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.'"

Comments

Well...

[Mr. Vandemar]

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...

She's going to lose...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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 Case Raises Interesting Issues

[tealover]

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 ?

Re:Her Case Raises Interesting Issues

[Greyfox]

Well it basically boils down to you can pay whatever they ask you and they'll go away, or you can go bankrupt trying to defend yourself in court. Nevermind that their evidence is entirely circumstantial -- all they really have is an IP address and the name of the person who had that IP address at the time of the download. There are any number of ways that the computer could have been sharing the files without any participation at all of anyone in the house.

No one has to become a security expert to connect a computer to the Internet, but not doing so potentially opens yourself to this sort of lawsuit, even if you've never done anything wrong. And even if you can prove you're innocent of any wrongdoing, you'll still end up spending your life's savings and then-some just to argue the case in court. So perhaps the question should not be, "Is it anyone's responsibility to become a security expert if they want to use the Internet," but rather, "Can they afford not to?" And no it's not extortion, because we don't call it that.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[Hannah E. Davis]

Well, it's probably in his best interests to say that.

At this point, even if he told her that she could never make it without him, he'd sound like a greedy bastard. This way, he shows that he's nice and really cares about his clients, even after they've stopped paying him.

If she wins, he gets to imply (or let people imply) that it was because of suggestions that he gave her. If she loses, well... he gets to sit there quietly and let people shake their heads and say "She never should've fired that lawyer".

Realistically, though, he's probably just a nice person. The lawyers that I know are no different from anyone else, and they really are more interested in doing the right thing than making a few extra bucks.

Shooting themselves in the foot once again

[DreamingReal]

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.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot once again

[Jafafa Hots]

"I often think that the RIAA is going to turn many novice computer users off from online purchasing altogether"

They would be ok with that. They aren't really the music industry, after all - they are the "distributing plastic discs" industry. With online purchasing dead they would hope people might buy plastic discs again.

Their business is distribution - yet they want to continue to exist even when distribution is no longer necessary, or at least what minor amount is necessary is now handled by the customer. It's as if a trolley company wanted to stay in business after everyone started buying cars - the company sold off all its trolleys, sold off the rights-of-way, fired all the trolley conductors, but still wants you to pay them the fare every time you drive yourself in to work.

Re:Shooting themselves in the foot once again

[monomania]

They aren't really the music industry, after all - they are the "distributing plastic discs" industry. With online purchasing dead they would hope people might buy plastic discs again.

And that bears repeating. Since when did we start calling them "The Music Industry" anyway? Used to be, we referred to them as "The Recording Industry". Music isn't an industry per se, it is (or was) an art form. Surely it's indicative of the way the argument has been framed in the favor of the RIAA that we mispeak so easily -- to the denigration of the true artists involved (the real producers of the 'product') and the false elevation of the RIAA to a privileged status of ownership.

But I realize that to frame the "IP" argument in real terms (who really owns the work that's produced?) would laid bare more of the recording industries darkside than just the spurious lawsuits against consumer "pirates". And again it comes back to Copyright -- imagine for a moment, in a sane Copyright regime; that I, as the musical artist, possessed only the original exclusivity originally envisioned by the Framers -- then only that limited term could be contracted to a distributor/licensee of the work. After all, you can't legally sell what you don't own.

Imagine then, a marketplace where musicians couldn't sell their souls for a recording contract (or be required to) because (if by 'souls' we mean the absurd "lifetime plus x years" of rights) they don't possess such rights in the first place. One could sell the extent of one's (reasonable) rights (say, 5 years?) which is close enough to the existing shelf life of the product in the industries marketing cycle anyway. After that, anyone could record and market the music (or a version of it) but, then, so could the artist themselves (John Fogerty, anyone?) or the fans themselves (ala Phish, the Dead, etc. or in fact the situation that is slowly being obtained sub rosa...). Of course Lessig's been saying somewhat the same all this time as well, in terms of how a reasonable regime would act in furtherance of the arts and of culture. Imagine the ramifications of it. Information may or may not want to be free, but culture certainly does, and will work to free itself of restraint by nature.

Their business is distribution - yet they want to continue to exist even when distribution is no longer necessary, or at least what minor amount is necessary is now handled by the customer.

What the recording industry is contending with now is the tendency of society to organize itself along such a more reasonable and natural (and much more efficient) mode of operation. That is real enterprise at work. The RIAA (and the MPAA et al.) are attempting through monopolism (a kind of state-assisted terrorism in this case) to maintain an artificial marketplace that technology and culture are conspiring to transcend. Personally, my money is on the latter agents of economic evolution. And the fact that it's all devolved into the hands of attorneys and accountants shows how close the end is near for this so-called "industry".

This case is important

[CokeBear]

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?

More than reasonable doubt

[CarpetShark]

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.

Re:More than reasonable doubt

[sjames]

a judgment for the plaintiff or defendant based on the simplest and most plausible interpretation of the evidence.

Given the state of users, Windows, and the net today, I'd say that "I have no idea how those files got there" is QUITE plausible. Given the odds that an average person's Windows machine on broadband contains one or more backdoors or keyloggers, coupled with the number of wide open access points with default admin passwords (and an owner with no idea that that might be bad), I might go so far as to say that the opposite might require extrordinary proof.

The problem is that too many of the elements here, including intellectual property itself, are intangible and barely understood black boxes to the average person. The same person that understands that you must lock your doors when you go out, and that taking your neighbor's lawnmower for your own is theft does not understand that making a copy of an e-book is theft or that you must also lock your wireless AP (even when you're home).

Yes, we can say that they need to get educated (and they do), but we must also face that we are in the process of creating brand new (probably unjust) legal responsabilities here. If I buy a nidty gadget, I have no special duty to keep others from reverse engineering it. I have no legal duty to prevent it's theft (though I will naturally want to do that for my own benefit) or to prevent another from copying it. Somehow, that duty seems to be cropping up all over the place when it comes to movies or music?

These days, it would seem that given a choice between failing to keep your gun from being stolen by a felon or failing to keep your new Audio CD from being copied by the kid next door, legally you're better off protecting the CD. What does it say about society when we are more concerned (legally) with inadvertantly costing the RIAA eight bucks than we are with inadvertantly helping someone go on a killing spree?

Possession is not a tort, moron.

[autopr0n]

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.

Excellent Observation

[Rocketship Underpant]

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.

Re:Excellent Observation

[prisoner-of-enigma]

To understand the blatantly false statements the RIAA and their shills love to make, you have to see through their numerous incorrect premises:

Look, I'm no shill for the RIAA/MPAA, but several of the premises you're putting forth are either false, misleading, or exaggerated by yourself. You are guilty of doing exactly the same thing as they are doing, namely of spreading FUD about them in order to push your own agenda. In educated circles this is referred to as a strawman, assigning your opponent a false argument in order to defeat it and thus claim victory.

1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.

This "premise" ignores a basic fact: what you create is your property. If I write a song, or a program, or build a birdhouse, that is my property to do with as I see fit. If I choose to give that song, program, or birdhouse away for free, that is my right. If I wish to charge $1 billion for it, that is also my right, although it had better be a damned good song, program, or birdhouse if I ever expect to sell them. This is where free market principles trump everything: private property rights -- and thus value of same -- are intrisically linked to how much demand there is for said property. Britney Spears makes tons of money because people -- for some inexplicable reason -- like her music. Neither she nor her recording company holds a gun to anyone's head an forces them to buy her music. People who buy do so by choice, having decided to part with their money -- earned through their own efforts -- in exchange for the product of her work, namely her music.

Now, you're likely to point out that Mrs. Spears doesn't make nearly as much money as her record company does, and you'd be quite correct there. But Mrs. Spears has hired the company to produce and distribute her music, and they are entitled to whatever fees and markups they want. Now, they could do stupid things like charge $100 per CD, but again the free market defeats them. 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. I'm sure they'd be happy paying less (just look at the success of iTunes), but it's in the record company's best interests to charge as much as they can for their product. They want to make a profit, and there's nothing wrong with that. If customers decide their wares are not worth what is being charged, the company won't make a profit and will eventually fold. Again, the free market cures all.

2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.

This is a vague statement on your part. Please explain your reasoning.

3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law.

In the U.S., U.S. law is superior to every other law. Outside our borders, either International Law applies, or there are individual copyright laws handled on a per-country basis. If you think copyright protection is some sort of U.S. racket, perhaps you ought to look at copyright laws outside the U.S. With but few exceptions, their laws more or less mirror U.S. law. You may think this is some kind of conspiracy, but it isn't. It is the natural product of intellectual property rights.

4. Legality is more important than morality.

Both are equally important. You are trying to argue that you have some intrinsic right to the fruit of someone else's labors without expending any effort or capital of your own. That is neither moral nor legal.

5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.

The products of a company -- be they tangible assets like widgets or movies like "Lord of the Rings" -- do belong to those who produced and/or financed it. Just as tangible assets must be purchased to enjoy, so must intangibles. But since intangibles can be freely passed from one i

Re:Out of Curious Interest

[arkhan_jg]

IANAL, and the exact text of copyright law varies between countries, so it does depend upon your country, but the general argument goes something like this.

Copyright is the right to make copies. Only the copyright holder can make and distribute copies. Fair use allows a defence against infringement in certain circumstances, but we'll assume for the sake of argument using a P2P app to grab a complete copy of a copyrighted work isn't one of them.

Now, the person uploading a non-licenced copyrighted work is definitely breaking the law, as they are distributing. The question is, is the person downloading also making a copy? After all, the copy is actually assembled on the downloaders machine. In jurisdictions where you're allowed to make personal copies, it's possible you could argue you're just getting a rip of something you already own, or that you assumed the uploader had permission to distribute.

Instead, they could try to get you with contributory infringement, i.e. you had knowledge of the infringement (making a copy) and materially contributed (i.e. your computer downloading the copy at your request)

Uploaders are definitely at risk, legally, but downloaders are in a much greyer area, depending on wording and interpretation of the law. If you get caught in the act of downloading, or have a large collection of material which is obviously infringing copies, you may well face a lawsuit.

Imagine the police turned up to arrest a street vendor selling what turns out to be dodgy music CDs while you're buying one. It'd be hard to get you for anything. Now imagine they catch you giving the guy a blank CD so he can copy something for you on the spot - it'd be much easier to get you for contributory infringement, especially if you already have a CD wallet full of things you don't have orginial copies of. Downloading is somewhat similar. As far as I've been able to check, all the P2P users lawsuits have been about uploading, though the media tend to use uploaded and downloaded interchangably, incorrectly.

Either way, you're a lot safer being a leech, though you're definitely still taking somewhat of a risk.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, though, he's probably just a nice person

Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[bluesbrosfan]

Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.

No, having provided a service for a fee that was agreed upon in advance. He didn't "take" anthing.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[Kjella]

Having taken $24000 off her and leaving her broke.

For which I'm sure she's got services rendered. It's sort of like getting a lease on a car to drive around the world, and half-way there you're broke. Was the car rental really the one to screw you over?

Now, he probably should have given her some better legal advice on how long this'd take and how much it'd cost, but I don't know how much cheaper it'd get. As long as he is her attorney I assume he has responsibilities for her defense which means his paralegals have to do the rest, even the parts she might do on her own.

What's the alternative? I'm sure you've heard the saying "Anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client". It'd be a matter of sooner versus later. Maybe he hoped a lawyer and real legal defense could make them drop the case before she ran out of money. In any case, I don't think it would have been good legal advice to say "don't hire me" either.

What else could he do? Take it pro bono? Possibly, but I doubt a guy representing single mothers of five rake in millions. He probably has a student loan to pay, mortgage to pay, kids to feed and so on. In short, she's getting the shaft but I don't quite see how he's at fault for that.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[Anonymous Coward]

Under a fair and just system of law, only the most complex cases would require hiring a third party for legal representation. The simple reason why lawyers are "standard" today in the court of law is that the law is overly complex (and therefore ambiguous, exploitable, and corrupt). There are now so many laws, and so many ways to "interpret" them, that it is literally impossible for one person to comprehend them all. We are all criminals in one way or another, and if government wants to lock up a peaceful individual, they can easily find a way.

Put another way, if the average individual can't represent himself before the law, then there is something very wrong with the law.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[Zordak]

Now, he probably should have given her some better legal advice on how long this'd take and how much it'd cost, but I don't know how much cheaper it'd get.

It seems pretty clear that her attorney had hoped to get this case dismissed on a 12(b)(6) motion (lack of sufficient evidence). He was hoping they would just leave the woman alone at that point. If you go find the available court transcripts and read them, you can tell the judge is not fond of the RIAA attorneys or their suit. But she still has to follow the law, and her interpretation of the law is that this thing needs to go forward. Now the RIAA guys have put themselves in a real bind. These downloading suits are really a revenue-generating protection racket -- Give us money or we'll sue you. Most people just gave them the money. Now that somebody is fighting back, they can't just drop the suit, or it will look like they brought the suit in bad faith (which they did). So a very unsympathetic Goliath has to fight a very sympathetic David in front of a jury and live with the precedent they set. They will also be subject to discovery, which could be the source of all manner of fun. It may even help this lady to go pro se now. To the jury, it will look like the RIAA is persecuting this poor single mother who can't even afford an attorney (which they are).

I really take issue with the people implying (or outright stating) that this attorney was trying to scam this poor lady. As you pointed out, he likely has student loans to pay, and that debt is likely to be larger than many mortgages. Lawyers are expected to do some pro bono work, but they also have to make a living like everyone else. If everybody here is so altruistic, feel free to send this woman some of your own money so she can pay her attorney again.

Re:Imagine if a trend started...

[at_slashdot]

With $24,000 you can buy a nice car or make a basic annual salary in US. The question is why people are not able to get sufficient counseling for that ammount?

I'm not a communist but I would like to believe that people should be able to defend their rights for much less than their all their fortune. Actually what is the use (fairness) of a legal system that allow only rich people win?