Slashdot Mirror
Fighting RIAA Without an Attorney
2think writes "Yahoo News is reporting that Patricia Santangelo of New York will be taking on the RIAA in court without an attorney. It seems that Ms. Santangelo has committed over $24,000 due to her case and simply cannot afford to continue with the services of an attorney." From the article: "Her former lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says Santangelo doesn't really need him. 'I'm sure she's going to win,' he said. 'I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there.'"
first post! Hope she wins.
In a serious vein, if she wins it will set precedent and give hope to others that can't afford a lawyer.
The Mothership
I'm guessing the RIAA will drop the case anyway and try to find someone with a bit more cash on hand next time. She's flat broke, what use is she to them now? Wait, this is supposed to be about justice? My bad...
Vandemar.org
If they have no case hopefully she will be able to get back the money she has spent on lawyer fees. My concern is that she may lose and her case may create some sort of precedent. The only way she could lose a case like this is representing herself.
'I'm sure she's going to win,' he said. 'I don't see how they could win.
Well, I don't know. Maybe her lawyer could stop defending her. Then they might win.
"Gee, judge, I have no idea how the cocaine got in my suitcase or who put it there. Can I leave now?"
That's her defense. Good luck, Patricia. Yer gonna needit.
Her former lawyer said this? Ham sandwich comes to mind. Remember O.J.? They have her IP Address. She did it. They have experts and they cannot afford the bad PR. She needs a lawyer.
While the RIAA may have the law on its side to pursue these cases, is it truly just to file blind lawsuits in this manner. If they believe that everyone who buys a PC must know how to adequately secure it from external and internal users, doesn't it then stand to reason that it should be suing the OS and hardware companies who sell their products in a completely unsecured state? Or shouldn't the RIAA work with these companies to make their products secure out of the box ?
Why is it the responsibility of this woman to become a security expert in order to benefit the RIAA ?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
How and why is downloading something illegal? Wouldn't distribution be illegal because it's copyright infringement? But how or why is downloading be illegal?
Isn't that just an extension of freedom of speech? The freedom to listen/watch?
Is listening to someone, who didn't pay the RIAA, sing the copyrighted song Happy Birthday illegal? Or is flipping through a stack of unpublished/unlicensed photos illegal?
Is it because there's a copy of something on the computer? Would streaming be more legal?
I want to know what law is being broken. I looked this up in the internet and still have no definite answer. I simply need to know.
They can prove that you download a file how? By supplying it to you? By finding you in a swarm of BT users? If they supply the file to you, then I would think that would constitute some sort of unethical treatment by the company. Here are drugs, you can have them, but not use them. But we'll sue you in 3 weeks because you have them and steal all of your money. Some people are collectors, meaning that they download things just because they can, and they never use it. The law is broken at the time of download. In reality, no money is ever deprived until the end-user uses the downloaded file without paying for it. The people who should REALLY be mad about downloading movies is Blockbuster and Netflix, as they will never get any money from the downloaders, not the MPAA. Same with rental places for CDs, not the RIAA. Rent and rip, like you always used to. Now people are just cutting out the middleman, and not renting.
I guess civil, otherwise she could just get a lawyer assigned to her.
And will there be a jury?
I don't think any jury would be willing to convict her. Which would set a nice precedent.
The music industry is shooting themselves in the foot, once again, with these lawsuits. Conceivably, many of the people being targeted in these lawsuits are using versions of Kazaa/Limewire/iMesh for which they have paid. The more computer-illiterate among them don't know the difference between paying for an ad-free program and paying for music.
As an on-site computer technician, I've talked with many parents who didn't understand they were still taking a risk by letting their children download from Limewire Pro. They think since they paid for the program, they have paid for the music. They don't under the difference between peer-to-peer programs and legitimate music download services.
I often think that the RIAA is going to turn many novice computer users off from online purchasing altogether because they are going after the unsophisticated user who doesn't understand copyright and what constitutes a legitimate channel and what does not. If they really want to stop online piracy, they need to go after the makers of the software, not the poor people they duped into believing that they had "purchased" music.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
And we all have an interest in her winning.
Where can I make a donation to her legal defense fund?
And why has the EFF not taken up the case?
Reality has a liberal bias
Except that, on the net, this really does happen. People take over other's computers all the time, to host porn sites, warez sites, to use them as hops/storage on the way to another computer, and for all sorts of other crap. There's really no reason to assume that someone is guilty for having files on their computer with the net as it is today, and security as it is today.
Know what? Irrespective of whether I download music from net or not,Iam thinking
Is it better I dont have any mp3 on harddisk & instead play from a dvd full of mp3's?
These guys seems to be mad after people!Eeks!
How do they know what is on her computer? Did they raid her house for a civil suit, or do they have some sort of remote monitoring software?
so if "Santangelo doesn't really need him. 'I'm sure she's going to win,' he said. 'I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there.'"" ... then you (Ray Beckerman) stole her money?
I just want to know - how does the RIAA know that those files were on her computer?
They may have a civil case against her - but I wonder if she has a criminal case against whoever searched her computer?
Unlike drugs, or kiddy porn where the mere possession is a crime, copyright infringement is only a tort if it can be proven that you transferred the files to someone else. In any event, it's very possible that her box could have been a zombie, rooted by some bored teenager looking to file share without risk.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If she wins, can she then file a countersuit against the RIAA for the cost of her defense?
This is something most people don't get, and it's a misconception the RIAA/MPAA push as much as possible when they go on about "illegal downloads". They've gone way past the limits on *distribution* that copyright imposes, and they'd like to attack your right to watch and listen to the speech of others at its very core. Their business model can't easily coexist with basic human freedom in the digital age, just as many moguls and kings in the agricultural age couldn't get by without slavery; after all, didn't their incomes depend on it?
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Every person who advocates for the RIAA and punishing downloaders falls for one or more of these errors. Reject these, and you see the RIAA's legal tactics for what they are: criminal extortion and racketeering. Now that the RIAA gets to teach these awful anti-values to elementary students, however, the future of freedom is in serious jeopardy.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
You fail to understand the reality of our legal system if you think you have any legal rights when you lack an attorney. We live in a caste system. Judges simply do not read briefs unless they are written by lawyers. As soon as someone goes pro per, the lawyer on the other side always starts writing its briefs so that the judge does not need to read the other side's briefs, you can see the shift in language. Then, when you read the decisions, it is clear that the judge did not read the brief of the pro per party. Judges are former attorneys. They defend the interests of the legal caste. It is completely irrelevant what the merits of a case are when you lack an attorney. People who think otherwise think that the law is more than the ritual of language by which the herd enforces social position.
Being in court without a lawyer is no different from being black in court in the South in the 1920's. They will find some way of explaining that it is your fault that you lost, some way to justify their legal decision, but there is no chance you will not lose.
They're her kids too, and she's responsible for what they do as well. Have you people ever heard of "rationalization"? I'm as crooked as many of you, but at least I admit it....
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I doubt the RIAA lawyers are just nice people doing the right thing, they are just $$$ whores.
Oh and those prosecuting lawyers that have put 100% innocent people on death row, well I doubt
they are nice people too since hiding evidence, or faking evidence is part of their game, to win a few
more cases, even if it kills a few innocents. Yes DNA is real to those lawyers. At least engineers
create stuff for humanity and not deliver people to a slaughter house.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
How did they know there were those files on her computer? Was it like, they gained a backdoor entry into her PC? Wouldn't that mean the RIAA broke the law...??
Chaitanya a.k.a PaRAdoX
"If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children." I know that at my university the internet contract stipulaes that letting anyone else use my computer while it is connected to the internet is cause to have my connection severed (and I eat the semester's prepayment.) Not sure about liability if I go to the bathroom and come back to find someone was busted at my machine.
Just sell all your assets, buy gold coins/bars, hide it at your grandmas house.
Hire a lawyer with $1000 down payment, then never pay them back, tell em bad luck, i have no assets, sue me
for nothing. Fake a personal loan debt to your 'brother' and pay him to pay you.
Or, outsource to india, get a lawyer for $5/hr. That'll teach em for helping coorporates.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The only legal basis she would have, I believe, is to accuse the RIAA of trespassing. It's a weak argument though.
This case has the potential to set a valuable precedent, either in law or at least in the public image of the RIAA and their jihad against file-sharers.
Even if a lawyer volunteered his/her services, the party must also pay costs. Yes, where is the EFF?
I will contribute what I can afford if I find a way. There certainly is a large enough population who read about these issues, and would like to see her win, that if each gave, say, $25 it would amount to thousands.
There is talk of a defense fund at p2pnet. The article says they're waiting on a script (?!) but I'd settle for a p.o. box.
"What about engineers who develop weapons?"
The RIAA has no proof they downloaded any songs either.
To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:
:) (that ethics are more important than legal technicalities.) But if you're suggesting that copyright is unethical, I disagree.
Actually, several of premises are actually false, or are putting words in the RIAA's mouth.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
No one ever said copying and sharing are heinous crimes. Unauthorized copying and sharing of copyright materials is against the law (copyright infringement isn't a criminal act, but it can get you sued).
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
I'm not sure what you meant, so I can't refute it. Please elaborate.
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.
Within the United States, copyright infringement is most certainly against the law; in fact, Congress is explicitly given authority in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to make copyright laws. While the US Constitution obviously has no authority outside the US, copyright is virtually universal through international treaties and most (all?) countries have their own copyright laws.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
I agree with you
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
Actually, in the world of copyright, this is often true. If you buy a copyrighted CD, you do not fully own the material. The copyright owner still owns the copyright to the CD; you own a license to it. When you buy the CD you don't "own" the music; you are, in a sense, leasing it from the copyright owner. Even Richard Stallman, who appears to deeply dislike the *intention* of copyright (I know, the GPL is enforced through copyright; I mean copyright's intention of restricting redistribution) has said this (though in the context of software, not music).
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
I don't know of anyone who is saying this. It's just as easy for you to copyright your own work as it is for a large company. But given the context here, I'm not sure what's so "creative" about copyright infringement.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Profits are rarely, if ever, guaranteed, but your wording is rather misleading. You're trying to appeal to the hatred of the faceless CEO and his corporation by contrasting it with the word "freedom." By "freedom," you really mean "the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder." By "guaranteed profits," you certainly mean the RIAA making money through selling music (even though most Slashdotters argue that consumers wouldn't buy many of the CDs they pirate, so that means these profits are hardly "guaranteed"), but the profits could just as well be a small software company selling its copyrighted program and making enough money to stay in business, or a fledgling artist scraping together a living.
In any case, when an individual buys copyrighted material, he is fully aware that he does not have the right to redistribute it; if he doesn't want to be under such restrictions, he is perfectly free to decline to buy it. If I sign a contract with you to clean your toilet every Saturday in exchange for some "guaranteed profits," I am fully aware of the fact that I'm giving up the freedom to do something I'd much rather do on Saturday. But perhaps I can't find any other job, and having the "guaranteed profits" minus my "freedom" on Saturday sounds more appealing than starving.
If you do not oppose the existence of copyright, I apologize for putting words in your mouth (I did so because several of your statements seem to imply that you do oppose it). I most certainly don't defend ever
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Until now, we heard very little from the artists involved in the media files which caused of the lawsuit. Maybe some large scale bad publicity would help.
If they really want to stop online piracy, they need to go after the makers of the software, not the poor people they duped into believing that they had "purchased" music.
Filesharing software can also be used for legal downloading, and if the RIAA can punish the authors of file sharing software because users used the software illegally, that's very dangerous (of course, such episodes have already played out in the courts). As far as I know, these software makers never say that their software's license includes the cost of music licenses. If they did, that would be false advertisement. Unless that's happening users should be held accountable for how they use software, not the authors of the software.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
The European Court ruled on appeal that the UK government was wrong to deny legal aid to Morris and Steel because McDonalds then had the power in the case completely shifted in their direction (for those who do not know, in the French slogan "liberté,égalité,fraternité", the "égalité" bit means that the law applies equally to everybody, and this is a principle of European law.)It would be interesting to know if the US constitution could be so interpreted, so that a corporation with effectively limitless access to money and representation could not use this to roll over the rights to a fair trial of somebody without that much money. If not, then then the US would be technically a fascist state, i.e. one in which the Government colluded with unelected corporations. This is where we need some rulings from genuinely conservative judges like the one in the Pennsylvania ID case.
Pining for the fjords
Basicly, in order to win in court, they have to prove (IIRC) that the machine owned by the defendant was serving a file AND that the file is something they hold copyright to.
Whereas, to extract a settlement, all they need is enough to suggest that the defendant was sharing SOMETHING and the defendant will probobly pay up (especially if they do actually have illegal audio files somewhere, be they the files that the RIAA mentions in the lawsuit or otherwise).
The burden of proof is much less for the "convice the ISP to hand over the data without a warrent or court order then hit them with a lawsuit" option than for the "go to court and file a john doe case to get the details of the person who owns the machine that was supposedly sharing copyrighted files" option.
Which is why the RIAA & friends want new laws around the globe forcing ISPs to hand over logs and data without warrants. (anyone who is elegable to vote in the relavent countries, please vote for people who do NOT supporting such nasty laws, I know I did in the last australian election)
If she wins, to get her money back!
Seriously, where is the donate link? Let's give her her money back! I'm good for 5 or 10 bucks!
Let her come out right back where she started *and* victorious in court.
The RIAA would not comment on her case - the only answer they could come up with is "The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store". This just goes to show how ignorant the RIAA is. You know, they fucked up and they know it. The very LEAST they could do is retain a shred, just a shred, of dignity and drop the damn case. We and they already know their public image is ruined for the length of their existence but for the love of God, do what is right. I've seen the RIAA do some dastardly things but this tops everything. I'm almost speechless...
There are court documents on her case here (as well as other cases):
/
http://www.recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com
[ ]Clever sig [X]Lame sig
from the go-down-swinging dept.
Nice to see she has your vote of confidence, ScuttleMonkey.
when was it proclamed that an *.mp3==cd track?
thats like telling me my copy of ice harvest (a bt download)recorded with a camcorder at a movie theater==the DVD.
Serenity now, insanity later.
When I was a kid, growing up in the 1970's, I bought and listened to records. My friends and I would sometimes loan our records to each other so that we could 'share the love' - records weren't cheap, and sometimes it just didn't make sense for several of us to own the same title. Sometimes we took it a step further, and made a cassette tape of a record.. and shared it around that way. But in the end, the 'real music' was the record itself, not the copy on the cassette.
Sometime in the early 1980's, I (well, may of us) got duped into buying CDs. Perfect sound, now and forever we were told. I sold my records and my collection of CDs grew, but for some reason, by the mid 90's I'd stopped buying and listening to my CDs. I was doing a lot less music listening in general, but when I was listening, it was to tapes of my old records and mix tapes / tapes of CDs that were floating around. At the time, I just assumed it was the natural progression and change of interests in my life, and life went on.
Then something amazing happened. I struck up a friendship with a guy ten years my senior, who was a big vinyl junkie and in possession of some very trick analog gear - turntable, tube amps, etc. I was frigging blown away! From the first time the needle hit 'Zombie' by the Cranberries, I was sold. The reason I wasn't listening to my CDs, is that they sounded like shit, and I'd been duped by the Digital hype. The folly of my ways was apparent, and I immediately went out and sold all my CDs, and bought a turntable - as well as a simple little tube amp - and I was in heaven. Today, my LP collection is over a thousand titles and growing, and the music just keeps on playing.
So what's the point of this boring backstory? It's this: Digital media, at least music, is a joke. It's not real, and it doesn't even sound like it. CD playback has gotten a lot better, and I don't begrudge someone for buying a new CD - especially if there is no vinyl release. But the idea of paying actual money for a crappy sounding compressed version (MP3) of an already crappy sounding CD is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of. These $0.99 music downloads are completely worthless, and the record companies / RIAA know that. Not only are you getting a poor replica of a music track, but it's totally without any tangible value. You're just one hard disk crash away from losing every song you ever bought - but never really received.
Sorry for the chiche, but the emperor really has no clothes - the entire business model of selling songs for download is nothing more than that - a model of business; a marketing breakthrough. And when you are selling worthless products on a large scale, you'd better be carrying a damn big stick. Or carrying a bunch of lawyers, who themselves have big sticks.. possibly with nails through them.
Thanks for your time, and my regrets if this wandered off-topic. I think you get my point.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
....has a fool for a client. (Attorneys excepted.)
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
"Mod Parent Up."
How insightful.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
name one Republican senator that voted against the DMCA (I'll give you a hint, it passed the Senate 99-0). Both parties are just as deeply entrenched in the pockets of the Copyright Industry. Where are all the Republicans clamoring against the DMCA if it was the ohmygosh so evil Democrats loved it? You very well can pin what is today happening (not solely but certainly in a majority part) on the Reps just because they're the ones currently in freakin' charge!
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Where are the FACTS? "Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer..." Was she accused of DOWNLOADING SONGS, or was she accused of sharing i.e. DISSIMINATING copyrighted material? Why is reporting on these cases so SLOPPY and imprecise? If a reporter was this sloppy in Iraq (were the troops under fire, or were they firing?) someone would get fired.
Corporations should be required to contribute to a federal fund, equal in proportion to the amount in which the corporation sues non-corporate entities. That fund would then be used to supply non-corporate individuals with the civil equivalent of a public defender.
Can't you see the house & senate passing something like this? Ok, stop laughing.
_______
2B1ASK1
I know that at my university the internet contract stipulaes that letting anyone else use my computer while it is connected to the internet is cause to have my connection severed (and I eat the semester's prepayment.)
That tells me that the issue is ambiguous enough, that university has to explicitely spell out who will be responsible for people using computer's that are not their own. Basically closing the "it wasn't me" hole.
There are a lot of falsehoods and misleading information being reported about this case. A full set of court documents is available; scroll down to "Elektra v. Santangelo".
First, Ms. Santangelo is not being charged with just downloading. The complaint actually says that Ms. Santangelo used Kazaa "to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others." As evidence for this charge they present a series of screen shots of Kazaa showing an account that is offering thousands of songs available for upload. Their claim is that this account corresponds to Ms. Santangelo's computer, although no evidence for that has been presented yet at this stage of the proceedings.
They did not inspect Ms. Santangelo's computer, which supposedly is in her ex-husband's possession and has had the disk wiped due to virus infections. They got the data from Kazaa by looking at the files which were (supposedly) being offered by her computer for upload.
So this is not a case of "downloading", it is a case of downloading and/or offering to upload. If that account actually does correspond to Ms. Santangelo's computer, the simplest explanation is that her kids were doing it, and she is responsible for their actions.
Even if it is the kids' friend, it's unlikely that he downloaded thousands of songs onto their computer without the kids knowing it. And even if he did, Ms. Santangelo could still be liable herself, and then she would have to sue the friend to recover damages on her own. In other words, she would owe millions of dollars to the RIAA, and then she would sue the friend for millions to cover her debts. But the RIAA would not depend on her success in suing the friend.
In short, instead of paying a few thousand to settle this and make it go away (and punishing the kids for getting the family into this mess), she is now out many times that already, and is likely to end up owing an astronomical sum. Her only recourse will be to declare bankruptcy.
There are two lessons from this. The first is that parents ought to keep better track of what their kids (and their kids' friends) are doing on the family computer. But the deeper lesson is that even with cases like this in the press, the odds are still so much against any given person being caught that most parents still don't worry about it. Unless or until we reach the point where most people have personal friends who have been sued, or at least friends of friends, nobody is going to take these threats seriously. At this point it's still like being struck by lightning or killed by bears, a theoretical threat that is so abstract and rare that few people take it seriously.
Does anyone know why the EFF isn't all over this case?
$SYS$attorney
Thankfully, the EFF has sent its lawyers to defend the poor lady.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/200
And that's what I think her legal strategy is. Truthfully folks, what jury is going to convict? And without better evidence, how can a judge give a summary judgement against her?
The RIAA should have cut and run from this one long ago.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Ouch!
mitch
Also, these RIAA investigators have been accused by others of not only using illegally-modified software but also of breaking into people's computers. Again this taints all the evidence they gathered. Any competant lawyer would have a field day questioning the actions of these investigators. If any of the investigators have broken the law in pursuit of copyright violations, all the evidence hey have gathered is suspect.
The mistake Ms Santangelo has made is trying to get the case dismissed based on reasonable arguments that a poor, divorced mother of five shouldn't be allowed to be abused by multi-billion dollar corporations using the courts as part of an extortion scheme. The truth is that justice has very little to do with the justice system. It's about power, money and ambition on one side and justice on the other. Usually justice loses.
Instead she should have countersued the RIAA and filed complaints against the RIAA lawyers with the bar. Because of her strategy, there is a decent chance she will lose because she is fighting the good fight but not necessarily the winning one.
IANANIAAFM
It is relevant to the IP Address question to discuss recent moves in Texas by several municipalities to have traffic law changed so that they (the municipalities) could install red light cameras, and use them to bust red light runners.
Under Texas Law a criminal prosecution based on the image of a auto license plate made by a red light camera is useless in a criminal prosecution. This because of the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases. There has been a move in the Texas Legislature to enact provisions of statute that would allow red light running to be treated as a civil offense due to the lower standard of evidence in a civil procedure. Specifically, to proof by a preponderance of evidence.
The question arises then, if an IP Address is sufficient to meet the civil standard. In other words does this constitute a preponderance of evidence. Further, it will be incumbent upon the RIAA to show that their discovery of the files in question was done in a manner that respected the rights of the alleged file holder. IOW, did the RIAA run afoul of the law in their snooping? If so then the RIAA has problems that may be of a criminal nature. If this is the case then the IP Address will likely be ruled inadmissible in court. I would not bet against such a ruling.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Santangelo and Beckerman were confident they would win a motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the record companies had enough of a case to go forward. She said the issue was whether "an Internet-illiterate parent" could be held liable for her children's downloads.
What do you think an f.r.c.p. 12(b)(6) motion is?
That's her defense. Good luck, Patricia. Yer gonna needit.
Obviously you haven't heard of that british guy who used that same defense a couple of years ago and got child pr0n charges against him dismissed. He proved that he was a victim of email viruses and adware - and the court bought it.
I'd provide a link but I'm not having any luck with Google.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
This is correct, but it's not the only reason.
The legal system functions like a club. Even if you're fully aware of your rights and the laws, if you're not in the club, you will grossly mistreated no matter how right you are, and when all is said and done, you'll end up screwed.
When I was a broke college student, I tried to represent myself in court one time against a minor offense I was accused of. I thought it was going to be open-and-shut, with me being the beneficiary of our fine system of justice. I had incontrovertible proof that I was 100% right. (Incontrovertible proof in the "photographic evidence" sense, before the days of digital cameras and desktop photo editing.) I was up against an assistant prosecutor who was obviously trying to get a promotion (aren't we all, right?) and two police officers who flat-out lied on the witness stand. (Again, I had incontrovertible photographic evidence that they lied.)
While I was testifying, the prosecutor objected to my pictures because she hadn't seen them. (I'm sorry, since when does the prosecution have the right of discovery?) The judge cut me off while I was questioning one of the officers about how he knew where I was at a particular time (which was the crux of the case against me) because it was "irrelevant." Before the case, the judge told me that I was not entitled to a jury trial, and after the case, when the judge said, "Guilty," she literally leaned over the bench as I was walking by and said under earshot of everyone else in the room (including the court reporter), "You know, you never really had a chance."
I saw the prosecutor a little later, and she said, "You can appeal if you want to, but they never overturn these cases, and it will cost you thousands of dollars. You should just pay the fine and be done with it."
If I had money backing me and a lawyer with me in the room, I'm 100% sure it would have been a totally different story, and I'll never set foot in a courtroom (or a police station, for that matter) without a lawyer representing me. Not because I think they're particularly smart or because I don't think they're scummy like everyone else does. In my estimation, the vast majority of them are not providing a valuable service, they're just bottom scrapers who leech off benefits from a crooked system.
Needless to say, I have a very grim view of our (lack-of-) justice system to this day. While most people are so worked up about how a miniscule number of guilty people walk free because of it, I'm much more concerned about the opposite problem, which is how many innocent people get screwed by a system that is geared to find everyone guilty regardless of the truth, and how many people get extorted by this stupid system. Now, whenever I hear of someone who's been accused of a crime, especially a poor person, who pleads not guilty and is convicted, I keep a much more open mind to their situation. I'm just glad that I found out how it works on, as I said, a minor offense that ended with a fine, and not something serious.
Thanks, Judge Nancy Campbell of Cobb County, Georgia. I used to have a lot of respect for the law and for judges. I really appreciate you showing me just how naïve I truly was.
They're her kids too
"If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children."
and she's responsible for what they do as well
While I'm in the next room, my child's friend grabs the mouse on my computer, installs Kazaa, and clicks on copyrighted songs, minimizing the program and leaving them to download and upload. I do not have a firewall. The copyright owner finds out and sues me. Is it my fault?
While I'm making dinner, my child's friend takes a copy of a book from his house and photocopies 10 pages on my copier, then gives it the copies to his brother. My copier does not have a lock. The copyright owner finds out and sues me. Is it my fault?
While I'm sleeping, my child's friend reaches into my purse, steals the ignition key to my car and drives it into a record store, then steals a dozen CDs and gives them to his brother. My car was unlocked. The record store owner finds out and sues me. Is it my fault?
While I'm at work, my child's friend enters my house, steals a crowbar and beats the president of the RIAA to death with it. The crowbar was in the front yard. The RIAA president's family finds out and sues me. Is it my fault?
Have you people ever heard of "rationalization"?
Yes. Have you ever heard of "fault"? Does is she at fault for the actions of this third party?
I'm as crooked as many of you, but at least I admit it....
Thank you for your honesty! Would you prefer to settle for $4,000, or should I set a court date? You should be an easier settlement than this lady, since you're so much more honest.
If you counterclaim, they cannot drop the suit.
At least claim expenses, and estimate damages, number of hours worked on the case, etc. Then there is slander/libel/defemation of character or whatever works given the situation. I'm not for people suing left and right, but I am all for people defending themselves against wrongful suits.
The person with nothing to lose is the one with the most to gain.
kulakovich
The President should have looked down, scuffed his feet, and said, "Without going into an specifics about what Ms. Jones has complained about, there are certain things I have done as a man that I am not proud of, and in the interest of putting this matter behind us and moving the country forward, I am offering Ms. Jones X dollars in settlement of this matter." That is the formula -- admit to no specific wrongdoing but admit to being a "man behaving badly", pay the dime (or make the public non-confession), and move on.
Quoting the late John Belushi, "but nooooooooo!" As much as there was Kenneth Starr plus every partisan attack lawyer going after the President, he had his own gaggle of hyper-partisan attack-dog lawyers and spokes-mouthpieces working everything from the courts to the Sunday talk shows, who made him stand his ground. He just couldn't do "rope-a-dope." When he made the admissions and apologies they were too little and too late, but maybe not, as they finally gave him the public sympathy to stay in office.
Its obvious that she isnt computer savvy and/or paranoid any savvy paranoid person has a quick release locked hard drives (just incase of unexpected fed calls) And several nuke disks near the PC, i know I do. If your PC's hard drive has been US-DoD 7 times wiped with a Nuke Disk they cant prove that you had anything on there, an unprotected wireless router can also help your case, "Someone could of driven by my house in a van with a laptop and logged onto my unprotected wireless router, they must of sent me a virus too because my pc is wiped"
pwnd music company
Has anyone seen the P2P community attempt to financially support this woman's legal defense?
Considering the impact her case has on P2P sharing en mass; I would think that many file sharing "consumers" would happily contribute to her cause. If file P2P consumers in America feel that what they are doing is legal, they should vote with their money.
I'd love to know that my contribution to this womans cause aided in to legal defense that (hopefully) lands a resounding defeat.
They're her kids too, and she's responsible for what they do as well. Have you people ever heard of "rationalization"? I'm as crooked as many of you, but at least I admit it....
The RIAA is responsible for using the laws they bought fairly and not charging monopoly prices for their wares. As soon as THEY stop being responsible, it's time for them to suffer just as much as they collectively make other people suffer by their misdeeds. If you believe in a true free market system where what they do is legitimate, you can't believe in silly modifications of copyright law that they buy.
Man I hope that kid was using protection if he was probing around in a zombie's box!
One can pick up some nasty viruii from those zombies...
Libertas in infinitum
If she wins, and the attorney was quoted as saying "she doesn't need a lawyer to win this case," it's not exactly good for future business in similar cases as more people will think that they can do without.
In reality, aside from the technological issues, the case isn't that complex. The problem is that while you might be able to handle a simple case either, the penalties allowed by the legal system for small/simple things are so exorbitant that the potential cost of losing tends to outweight the cost of getting a professional - though even then there is no guarantee you will win.
Do we have somewhere that can serve as a holding area for such things? I know the EFF fights for rights overall, but how if they or somebody else sets up a legit and offical area for moneys to be collected. If a case goes through it gets donated, if it doesn't then perhaps a vote can be given for a secondary case to donate to?
"'I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there.'"
She has already spent over $24,000.00 defending herself from the RIAA. They have already won. They don't have to win in court. All they need do is to ruin whoever stands up to them. It really sucks.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
no joke she got a paper demanding 3,500$ her kid download a crap load of mp3s. she ownes a ipod and uses itunes and she got sued no joke. her kid used a p2p network when she was at work and i happon to work there to. i tryed to tell her it was just a scare tatic and to fight back do not pay. but unfortanly she payed them even thoe she had the money to fight back. of course she knew knothing abought computers she didnt even knoe what p2p was she said she barly knew how to use itunes in fact the computer wasent even hers she doesent own a computer but her name was on that isp bill sence her bf had a pc. so i beleve the riaa does target the broke or computer stupid.
All of the following are stupid, tired right-wing libertarian arguments with only rhetorical value.
"Neither she nor her recording company holds a gun to anyone's head an forces them to buy her music." (Not even going to comment.)
"Mrs. Spears has hired the company to produce and distribute her music, and they are ENTITLED to whatever fees and markups they want." (Whoa Britney! Our latest collector of ENTITLEMENTS! Better get in the dole line! No, I'm not suggesting Britney collects welfare, I am pointing out hypocrisy in your use of language.)
"Prices of CD's are set at what they're set at not because the record companies decided that but because consumers have decided that's the most they're willing to pay..." O RLY? Are you sure that's how it works? I'd suggest going back and taking Econ 101. It's called Supply *and* Demand.
"...past attempts to make it so (i.e. the French Revolution, Communism, etc.) have all failed miserably." Hey, I hear there's a chaired professorship in history waiting for you, since you seem to know everything about the subject. Better bone up on your Francis Fukuyama cause it's the END OF HISTORY, man!
Are there anything such as open source lawyers? com'on some of you out there must be from the legal constituents of our society - how about it - win one for the little guy..
From this link:p ostID=112508574061695622
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15479871&
-------
Ray Beckerman said...
Dear "anonymous":
I guess if you want to contribute to Ms. Santangelo's defense, you can send the check to "Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, As Attorneys" and mail it to Ray Beckerman, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, 99 Park Avenue (16th Floor), New York, NY 10016, and we will do with it as we are instructed by Ms. Santangelo.
Best regards,
-R.B.
3:27 PM
---------
If I hadn't already posted in this thread...
This AC has pinpointed the critical point here. Lawyers have become essential even if the charge and circumstance are trivial! "Justice For All" is Long gone.
"A group in the middle east who previously infected PCs with a rootkit via IM, apparently installed BitTorrent without user permission on infected machines, then started piping movies to the end users."h out_permission%2C_downloads_movie_files
e loaded-unauthorised.htmln t_auto_installs_98.html_ F.shtml
http://digg.com/security/BitTorrent_installed_wit
more links:
http://www.vitalsecurity.org/2005/12/bittorrent-r
http://www.spywareguide.com/articles/the_bittorre
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051220/2013214
If her lawyer is so sure she's going to win, why doesn't he take the case on a No Recovery, No Fee basis, in which she only pays him a percentage of the winnings (compensatory and punitive damages)?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Well but wouldn't there also be a possiblity of a defense based on the fact that she didn't know it occured, and a reasonable person wouldn't have known that it occured? Should you go to jail if someone hotwires your car and uses it in a crime?
That's a good point, but she probably permitted her kids to use the computer.
That is awesome, I am going to make a little video like that, at the very least for my own satisfaction. p.s. I'm not stealing your idea, I'm just copying it...
But clearly you have something better to say...
because it is imposible to 'steal' copyrighted material, only copy it without permision.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.