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."
What? No Limp Bizkit? No Britney Spears? No Kanye West?
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
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.
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.
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.
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
(Obligatory IANAL) They (the RIAA) can appeal the a jury's decision only if they can find an error of law in the case (e.g, the judge has to make a reversable error). Furthermore, the appealant court cannot make a determination of facts in the case (under the 7th ammendment to the constitution, this right is resevered to juries in cases of more than $20 unless both parties wave their trial-by-jury right) - judges can only rule on matters of law.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
In addition to saying "It wasn't me," she should challenge the constitutionality of the law which allows the RIAA to obtain her identity and examine her (allged) bandwith use habits WITHOUT A COURT WARRANT; illegal search and seizure is inadmissable in a court of law and the constitution is supposed to protect us against this sort of thing.
She could ask the ACLU to defend her on that basis and they might very well jump at the idea.
I've always hated that provision of the law (DMCA), which allows them to just bypass the courts and hire the cheapest lawyer/firm on the block to use their very deep lawyer funds chest to threaten the average joe with massive suits and see them capitulate, regardless of whether or not they are guilty.
You can't use a badly formulated law to punish the unjust and expect complete compliance from the masses.
Further, when copyright (copywrong?) can be extended to insane lengths of time far beyond what was intended (e.g. steamboat willie) and fair use takes a back seat to corporate profits, can we be very surprised at the disrespect/disobediance thses laws are receiving?
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Juries have a little used function whereby they can render a not guilty verdict by refusing to acknowledge the validity of the law itself. The concept is called jury nullification and is searchable if you want to read more about it. The high priced monopolisitic BAR lawyers guild and judges hate it, frequently threatening people in juries who even mention it.
Just another one of those things that isn't taught in US public schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Have you been selected to jury duty? I remember being screened for a jury in a trial where one of the lawyers asked the jury whether they would pass a guilty verdict for battery if a defendent had touched the toe of someone that had asked them not to touch it. Everyone, but me, said they would. Felony conviction for touching someone's toe. I think you grossly overestimate the free thinking capabilities of your fellow citizens.
I congratulate you on being the first person I've ever seen who compared illegally downloading music to rape
You must be new here.
There could very well be people getting into trouble who did nothing wrong. I service lots of residential machines and their loaded not just with spyware, but trojans and viruses that make their way into these machines through remote and browser exploits. Some these machines need complete re-installation even though I clean up all local machine and user specific startup entries.
These I suspect have been root-kitted to act as zombies or proxies. These people have no idea what kinds of traffic is running through their machines and connection. It sounds as if such people are getting sued in some instances, but probably don't the know well enough to realize what is happening.
It doesn't seem to me that a list of bittorrent peers associated with a copyrighted file proves guilt. The environment is too insecure to guarantee who the actual source is. It seems to me the RIAA should have to prove a couple things:
1) That they downloaded the file with the copyrighted name and verified that the content is actually the copyrighted material.
2) That the activity from the IP address of the peer being charged actually represents the activity of a particular machine's owner. They would probably need to confiscate the machine for this - is this feesible? Just charging the owner of a connection seems unreliable, many machines can sit on a home or business network. Can one be held responsible for hijacked traffic running through their pipe?
Where this is headed it seems is a battle over regulating net communication. The RIAA will begin to push technical mandates through congress to make the internet more "secure," which will be difficult at best without implementing lots of centralized control and monitoring. How long till we have sign our packets with keys? Then how long till "sponsored" packets become free, while others cost?
A recent slashdot story featuring Doc Searl's opinion piece, Saving the Net from the pipeholders" sum's up this position very well. It's kind of long, but but offers an insightful view of what's ahead, and is worth reading for anyone with interest in the future net as a decentralized, unprejudiced peer to peer medium.
It's a civil case, and people are not found "guilty" or "not guilty" in civil matters. The jury will be ruling either with or against the plantiff, and it is up to the jury to determine the amount of damages.
There are plenty of cases where juries have ruled with the plantiff but refused to award damages of more than, say, $1 - a token amount that indicates while the plantiff was correct, the jury did not feel they should be awarded much money.
-bugg
Just not on a female mother of five. If she were a male, they definitely would screw him over.
A male mother of five has bigger problems than the RIAA.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
IANAL, but I am a law student.
The case would set precedent. The strength of the precedent, however, depends on how far the case goes. If the district court says "X," then it needs to be consistant with "X" in the future (unless it has a darn good reason not to be). But the case might get appealed. The court of appeals sets precedent for itself and all courts lower that are in the same circuit. The Supreme Court sets precedent for all circuit and districts courts.
This is how it would work in application: The district court rules "X" regarding the case. If "X" is favorable to the RIAA then it will bring future cases to the same district court. If "X" is not favorable to the RIAA then it will bring the next case to a different court that does not need to pay attention to the decision of the first court, or the RIAA may appeal the decision of the district court.
If there is an appeal, the the same scenario as above applies. If the decision on appeal is favorable to the RIAA then the RIAA will bring future cases to any district court in that same circuit because all of the district courts are bound by the precedent set by the court of appeals.
If the court of appeals decision is not favorable to the RIAA then it will bring future cases in an entirely different district because all of the district courts must follow that same unfavorable holding. Or, alternatively, the RIAA may appeal the unfavorable court of appeals decision to the Supreme Court.
The courts of appeals and the Supreme Court all have the choice as to whether or not to hear arguments on the district court cases. The vast majority of cases never make it past a district court.
Really it's all more complex than this, but that's the basics.
The jurors are supposed to and expected to vote based on the laws. That's why the judge's instructions specifically instruct them to consider the evidence and detemine whether the defendant broke the law.
From the Juror's handbook found at the above referenced fija.org:
"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))
Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969))."
The loophole is that there is no punishment for jurors who blatantly disregard the law when considering their verdict. Therefore, jurors do have th power to decide based on their conscience, or their political viewpoint, or their mood of the day, or a flip of a coin. (Perhaps someone should set up a website describing your right and duty to flip a coin to decide a verdict - then that would make it the right thing to do!)
Jury nullification is not a loophole, it exists to remind the government that it has a fourth branch..."The People".
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Go after the people selling the pirated music!
Just because its ridiculously expensive doesn't mean that you can call it 'pirated music'. Jeez, people these days call anything at all 'piracy'.
The correct term for this crime is 'price-fixing'.
I'll probably be modded down for this...