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.'"

Comments

The protection racket angle...

[suitepotato]

...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.

What about a massive defense fund?

[jarich]

They are (generally) going after people who can't afford to fight...

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.

Re:a citizen can't afford a lawsuit

[dougmc]

Wrong. Your only choice lies between paying a few k dollars to an extortionist company, or getting many millions to be able to afford lawyers and stand through the trial.

It wouldn't cost millions to defend agaisnt the charges. Thousands, yes -- far more than the RIAA is asking for -- but not millions. Sure, you could spend millions, but you don't have to.

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.

Is a computer like a dog or a cat ?

[Alain Williams]

When I first got my computer set up almost three years ago, I had a friend set it up for me since I did not know how to do it. She had put Kaaza Lite on there and told me what it was. I never used it and had no interest in doing so. I deleted it since I had no use for it.

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:

1. Should not the RIAA go after the friend who installed Kaaza, since it was she that caused the computer to ''perform illegal activities'' ?
2. There is a notion in law of ''intent'', ie you need to intend to do something to he held liable. So should Ms Andersen be liable for something that was performed by her computer when it was not her intent that the computer do this ?
3. If my dog causes you some damage I am, as it's owner and the dog being under my control, liable for that and responsible for putting it right (ie paying). However: if my cat causes the same damage I am not liable since the law recognises that a cat cannot be controlled.

   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 ?

RIAA, P2P, and Wireless Networks

[Venik]

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?