Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fighting RIAA Without an Attorney

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the go-down-swinging dept.

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.'"

3 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine if a trend started... by The+Ancients · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ok - maybe not. I guess this lawyer is the exception to the rule, stating that his client doesn't really need him.

    In a serious vein, if she wins it will set precedent and give hope to others that can't afford a lawyer.

    --
    The Mothership
  2. Re:This case is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  3. Re:Well... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.