Slashdot Mirror
First RIAA Lawsuit to Head to Trial
mamer-retrogamer writes "Out of 14,800 lawsuits the RIAA has filed in the past two years, none have gone to court - until now. Patricia Santangelo, a divorced mother of five living in Wappingers Falls, New York, found herself the target of an RIAA lawsuit and vows to contest it. Santangelo claims that she knows nothing about downloading music online and the likely culprit is not her but a friend's child who used her computer. The RIAA disagrees."
No jury in the world would come down on a person for downloading a few songs when the corporation suing is insanely rich and greedy. Even if she were guilty, I would give her a slap on the wrist at most. Go after the people selling the pirated music!
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/When you're in the buisness of fear-mongering, backing down from things - even when it's completely irrational - just isn't an option. They'll keep repeating their truth until everyone believes it.
Every cloud has a silver lining, but, then again, so does every cigarette packet.
That song choice also provides strong evidence that it was not her that downloaded the music....
I don't believe that a jury would convict a divorced mother of five on the crime of downloading pirated media. If she wins this trial, it'll be a black eye for the RIAA: They're first trial fails to hold water. What would then happen?
From TFA:
And as for those who claim they didn't download any music, the RIAA says that if defendants got a letter in the mail saying they or someone in their house illegally downloaded music, chances are it is true.
"The chances of it not being the right person or someone in that household are slim," said Stanley Pierre-Louis, senior vice president for legal affairs at the RIAA. "Let's face it, what we're doing is on the right side here. What these users are doing is violating the copyright laws."
I call bullshit.
This is exactly why I have a second unsecured access point in my apartment piped to the internet. Plausible denyabilty. Who know who's using it? My modem's IP address could be connected to any one of the 50 apartments in my building.
Why do they always seem to pick on the "little guy"? A divorced mother of 5? How can they possibly make themselves look good by doing this? They would probably be more liked if they were to sue the 20-year-olds with gigs of music instead of the divorced parents trying to make ends meet, or the old granny. It looks as if they are trying to play the "Big mean bad guy", though I can only see this hurting them, am I wrong?
In litigating with spammers the first response is, "it is not us." I had one spammer try blame it on competitors and anti-spammers, but there was no offer of proof. Though this is different since liability for spam is not only on the person who presses "send" but also on the advertised site.
The "somebody else did it" defense is common. But, what proof has been presented to support it?
Here, we have not seen what evidence has been presented (in a summary judgment motion or motion to dismiss).
Fight Spammers!
Where's the paypal button to her defense fund?
I love the RIAA lawyer's quote, "Let's face it, what we're doing is on the right side here."
We're back in that universe where shaking down divorced moms with five kids for $3,000 - $4,000 or the threat of tens of thousands in court fees and damages, all as punishment for the heinous crime of the download of six songs, is "the right side." It's even more fun when you consider the possibility it wasn't even her who did it. I don't know, how popular is Godsmack among that demographic?
The RIAA interoffice memos on these cases must read like tobacco company internal communications.
Those are my 2 cents, and they're free.
Don't confuse the RIAA with evil. You, the voter, are evil. They just followed the letter of the laws you wanted.
Uhm, no. They are following the letter of the laws they purchased through a Free Market Government.
"Evil" is not in elections, or anything else. Evil is the willingness to fuck over someone for your own gain. Pure evil is when that gain is just for your own enjoyment.
The folks at the RIAA are willing to fuck over as many people as they can to ensure their own position in the distribution of music, a very profitable position. File sharing is dangerous, not just because people can download the latest lame Metallica song, but because it will allow people to distribute their own music. Yes, there's a lot of really, really bad stuff out there for free (some of it worse than Metallica's recent stuff), but as review sites progress, and the truly independent music scene evolves, people will be able to find the music they like, and the RIAA is cut out completely.
Independent music is doing to the RIAA what free software is doing to Microsoft-- making them stay up at night, even if it doesn't appear to be a real threat at the moment. P2P is essential for a solid independent music scene. The RIAA is trying not just to eliminate file sharing of copyrighted works (which is wrong, no matter how heavy-handed the bad guys are), but to paint all file sharing as evil.
If they can do that, they can destroy the truly independed music scene before it even gets started.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
1 out of 14,800 lawsuits.
Gosh that sounds like organized crime....RIAA shaking down 14,800 people for money...extortion is what it sounds like to me...sounds like the RIAA should be concerned about The RICO ACT
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
You realize that in none of the examples you quoted is the mother guilty of any criminal offense?
Is that a subtle mesage there on your part or what? If she is knowingly aware and does nothing to prevent it there might be some violations of law (accessory or negligence are my only guesses)... but if she's not aware and it happens in her house - she didn't do it and she's not liable, its that simple.
Kevin
If the record industry loses the case then they will have no legitimacy, if they win parents will pressure their representatives to change the laws that give them legitimacy. Copyright protection is a legislated right, not an inalienable one.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Ya know, if all of those 14,000 people had only decided to take the issue to court, it sure would have cost the RIAA a good deal of money in court costs. Too bad most people are too afraid to fight the corporate giant.
I congratulate you on being the first person I've ever seen who compared illegally downloading music to rape, doing lines of coke, operating a meth lab, and children watching porn.
Yes, throw the book at this vile negligent mother.
They'll probably assess the death penalty. On a positive note, it will probably be reduced on appeal despite the Attorney General insisting "she deserves to fry, the bitch, we are a nation of lawz!!!". Republicans across the nation will protest the activist judge who overturns it as "legislating from the bench", which is a big problem when the judge isn't legislating a reactionary agenda like he should be.
Jury nullification isn't a legal principle--it's pragmatism in action. I certainly think that there are times when it is warranted, but it's kind of common sense that "we don't have to rule against this person if we don't want him or her punished."
English is easier said than done.
Dear Mr. RIAA,
I have an excellent idea for you: Borrow Sony's DRM trojanware, (the trojan-net is already up and running) have it illegally download songs on selected people's computers, then fly in with a juicy lawsuit!
I'm sure a few scripts could even mail out the summons automatically, with a quick link to a Paypal account in case they would prefer to settle out of court!
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
3. Be a lawyer.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The voters aren't evil. They're ignorant. They are also stupid for voting when so ignorant. But it isn't evil unless it is gross negligence or intentional.
Most people would rather vote for the congressman who agrees with them on the war and abortion that the one who agrees with the on copyright. You have to rank issues, and for most people copyright is WAY THE HELL DOWN THERE.
Why don't we just blame YOU? If you know so much about it, go start a campaign. Go tell people. Don't just sit back and whine about people don't looking at this issue. Make them look at it. Local news stations and papers are often short on material. Try to get one of them to run a piece on these crazy laws. Get some outrage going.
But don't just sit back and decide the voters are evil. How useful do you think that really is?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occured at your IP address. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why single out the IP address as such a watershed in the chain of accountability that the burden of proof flips? To see what I'm getting at, what makes IP addresses so special, as compared to (for example):
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occurred in your city. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
the RIAA will need to show...that the infringement occurred under a screen name you frequently use. At that point...the burden then shifts to YOU to prove...that it was somebody else and not you that did the infringing.
--MarkusQ
This would almost work, except for one thing -- while it is indeed legal to sell a partial ownership in a CD you own, and it is also legal to make an archival copy, or copies, of a CD, the problem is that under the laws, you cannot have an archival copy of the CD separately from the actual CD itself. In other words, you could do this, make 100 "archival" copies, but to keep it legal, whoever actually had in their possession the original CD is also the only one that can lawfully have possession of the archival copies.
There were a few cases on this where video rental places wanted to keep pristine their originals, and rent out the backup copies. Even if done on a one-to-one basis, this isn't legal, because when the physical possession of the original CD is transferred, any archival backups (in any form) must either be transferred with the CD or destroyed. It doesn't matter that you are all owners -- the point of an archival bakcup is so that you don't have to go out and buy a new CD when the original gets destroyed, not so that you can listen to the CD at two different places at the same time.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
>
> a divorced mother of five...
>
And exactly what does this have to do with the merits of
the case?
Jury nullification isn't a legal principle
Of course it is. It's why we have juries at all, instead of just letting judges decide cases.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Search and seizure BY THE GOVERNMENT without a warrant is illegal and a violation of the constition. Search and seizure by the RIAA and the ISP is perfectly fine, and they certainly don't need a warrant.
Your Honor, Ladies, and Gentlemen of the Jury,
My client's computer uses a M$ OS. It was taken over by a hacker via BackOrifice. She did not download any music files. The defense holds that the hacker that installed BackOrifice use my client's computer as screen to download the files for his/her use.
Most folks, as my client, are not computer scientist, nerds, programers, etc.. They do not have the expertise to be able to deal with the clever manipulations of OS that hackers do. Do you really want to convict a person on the basis of the charges leveled by the RIAA. They need to explain, in detail, just how they ***know*** that my client was the one download the files that they allege that my client downloaded. Further they need to prove that my client did not at the time of the downloads that they allege, already legally possess the right to the music that the alleged files contained.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Let's assume the RIAA is 100% right, and the defendant has done everything they are accused of. The concept of damages will be interesting. I seriously doubt that the defendant made songs available for download that were not already available via P2P. The "lost" revenue is really just the money the defendant would have paid, IF they chose to buy the songs. Yahoo music service is what, $5/month? So if she paid Yahoo $5/month, she could have downloaded all of these songs (and the P2P underworld would have had all of the same songs anyway). I'd love to know how the RIAA thinks they can prove damages in excess of $5/month.
Search and seizure BY THE GOVERNMENT without a warrant is illegal and a violation of the constition. Search and seizure by the RIAA and the ISP is perfectly fine, and they certainly don't need a warrant.
I can't find my GameBoy. I think you might have it. I'll be over around 3 tommorrow to toss your house and see if a Gameboy turns up, at which point, I'll take it home with me, then sue you for something. Have a nice day, and please be a nice host and have refreshments for me when I show up.
I'd really hope the defendant's lawyers do a good job during the discovery process. They should be able to request all the records the RIAA has concerning their various investigations into alleged infringements, not just the cases they have been prosecuting. When they produce a list of corporate infringing IPs, it's going to seem odd that the RIAA is only going after shallow-pocketed individuals. If I remember correctly, to enforce copyright you are required to pursue all known violations in order to maintain the copyright. Maybe this case will force the RIAA to start filing many, many more lawsuits, including going after large companies as well. What happens once a Microsoft, Google, or .gov IP shows up on their hit list?
In the mid-1950's, Zenith engineers created the first wireless TV remote control, eliminating the need to have a child.
I thought we had juries so that a person's peers decided a case? There are plenty of times when jury nullification is done for all the right reasons--like Benjamin Franklin's exoneration from treason. But it can be quite sordid too, such as when obviously guilty people were let off for murdering blacks because all-white juries thought it was justifiable.
English is easier said than done.
That all will work perfectly if the kids are robots and do as they are told. You can not spend 24/7 with your kids and you wouldnt want that either. You can TRY to prevent but you can NOT prevent evertyhing and if you think that then you have no clue in what your kids are doing and you are the worse parent ever. Kids are humans and as such they have their own will and do things their way (amazing right?). How on earth do you think you learnt anything in this world or were you preprogrammed from birth???
You can NOT prevent all that you are saying there. It is impossible. Dont try to say that it is possible because its not. I am not saying that you shouldnt try but kids can always find ways around things. Most kids today knows how to turn off filters and firewalls while their parents dont know that so can you really prevent downloading music? No, so dont sit there and think you can. Get yourself some kids and you will know you cant prevent everything.
And if that first you say is true then Bush IS responsible for torture and war crimes and other crimes against humantiy but if he can say he is not then this mother can say she is not responsible for what her kids are doing (and perhaps doing it against her rules but that we dont know anything about so what else is she to do oh master of rasing kids?).