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."

9 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. Support her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's the paypal button to her defense fund?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.