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

As the IRAA starts going down hill

[crispybit]

Now that the women are taking care of business, crap will get done

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not. It doesn't matter whether or not their accusations are true.

They are more powerful than you because they have more money than you, and that's all that matters in the United States in 2005.

Re:But...

[mOdQuArK!]

The seemingly-crazy imbalance in the courts is scarcely all going one direction.

That's called backlash - what you get when you get a bunch of normal citizens being referees for a David-and-Goliath match, and they collectively make up their minds that Goliath's representatives are mind-boggling assholes. It's the kind of result you might expect in a society where there are huge class differences, but you still have the remnants of a jury-by-common-citizen system.

I think if you looked carefully at the statistics though, this kind of citizen backlash occurs infrequently compared to the times when the common citizen gets screwed over by entities with lots of money & legal representation.

Re:But...

[DrEldarion]

Which is why you can get a $20-million settlement for spilling your hot coffee in your lap while driving

It's nice to see that we have people looking into the facts of things before flinging accusations around!

Firstly, to clear up the facts, she was not driving, she was a passenger. The car was stopped at the time. Secondly, she did not receive $20 million, she received $640,000. $160,000 for medical expenses / pain and suffering / etc. (reduced from $200,000 due to her being partially at fault), and $480,000 in punitive damages (reduced from $2.7 million). She originally asked for $20,000, the cost of her treatment, and only resorted to a lawsuit when McDonalds refused that.

Now, McDonalds sold their coffee far hotter than is generally accepted. How hot? 180-190 degrees F. This, IIRC, is about 30 degrees hotter than it is usually served at, and is hot enough to cause THIRD-DEGREE burns in as little as two seconds. If you don't know, third-degree burns result in PERMANENT disfigurement, and require A LOT of medial treatment. Her doctor said that it was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen. Consumers were unaware that this drink could pose such a serious threat. A study was performed, and no restaurant in area was higher than 20 degrees less than McDonalds served it at.

There's more - in 10 years, McDonalds had reports of over 700 people getting injured similarly, but did nothing. To make things worse, McDonalds even ADMITTED that its coffee was too hot to be fit for consumption when sold because of the burns it could cause.

This case is constantly thrown around as being an example of frivolity since nobody actually bothers to look into the details. People who actually do the research typically view it as a very fair ruling.

a citizen can't afford a lawsuit

[KiloByte]

Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you're not guilty of violating the law, don't pay.
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's not something an average person can do, so the choice boils down to either paying the extortion or suffering a personal bankcrupcy.
You're a citizen, not a company. You have no rights.

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.

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.

New Org

[oiper]

MARIAA. That does make a nice acronym.

Re:New Org

[Werkhaus]

MARIAA. That does make a nice acronym.

But how do you solve a problem like MARIAA?

WE ARE RIAA of BORG

[infonography]

"This is the RIAA Collective," they said menacingly. "Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your Financial and topographical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

That and we don't got dates for Saturday.

Re:Editors - edit

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? When would the editors find the time to actually proofread posted articles? Slashdot has what, 20 accepted articles per day? If the editors actually took 30 seconds to proofread each one, that would waste an entire 10 minutes every day! You think they have that kind of time to spare, just to make their site easier to read for the thousands upon thousands of visitors who do the rest of the work for them and make this place what it is?

Re:What's there to fight?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you steal music, via internet or at the store, you're still stealing.

Repeat after me, COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT IS NOT STEALING. It is in a legally separate category. Copy right infringment is sometimes against the law, but it is never stealing.

For the last fucking time....

[MustardMan]

IT IS NOT STEALING. When will you people get this through your thick skulls and stop believing the propaganda? Copyright infringement is a crime, but it is NOT theft. If it was theft, they wouldn't have to invent a whole new category to call it. To steal something, you have to gain what another person loses - you steal a car, someone loses a car and you gain a car. Copyright infringement is NOT stealing. You can tell, because due to the lobbying of these assholes the penalties for copyright infringement are WORSE than the penalties for genuine stealing.

Re:For the last fucking time....

[TheGavster]

That's it. From now on, instead of downloading music I'm going to break in and steal the masters. At least then I don't have to deal with crappy compression.

Re:Victims? Not really

[Renraku]

Point is, physical laws on an electronic medium.

If I took you to court and said, "This man over here stole $4000 worth of music from my music collection. Pay me right now for damages." they might consider it, but what if I told them by stealing I mean that you took my CDs, copied them, MP3'd them, and then returned them without any kind of damage? Now is it stupid to ask for their full value?

Now what if I said that instead of my entire music collection, you owe me 50 times the price I paid for them. I'd be laughed out of the courtroom and cornholed by the baliff for making him miss McGuyver.

But its all good if you're a company, because God knows whatever a company says has been well researched, thought out, and their word should be taken over mine at all times.

Re:Victims? Not really

[The Angry Artist]

Excuse me? I can't tell you to RTFA, because you are quoting the article, but this is just totally out of context.

Full paragraph:
I have always been against music downloading. In fact, I have been a member of BMG's music club for quite some time and I purchase my music either from there or from Target. 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. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there.

I don't know if you're trying to make a point or not, but you completely ignored everything Tanya Andersen said in that paragraph.

Re:Victims? Not really

[tktk]

Nice job of selective quoting.,,

She tried to delete it and her computer says it's deleted. It can't be her fault if it's still used to share music.

"...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. Even though I deleted it correctly, as is recommended by Microsoft, Mr. Eilers has told me it can hide out in my system and play without me knowing about it. I have done a total check of my computer and it is no where on there."

Re:Good

[cpu_fusion]

The post you're responding to never said they'd infringe on copyrights, did it? Just that they wouldn't give the RIAA any money. Nice try.

On top of that, have you actually listened to the music being produced today? It is largely crap. Go look at what people are actually downloading over the P2P networks -- a lot of it is older music, music that under a reasonable copyright system would already be public domain.

(Or wait, do you think people should still be paying for Beatles and Elvis albums that have been burned into their neurons by radio, TV, freaking elevators for the last 40 years?)

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 ?

Re:Good

[thejynxed]

Everyone knows they have a new business model now. It's called: Sue children, single mothers, grandparents and yes, even dead people in some cases. So, at least in theory, their business model has evolved somewhat.

Re:What's there to fight?

[sanx]

A simplistic juvenile answer. Here are a few rebuttals.

Copyright infringement is not theft. It's not stealing. "Stealing music" is a phrase invented by groups like the RIAA to try an justify their actions to the general public. Only the truly gullible and terminally stupid (i.e. you) really believe them. If you want proof that copyright infringement is not stealing, then simply look at the papers the RIAA filed. "Theft" is not the offence these mothers have been accused of. QED, copyright infringement is not theft.

Your post assumes that these mothers are guilty of the 'crime' they have been accused of. They way the RIAA spin in, it's beholden on the accused to prove their innocence. This act is directly counter to the principles that many legal systems were founded upon; notably - that one is innocent until proven guilty.

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. All the mothers can hope to do in this case is prove that they didn't use P2P applications or have music on their machines they didn't have a legal right to. This doesn't prove they weren't sharing music at the time the RIAA alledge.

The RIAA should be made to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that:

1. These files they alledge were shared were on the computer belonging to the accused.
2. That the files contained tracks for which the copyright is owned by an RIAA-affiliated organisation who has specifically given the RIAA enforcement powers.
3. That the files had been placed in a shared directory through a deliberate interactive action, not placed their automatically by an application / trojan, etc.

Re:Good

[E8086]

"under a reasonable copyright system would already be public domain"

or under a resonable business model it would have dropped in price and be readily available for purchase. But it's out of print and the few times you find it the seller is asking for a "collector" price of $100+ and you think; "I want it, I'm willing to pay for it but I can't buy it because it doesn't exist anymore other than maybe a low quality 128kbits iTunes download that really isn't owning it, so I'll download it" I wonder how much an on demand CD reprinting service would cost. It would be nice to have some of that "older music" on CD for $5-$10, the kind you can only find on old used cassette.

Re:Good

[xigxag]

The fact you heard it in a commercial means you have the right to it for free? That doesn't even make sense.

No, the fact that it is 40 years old means that the creators got whatever profit they should be entitled to. Music which has entered the common culture over a generation ago no longer should be "owned."

Furthermore, even if we accept that copyright ought to be immortal and that copyright violaton is tantamount to theft, the punishment should fit the crime. Running a red light is a potentially deadly action. So why is the punishment for that less onerous than the punishment for uploading some old Kraftwerk?

And finally, the legal system should not be used as a weapon for the wealthy corporations to bludgeon poor individuals. Regardless of what the offense may be.

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?

Re:Why is that?

[Floody]

Not if they have evidence that said single moms have broken the law. They could be 95-year-old great-great-grandmothers, but if they broke the law, they're a valid lawsuit target.

They allegedly have evidence. If someone has "broken the law", the correct prodedure is to contact the attorney general or relevant law enforcement agencies. If, once investigated, they believe said evidence is sufficient, the individuals in question will be processed through the criminal court system where they will be provided with an attorney if they cannot afford one, the right to trial by jury and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. These are cornerstones of a society which, supposedly, values individual freedoms for all over special interests.

What the RIAA is attempting (and with some success) is to manipulate the civil legal system into a criminal surrogate, wherein they cause (or threaten to cause) such financial strife that defendants bow to their mighty will in an attempt to avoid life-long reprocussions that often make it difficult to provide for the future of the defendant's family (credit, education, etc).

Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it.

They cannot, yet, imprison individuals but I'm sure they would simply love that sort of power.

The RIAA, and other similar organizations, are not elected representatives of the public trust and have no business acting in the capacity of such. Their blatant attempts to portray themselves in this light combined with predatory litigatious behavior would generally be considered crimes of coercion under common law.

Re:Meh.

[modecx]

What the hell are you talking about? The generation that listened to the Beatles is still alive today.

No shit. They were an example--legends with music that transcends time, they WILL be heard for generations after anyone involved with them has gone! Perhaps you missed the forward pointing language, but I don't think that's my fault. Yeah, they're still alive and kicking, they deserve the fruits of their labor, but it's all too likely that the bigwigs who invested in their music have kicked the can--corporations excepted, they can live forever. Should their great-grandkids still be collecting royalties after they're gone? Should King's Quest I be tied up until 2078? Is it right that some Vanilla Ice wannabe in the year 2075 would have to liscense that famous loop from Under Pressure? I don't think so. Its insane.

There's plenty of music, video, photos, and stuff that has been produced since 1923, which is still copyrighted, and that stuff won't become public domain until 2019--if they don't decide to extend copyrights again, that is. Do you think it was a mistake that the copyright extension act was Sonny Bono's pet project? Talk about a guy with vested interests, too bad he couldn't stick around to gain from it. Many (most, nearly all) of the people who were adults when they created works in the 30's are gone now. Some of the stuff is still relevant, but it's sad that photos, newspaper articles, and even floor plans from the 30's and 40's could still belong to someone/something, I think.

I think milking copyrights in perpetuity is wrong. 40 years isn't unreasonable. 50 years isn't necessarily pushing it. I think the current 70 years for personal authorship is a little long (even if you create something at 18, you're covered till you're 88, that aught to be long enough to get your share out of your works). 95 years for corporate authorship is simply disgusting, though.

The thing is, they only need to find another Sonny Bono to push their agenda, and they've got it in the bag. That's not right or fair, and this is from someone who makes pretty good money on the side doing creative stuff, which is covered by copyright. In a world where nearly all arts are built upon the foundation of previous works, super long copyrights are a burden and a hindrance.