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."

Comments

She lives under a rock!

[dustinbarbour]

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.

Re:An embarassment, really...

[Garwulf]

Really? Nice to meet a fellow wordsmith. What books have you published?

I'm afraid I do have to think we're talking about cross purposes here. It is true that information has a tendency of getting out, and should indeed be public. But a novel isn't information - it's a created work. Neither is a painting by an artist or a song. It may contain elements of information, but it is not information.

You are right that once the work is released, its legacy is beyond our control. I still remember publishing a year-in-review article that used a startling traffic accident as a framework, and the first thing I got as far as feedback went was people asking about my driving (which was the last thing I expected). But there is a difference between the legacy of a work and the work itself. When we publish a book, we share our work, but it is still ours. The act of sharing doesn't give somebody the right to snatch something away from you, or bastardize your work. And it certainly doesn't give somebody the right to disregard your wishes with what you share.

I don't bother trying to control the legacy of my work. Truth be told, it's better to leave it be, as you said. But I will fight to be respected when I take the time to share it. And I will fight to have my wishes regarding how that work is distributed to be respected.

Re:I too...

[Garwulf]

I am so sick of this argument, it makes me see red.

Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model. You see, I've heard this argument again and again, and I've never seen anybody actually manage to justify that statement about copyright stifling innovation.

In fact, it's COPYRIGHT that protects the open source movement from being downright raped by corporations like Microsoft! For that matter, do you even know what copyright is? Do you know what you can and can't copyright?

Don't bother to reply unless you can actually put your money where your mouth is. Either provide some concrete evidence, or can it!

(And by the way, you may be a software author, but the general term of "author" is earned when you publish your first book.)