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.'"
In a serious vein, if she wins it will set precedent and give hope to others that can't afford a lawyer.
The Mothership
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.
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 Or is flipping through a stack of unpublished/unlicensed photos illegal?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.
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.
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?
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?
Damn right! I know it means nothing posting AC, but I'd pledge 50 just get the satisfaction of kicking the RIAA in the nuts. Hell, it would make up for all I've saved on boycotting their rubbish for the last few years. But think beyond money here people. She is up against 'experts' in a civil lawsuit. What will be decided fundamentally affects us all and it will be decided on who can provide the most convincing case. And what are many of us here if not experts in technology and technology law? All this woman seems to have is spunky confidence and a will to stand up for herself. As a practicing computer scientist with 15 years experience I feel confident I could destroy their case on any *technical* point. Just off the top of my head without any knowledge of the case...
Where did the hard disk come from?
Was it AND/OR the OS cleanly installed and by whom?
Who else had access to the machine, physical and remote?
If the RIAA were able to access it
i) did they trespass to do so?
ii) does this not mean anybody else also had remote access to the machine?
What evidence is there that the machine was not infected or part of a botnet?
How did the RIAA get hold of any ISP logs?
Do the logs conclusively prove a download was requested AND received?
Do the logs conclusively prove she personally was the instigator, bound to that IP address/timeframe?
If she had this data on her machine did she also have the means to decode it thus the means and intent to listen to it?
Lets see a full audit of every piece of code on that machine!
I'm sure y'all can do a lot better too. She shouldn't need to *hire experts*, she should have dozens of them gagging to jump into the fray and give the RIAA a bloody nose. I wonder why not. Is there something about this case that's not being aired?
I'm guessing the RIAA will drop the case anyway and try to find someone with a bit more cash on hand next time.
The RIAA does not sue individuals for the money. The RIAA sues individuals to garner press through which they intend to frighten entire populations of individuals into not downloading.
This whole story is tailor-made to their efforts. The moral of it is, even when it is impossible to prove the illicit origin of music files on your computer, you still might be unlucky enough to be involved in litigation that can cost you big bucks. The message is, "parents: monitor the content of your kids' hardrives carefully, lest it end up costing you. Digital music just ain't worth the potential hassle."
Intelligent strategy. But getting the story on slashdot during Christmas break is absolutely brilliant.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
If she wins, doesn't RIAA have to pay his legal expenses?
One other point about the logs:
How did they make sure that their clock was in sync with the ISP's?
Might matter in case of a dynamic IP address.
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.
I'm not aware of any spyware or virus that would download random
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
1. Copying and sharing, the basis of all human culture and advancement, are somehow heinous crimes in the digital age.
This is what is known as "amphiboly" (look it up via google for a full definition.) Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright. Copyright exists for a reason: the reasons should be well known to you by now and history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright (and other IP mechanisms) (and the necessary enforcement that comes with it) are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement." While I'm sure you are just oozing with junior high logic as to why that is not so, the reality of the situation is that if you look accross ANY combination of industry, country segment, etc where there are strong IP regulations, in the overwhelming number of cases, having strong IP laws DO what they are designed to do: encourage production (and therefore, advance human culture.)
2. Seeing something is the same as doing something.
The problem with this argument is INTENT. When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to, they are generally VERY CLEARLY taking an action that any damn fool knows is illegal. Because the law views intent as important, this is why what is being done is bad. Plus, there is the fact that under many P2P programs, once you download something you automatically generally propagate it as well (consider how eDonkey works, for example).
3. The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law
Here you just like making cartoon attack against the USA. The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same. Sure, there have been some odd lower court rulings in Canada, France, etc, but generally these are eventually struck down and the basics upheld for the simple reason that all civilized countries are producers of IP and recognize that their economies (and therefore the welfare of the people) depend on IP laws being enforced.
4. Legality is more important than morality.
This is a general claim that we could also make of pirates who try to spin torturous explanations of "fair use" into how they can fairly share with millions of people anonymously. "Morality?" I dont know about morality, but I do know that strong IP rules make good economies which make higher standard of living for all - the link is blatantly obvious to anybody who has taken time to study this.
5. Your property belongs to some corporation instead of to you.
This is a nice attempt at a smear, but with no basis in reality. Many things are licensed, not sold, and we as a society have come to understand that there are necessary limits, for the good of all, to how intellectual goods can be distributed.
6. Creativity cannot exist without cartels and monopolies.
Oh stop already. This is cartoon nonsense.
7. Guaranteed profits are better than freedom.
Zzzzz..
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.
"Here you attempt to link the cuddly and innocent terms "copying", "sharing", "human culture and advamcent" with acts that break the social contract known as copyright."
:) You may believe as you like, of course.
I didn't agree to your silly social contract.
"Copyright exists for a reason..."
To pad wealthy pockets and protect stagnant business models? Or for political censorship, as was intended with the first copyright laws in England?
"history and economics have shown UNQUESTIONABLY that the notion of copyright... are actually very useful for "human culture and advancement."
Hardly provable and easily questioned. But then, one could argue that for all kinds of unethical laws.
"When somebody downloads music off the internet that they do not have the righs to..."
Again, you just fell for the fallacy that copyright covers receiving or listening to music rather than distribution.
"The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this (except for taiwan), IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same."
You haven't travelled much, have you? The laws where I live are very different where I live. No DMCA, no ridiculous 120-year terms, etc.
"I dont know about morality..."
I concede that point.
"Many things are licensed, not sold..."
A license is a writ or contract giving permission to do something that is normally illegal or forbidden. I need no license to buy and use a CD or a book. Your use of the term is simply a common way to pretend that my property belongs to someone else.
I guess you fall for most of the fallacies on my list.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
>>"If I'm being sued, I settle out of court for fearing of losing more money. Even if she wins the case, she's lost more money than the settlement."
>And that's exactly why it keeps happening and will keep happening until those getting sued do what some companies have done on patent claims: Team up and share legal expenses. As long as people roll over, it enables their behavior.
Right again. The RIAA & their law sharks have a big portion of the other 16,000 (people who have settled) x $3,500 (settled) = $56M in settlement money to spend.
They sue the same way those bastards at DirecTV did. They "carpet bomb" and fish with "dolpin unsafe nets" -- they don't care if they financially "kill" innocents along the way as long as they kill the bad guys or get a bunch of tuna.
If they stop now, their fear is that the guilty will be led to believe that they can fight it too. If EVERYONE who was sued would fight it to the end, perhaps the bad guys would change their thinking. Blame the innocents who said they would rather settle for $3500 than fight it.
The only way to stop this type of injustice is to change the civil legal system in various possible ways, such as:
What you need is a proviso in the law to kill these nuisance law suits from organizations. Can't the court in the US make the RIAA pay all her legal costs if they find their case unfounded. In Britain, if a case is decided "wholly without merit", the person (entity) who brought the case is made to pay the legal fees of those they brought the case against.
The problem is many judges don't know what an ip address is. If an "expert" gives a definition of an ip address and how one is obtained and its not brought up about how easy it is to spoof one, she will lose.
She needs an "expert" of her own. Anyone with network security experience that the court will accept as an expert.
Hell i have a "secure" wireless access point in my apartment. I changed the password, turned on WPA2 personal, mac address limiting, and told it not to announce itself. It could still be cracked by a neighbor and used for downloads. Until the general public accepts that wireless is insecure, the RIAA has a real chance in court. Heck isps can get hacked too. I used to work for one awhile back. During my 2.5 years there, we had our dns server rooted 5 times and our mail and web servers each rooted once. Of course running bind 4 in 2000 was stupid in itself. We had spammers and people attacking other servers. One time they even replaced the ps command so we couldn't see their programs running. My old boss is living proof that an idiot setting up linux is a bad thing. At the time I ran the windows servers which did not get rooted because i was psycho about patching and disabling everything.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Ouch!
mitch