Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First RIAA Lawsuit to Head to Trial

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the take-a-number dept.

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."

25 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. I'd like to see this go to a jury. by gasmonso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure they would. Just not on a female mother of five. If she were a male, they definitely would screw him over.

    2. Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. by vsavatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the beauty of law. You can always find SOMETHING to contest. The jury is purely a finder of fact, but if the judge does not allow them to consider something they shouldn't have, or if he does allow them to consider something they shouldn't have, that alone is basis for appeal. There are tons of other reasons to file appearls, but the RIAA has enough time and enough money to litigate that woman into bankruptcy 500 times over.

    3. Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The woman is being accused of commiting a crime.

      No, this is civil court, which hs a different legal standard and no possibility of jail time.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure they would. Just not on a female mother of five. If she were a male, they definitely would screw him over.

      <cynic mode>You mean a white female, mother of five.</cynic mode>

      Actually, the corruption of the justice system has more to do with money then race. But even given that disadvantage I have a hard time buying that a jury would stick it to an individual who downloaded/shared a few songs. And isn't the burden of proof on RIAA to prove that it was actually her that did it? How the hell are they going to do that based on an IP address?

      Kudos to her for fighting them. It's easy for us /.'ers to say that we would do the same -- think of the money she is spending and the nonsense she is going through.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:I'd like to see this go to a jury. by E8086 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How the hell are they going to do that based on an IP address?"

      First thing to do is challenge how they got the IP, oh wait, it's IPA now, they're trying to hijack the use of "IP". We all know they're not doing any of the work themselves, they're just hiring "agents" who secretly enter people's computers to search for music files. If another company said it's true, then it must be true because large corporations and their contractors would *never* ever even think of saying anything that isn't true or do anything moraly questionable, like . It's possible they're borrowing the server IP logs of some RIAA bashing message boards, adding a couple songs, file sizes and time stamps and suddenly it goes from "you said something bad about our cartel" to "you're stealing sound". Ok, so it may not happen that way, but does snyone really know how the RIAA gets that information? People are challenging breathalizers because the firmware use closed source. It's all about the money, places in Vegas used, possibly still try, to rig slot machines to pay out fewer jackpots resulting in fewer payouts and more PROFIT. It may be unlikely, but still slightly possible.

      And the claims of lost billions due to what they call "piracy". I'd like to see some proof of that too. Yes, there are people who borrow audio files using the Internets, but does anyone really know how many and how much revenuse is lost because of it? I know people with large music collections they didn't buy, but I know more people with hundreds of pounds of records and CDs. My favorite stats are $250billion lost and 3% of sales lost. That's like claiming 3% of their sales is $250billion, do a little math and see that those "stats" are very questionable, they may be large corporations, but I don't think they're worth that much.

      They make up stats of lost PROFITs and inflate claims of "piracy" and like to pull a SCO and sue people to offset lower sales due to poor quality products. Their cases need to be thrown out until they produce some real proof.

      As for a jury deciding for defendant, not everyone reads /. and thinks poorly of the RIAA. It's possible the jury will be stacked with people with hundreds of records who will want to fry anyone who hasn't spent half as much as they have on music or believe some RIAA claims that "piracy"(ARRRG!!!) *not* price fixing is the cause of high CD prices.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
  2. Of course the RIAA disagrees... by Rabbi+T.+White · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. It's about time by johndierks · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This should be very interesting. Finally the RIAA's methods of targeting and suing their customers is really going to be called into question. If nothing else, finally it will actually start costing the RIAA cold hard cash to prove their cases, and maybe they'll start to understand the costs of willy-nilly litigation.

    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.

    1. Re:It's about time by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gotta love the logic on that one.

      "You infringed on our copyright!"

      "It wasn't me, just somebody who used my computer."

      "It was probably you because, let's face it, copyright infringement is illegal!"

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  4. Why? by sirgallihad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Support her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's the paypal button to her defense fund?

  6. The right side? Yeah.... by Potato+Battery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. I agree with her. by imstanny · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The burden of proof is on the RIAA. They are the ones that are accusing her of downloading music illegally. Now, just because it's her computer doesn't matter; It's like accusing someone getting killed by a gun. Simply showing ownership of who the gun belongs to is not enough to show who done it.

    Those are my 2 cents, and they're free.

  8. Evil by Tony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. Re:Evil by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The RIAA sees no threat there. They see a threat from people breaking the laws that VOTERS SUPPORTED.

      I don't recall a referendum on the DMCA, just a bunch of Senators, so what you really mean is that Congress supported it. I rather doubt a majority of people would support the law if they knew its implications.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  9. 14,800 lawsuits by sckeener · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Whatever the outcome, the RIAA loses by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:Juries can judge the law by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Court Costs for the RIAA by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, rather, can't afford it. Not everyone's willing to go into massive debt to fight 'the man.'

  13. RIAA, meet Sony's DRM trojan-net! by gwait · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. Logic check by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    ...or...

    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.

    ...and so forth. What's so magic about IP addresses that puts them up there with DNA?

    --MarkusQ

  15. Even if RIAA wins... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:She should be more aggressive by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Assuming this really does get to court... by TV_Slug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re:Juries can judge the law by hunterx11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.