can be made to stick against somebody for downloading music (uploading or broadcasting music, certainly, but downloading, quite possibly not).
So, sorry, your examples don't work.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE FOLKS, THIS DESERVES AN INFORMATIVE +5 AT LEAST.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That is exactly her defense. Her lawyer (see many links to his blog above) is demanding that the RIAA point out exactly when and where the actual infringment occured using her computer.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They should consider getting a cute mascot -- maybe that would help their cause.
The RIAA is interested in just *one* thing - money.
I disagree, I think what they want more than money is control. See, the way I see it is if they really wanted money then they would ask themselves: How can we get the most money out of each person? Instead of the anger and hatred with which they seem to face the issue. They seem to me to want to control where people listen to the stuff, who they can show it to, etc. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your post.
link
-ZK
> ... 'legal' and 'illegal' aren't necessarily synonymous with 'right' and 'wrong,' ... ... ... Parents do their best to teach kids right and wrong and to give them that moral compass, ... it's just not enough because that moral compass isn't sufficiently complex ... copyright.
>
>
> but in the end
> to cover
As you said, legal/illegal isn't necessarily right/wrong.
Copying audio files might be illegal, but only according to laws that were meant to prevent the mass copying of books (and then selling the copies).
The RIAA/MPAA lawsuits demanding $150,000 for each single infringement found is perhaps legal, but is very wrong. The law is clearly based on an assumption of the legislator that the existence of a single copy proves that copies are being mass produced and that they are probably produced to sell them. Otherwise how is this pricetag justified? The existence of a single printed book proves that someone has operated a printing press to produce that book, and can serve as clear evidence that illegal copies are being mass produced. This justifies the pricetag in the law. This is clearly not the case when files, even thousands of them, are made available by individuals over their narrow uplink connections. Even having thousands of files "available" is immterial here since they cannot be accessed simultaneaously from the individual's computer. And the individual is certainly not running a business whose purpose is to illegally profit from mass producing illegal copies and selling them. It is WRONG to apply this law in this case, even if it's legal.
And in the particular case being discussed here the individual that is being sued wasn't even aware that there was anything illegal going on. It was a friend of the woman's child using the computer. So the RIGHT thing to do might have been for the copyright holder to ask the individual to secure her system... They prefered to sue based on the evidence that she was served to a certain IP address by a certain DHCP server. So now they are facing two mothers whose kids are using the internet (one defendant, one judge...).
Are you sure it's a good idea to talk about what brainless, easily-led moderators we have when /you/ are running (Score 4, Insightful)?
The fact is that you're trying to defend a conspiracy to destroy the public domain through perjury, intimidation, and the willful rape of certain lines of our Constitution that you're going to have to get used to having quoted at you.
Look, it's illegal to kill these people, and I'm not rich enough to buy any laws that'll stop 'em. On my budget, Gandhi's probably my best bet.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Here's a bedtime story I invented a few days ago because I was too lazy to get a book to read to my five years old Jonatan:
The Child and the Goldfish - bedtime story
A child wanted to draw a picture of the sea and wanted a nice fish in the picture. So the child typed the word "fish" in Google® and then clicked "images", and then he saw the picture of the nicest Goldfish he ever saw. It was exactly the fish he wanted in his drawing. He was so happy! He enlarged the picture and prepared to copy the picture just like he does with all the other images he finds in Google, but suddenly the fish started talking through the computer's speakers: "please don't copy me! I don't want you to copy me! Please! I will grant you three wishes if you don't copy me!"
The Child hesitated. He said to the fish: "But I do want to draw a picture of the sea, and I really like you!". Then the child thought for a moment and said: "OK. I promise. I want a sperm whale in my drawing. Can you get me a sperm whale?". "Sure!" said the fish. The fish extended a fin out of the screen and typed the words "sperm whale" in Google, then hit [enter], and an image of a sperm whale appeared. The child hit control-C, then control-V in Paint®, and continued working on his drawing.
Later the child wanted a dolphin. He remembered what the Goldfish promised, so he came back to Google, typed "fish", hit [enter], and there was this fish on the screen! How he wanted to copy the fish into his drawing. But he remembered what he promised. He asked the fish: "Can you find me a really nice dolphin?". "Sure!" replied the fish, and immediately extended one fin all the way to the keyboard, typed "dolphin", and there was this dolphin, exactly the one the child had in mind. The child hit control-C and then control-V and continued with his drawing.
But the child was not really happy with his drawing. It wasn't the drawing he wanted. He wanted that goldfish. It was exactly the fish he went looking for in Google in the first place. The child went back to Google, typed "fish" and then [enter], and there was the Goldfish again. The Goldfish asked "How is your drawing turning out?" and the child said "I don't really like it" in a very sad voice. The fish looked in the other window and said "but it's a really very nice drawing. I really like it!". The child said "I really wanted you in the picture, but I can't copy you... I promised". Then the fish said: "sure you can't copy me. But I can!" The fish extended one fin out of the screen all the way to the keyboard, hit control-C, then control-V, and there he was in the child's drawing!
The child was so happy! And the fish was happy too! The fish set his new home as the desktop wallpaper on the child's PC, and they lived happily ever after.
----------
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
Author and copyright holder: Ofer Hadas (aka hadaso in cyberspace)
Right. I think we are agreeing here. What is right/wrong is immeterial to the court wrt the suit. The judge will be there to determine what is legal/illegal (i.e., whether the suit has merit and will proceed), not the morality of the case.
/., right? :-)
Additionally, we are agreeing that in this case, it is hardly the mom's fault in any meaningful sense.
There is no doubt that the lack of physicality/scarcity makes issues related to damage caused by copyright infringement vexing. That's why we're always talking about it on
Cheers.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
And, as always, it comes back to this. Somebody with a bit of knowledge of history brings out this argument that if the founding fathers intended it, it must therefore be right. A good 18th century argument.
Unfortunately for you, it's the 21st century. The Jeffersonian democracy created in the Constitution hasn't existed since before the Civil War - something more modern took its place.
Have you ever actually taken a close look at what Jeffersonian democracy was like? Why don't we do that? Well, first of all, right at the beginning, all men are created equal.
Oh, are you black by chance? Because if you are, under Jeffersonian democracy, you're not a man. You're a subrace. If you're lucky, you might have been able to join one of the communities of free blacks in the north or one of the smaller communities in the south. But, as a subrace, you're not really human, and if you're a slave, well, the right to own you is guaranteed under the Constitution - property rights, and all that lot.
It's not quite as bad if you're Asian, but it's pretty close. You're still a subrace, not really human at all. Oh, and if you're a woman, you're a porceline doll. You see, the MEN get to vote, and take part in running the country. Women are cut out, but that's okay. Everybody knows that women don't have the mental capacity to understand large issues, much less make important decisions. Better keep them out of the process entirely.
Isn't all that equitable, is it? In fact, by today's standards, that sort of democracy is positively oppressive. But, for the 18th century, it was absolutely revolutionary. Imagine a government that is responsible not to the monarch, but to the people! Imagine a place where every citizen (not counting those pesky women and subraces) has rights! Imagine a place where your status in society is based on MERIT, not birth!
For the 18th century, it was a huge, revolutionary step. The founding fathers meant well - they wanted to make things better. But they were also 18th century people. The Constitution was amended and new laws were passed because the world changed, and as far as one's rights go, got better. The United States stopped looking at different races as being genetically inferior, and women got the vote.
And for copyright, that changed too. When the Constitution was written, what might have been considered copyright of the day protected publishers, not authors. The idea of actually conceding that an author could control what they wrote, and that their wishes were worth respecting honestly didn't exist at that point (and for that matter, it wasn't until the 1950s or so that the United States really started acknowledging international copyrights, and it still hasn't signed the Berne Convention). It was a much needed step, but it was only a first step in the right direction. There were more improvements that were to be made. As society progressed, the needs of society changed, and the laws changed with it.
What you are saying is that we need to regress in this matter - to take back all of the progress and social change that has happened in the last 250 years or so. That argument doesn't fly. It does, however, bear a remarkable resemblence to an excuse to allow you to do whatever you want and whatever is convenient to you, without regard to how it will affect others.
The Internet is relatively new technology, and it brings new issues to the fore. However, the key to coming to grips with these issues is to move forward, not regress backwards. The DMCA is a first attempt at that. It has its flaws, but as we as a society come to grips with the issues, it will be replaced with something more suitable.
You accused me of holding my hands over my ears and shouting opposing arguments out. Seems to me that you're the one guilty of that, not me. You're the one who is looking 250 years backwards, instead of looking to the future. You're the one who has twisted my arguments, not the other way around.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
It's "playwright," there, Bill.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club