Slashdot Mirror
Mothers Taking the Fight to the RIAA
An anonymous reader writes "p2pnet is reporting that two more single mothers are refusing to be victimized by the RIAA. Patricia Santagelo was one of the first to stand up and fight the lawsuits, which some say resemble protection racket schemes. Now Dawnell Leadbetter of Seattle and Tanya Andersen of Oregon have decided to follow suit and stand up against the recording industry behemoth. From the article: 'Don't let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.'"
...is most applicable. They are accusing based on evidence that would not stand up even in most civil courts never mind criminal, demanding a settlement before the filing of any suit, and then refusing to negotiate regarding said settlement, all on the basis that defending yourself is more expensive than paying. This is indeed a protection racket and the RICO hammer needs to be wielded against the RIAA.
I hope some crusading federal DAs have their children targeted and decide to go after the RIAA.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I wonder how much it would affect the strategy is large numbers of objectors banded together to create a massive defense fund. Retain a few lawyers and offer to defend anyone who is accused.
Agile Artisans
Ultimately, if you're going to fight this sort of thing, you'll want to not have too many assets, so if you do lose, you don't lose much. (Even a billion dollar judgement isn't worth much if the guy the judgement is against only has $6.)
You'll also want to have enough money to get some competent legal representation. The two normally do not go hand in hand -- usually when you have enough to defend yourself, you have so much to lose that it's safer to just pay. In fact, it's generally cheaper to just pay, even if you're poor, which seems to be what our entire civil court system is based on.
In any event, you may not need even thousands of dollars to defend yourself. You can spend as little or as much as you want on your defense -- the more you spend, the better the odds of winning, but even if you spend $0 and represent yourself, there is a chance that you'll win. It's also possible that some lawyers may work on your case pro-bono (since it would be good for a lot of advertising for them, especially if they won) and it's also possible that the EFF or ACLU may help defray your legal expenses if they decide that your case is strong enough to warrant their help.
Of course, there's also a very good chance that the RIAA won't push any cases far enough to actually go to trial. After all, so far they have a perfect record -- no losses -- and they won't want to risk that unless they're sure they can win -- and the people that are sure to lose are not the people who are likely to fight it.
The Australian government has already begun passing draconian laws of its own, following the cue of Bush
What laws would those be and how exactly do they relate to Bush? I'm all for people taking controll but it seems like ever fucktard out there thinks that everything was all milk and honey until Bush took office.
"Ahistorical - you think this shit just dropped right out of the sky
My analysis: it's time to harvest the crust from your eyes" - Fugazi
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
What happens in civil court when you show up and tell the judge that you can't afford to hire a lawyer?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I hope they keep up and tell the RIAA where they can shove their lawsuit. All it will take is one judge to rule in favor of any one of these single mothers to set a JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE nullifying every other case the RIAA tries to file.
Now back to reality, this will probably not happen this way. I'm not saying that the right to download a song is the exact same as the right to die or right to chose what to do with your own body, but everyone knows that these lawsuits are rediculous.
I hope they stick with it until the end, through all the appeals ... and win one for everyone. This is where we all knew that it would come down to. Whichever one of these cases actually makes it to court, will be the case that people refer to.
Lets just wait and see.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
IANAL, but there is a concept in American law called "collateral estoppel." In other words facts necessarily decided in the litigation of one case cannot be re-litigated. For the RIAA to lose just one case, they might be damaged in this area. Expecially if they lose a bad-faith countersuit as well.
I.e if you are in the RIAA's position and as a part of this judgement, the court finds that you acted in bad faith, you may not be able to challenge this in future cases. The next defendent might be able to point to that decision and say "Hey look, these guys are filing as next friends, but they have a record of doing so in bad faith. They don't own the copyrights and they have a history of abusing their access to the courts." Every additional loss would add to this ball of wax.
This is the problem that Microsoft currently has re: antitrust law and why they are so interested in settling things.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
But the RIAA is a perfect example of why many people around the globe have the feeling that most of the USA is full of nut-jobs!!
What a load this trivial seeming crap puts on the justice system.... just outlaw the RIAA, revoke their copyrights, returning them to the artists and be done with it. The artists are not profiting from these lawsuits. Turning everyone from 18 to 80 into white collar criminals is so unbalanced as to be laughable.
I hope these women make a dent in the RIAA money stash. I no longer care if the *AA have any valid arguments, their behavior is disgusting, and continues to be.
What a sham! Trying to force a single mom, too ill to work, into debtors prison, or its equivelent? Anything with dignity, legality, and general social validity rarely ever culminates in such outlandish situations... at least not that I can think of.
So how does America (and the world) get the attention of sensible members of the justice system? How does the public reverse this trend? Don't tell me how they were criminal and wrong and deserve to be prosecuted. There is no smoke without fire, and the stories of such ludicrous racketeering behavior is probably just the smoke.. not the fire.
Its just disgusting...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It looks possible that Kaaza was on her machine, but that she was unaware that it was there and what it was doing, for the purpose of this comment I shall assume that this was the case. (I am a Brit and so from an understanding of UK law).
Several independent points:
Can we make an analogy in law between liability of pet activity and liability of computer activity ?
In theory a computer is completely under its owner's control, but many people lack sufficient understanding of their machines to control it properly; what is the situation when a computer is hijacked by some malware that (unknown to the owner) causes damage (needless to say this happens frequently) ?
I think that the last 2 points are very important, I am not aware that they have discussed -- now is the time to debate this very important issue.
I would love to know what the law decides: is a computer like a dog or a cat ?
How do we send these women money?
Depends. I think you're a little underinformed. In any event, you may wish to revamp your definition of "bad faith".
... this is deterrence. It is not even about recovering damages for illegally-copied material. What this is about is making peer-to-peer technology seem too dangerous to use, because the RIAA (not the courts, not the justice system) has the power to destroy you at will. And the reason they want to do that is so that they can restore the heavy-handed control of content distribution that the Internet so handily took away.
There's a very real chance the RIAA would lose each and every one of the lawsuits they filed, since they aren't actually investigating these alleged crimes. Worse, they are basing their accusations on only the flimsiest of evidence (and I use the term loosely.) Besides, this is not justice, this is not even racketeering
The only real chain of evidence that exists in these cases are ISP logs. That's it. That's the only link between an address acquired via monitoring file-sharing networks (an activity that is, itself, of questionable legality) and the supposed infringers. Someone's life and livelihood hanging in the balance over an entry in a log file somewhere. Maybe in your mind that constitutes a sufficient body of evidence to warrant accusing someone of the heinous crime of copyright infringement. Courts, on the other hand, generally take a dim view of frivolous lawsuits, as they consider them to be a complete waste of time. If it were otherwise, the RIAA would be taking all of these cases to trial, rather than simply intimidating people with their Armani suits and threats of bankruptcy. The very last thing they want is a defendant willing to stand up to them and take this to court.
The RIAA is using the law in a punitive manner, acting as judge, jury and executioner, effectively bypassing due process. They are doing this by selecting people that they feel will not take the risk of a full-blown trial. How can you possibly say they are operating in anything resembling "good faith"? My God.
Now, even if one accepts that ISP logs (and the RIAA's own monitoring efforts) are one hundred percent accurate, and trusts the RIAA to even provide accurate information, one cannot remotely discern the particular individual who is "guilty" (i.e., the person who actually clicked the "download" button.) Consequently, these sociopaths just sue the person whose name is on the Internet access account, regardless of whether or not that person did anything whatever to infringe someone's copyright. Seriously, I hope you have an unsecured WAP plugged into your cable modem: perhaps one of your music-loving neighbors will help to give you an object lesson in these matters. I would be happy to provide him or her with the requisite software and technique.
And this really avoids the question of whether the law is just (it isn't) and whether this behavior on the part of the RIAA should even be permitted under U.S. law. Another poster who claimed to be an attorney used the term "barratry" to describe this sue-happy behavior, and apparently it is illegal. So just be damned careful where you throw your support.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A hypothetical scenario (not that it can ever really happen): you - a complete computer ignoramus - went to Best Buy and bought one of those strange devices with two pencil-like protrusions on the top that, the salesman said, will let you access your lame AOL from your laptop without running any network cables. You came home, followed the "Easy Installation Guide" and... IT WORKED, to your complete astonishment. The same day Jack - a pizza-faced college student and your next-door neighbor - cancelled his expensive Comcast broadband, because he just discovered a high-speed WAP that some loozer (you) left completely unprotected (courtesy of the Easy Installation Guide). Jack is a big fan of eMule and an mp3 connoisseur. In a couple of months you receive a "settlement offer" from the RIAA gang, suggesting that you sell your car and wardrobe to pay for all those Metallica "hits" that you supposedly downloaded. After searching through AOL and discovering that Metallica is some sort of a musical band, you tell RIAA to shove it. They decide to drag you into court. Question: how can they prove your guilt? A follow-up question: how can you prove your innocence?
Mothers are more important to society than the RIAA. If the RIAA, which is a leisure industry, is making life difficult for single mothers, who are doing the most productive work with the least amount of resources, we have our priorities misplaced.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
> In any case, how is it the RIAA's fault?
It's the RIAA's fault because they represent labels who have performed the following questionable or outright illegal actions (in no particular order)
- Paying radio stations in cocaine / sports cars / tens of thousands of dollars to make sure a single gets played 12 - 22 times a day every day for four months, ensuring a "reasonable" debut for an artist who nobody has ever heard of - and sometimes artists they have. This practice has been criticized and even litigated in the past (the 1950's and 1980's most notably) with little abatement in this practice.
- Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present, despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max. (Note that the price outside of North America is usually substantially higher.) LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982). Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so.
- Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice.
- Continuing to take major percentages of money from the sales of any possible merchandise an artist can make while on the road, including the sales of T-shirts, cd's, posters, etc. at the show's merch booth. (Note: this is one of the only ways an artist actually stands to make more money in terms of a major record deal.)
- Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at the very most.
Why labels have been dragging their feet since the introduction of the MP3 is beyond me. Maybe lawsuits were part of their actual overall marketing plan for 2000 - 2015. I don't know. Either way: the RIAA knows all of the abovementioned points. They should be brought to bear on the actual fiscal facts of this situation. We as consumers have been putting up with this crap for decades, not just since the introduction of the internet.
In my opinion, especially the Santagelo case proves that the labels and the RIAA are well aware that they are on the cusp of breaching the law themselves. They back away when barked at loudly enough. My hope is that real justice is served and copyright law is examined in much greater detail in the courts. Artists are getting screwed anyway, no need for the labels to make out like it's our duty to correct that.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
I think what the RIAA is experiencing is the inevitable backlash of randomly suing people for any reason or no reason at all. And let's be clear, randomly suing people is merely a business angle, another revenue stream. It has nothing at all to do with so called rights. That of course is laughable.
No what the recording industry is experimenting with is suing their customer base randomly as a new source of revenue in and of itself. It's like local police departments that periodically grind out thousands of traffic tickets. Fair? Of course not. Business as usual? Sure.