Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo
VE3OGG writes "The RIAA, in an expected motion, has recently dismissed the case against Patti Santangelo, one of the most famous targets of the RIAA lawsuits. The mother of five was described by the judge presiding as an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.' While this is good news, the RIAA is still pursuing its case against two of Mrs. Santangelo's children. To make matters worse, the RIAA has also dismissed the case 'without prejudice', meaning that they could, in theory, take action against her again later on. The RIAA alleges that Santangelo's children downloaded and subsequently distributed more than 1,000 songs. The damages they seek are presently unknown"
Now that she's off, the kida are a cinch - she just has to sit them down and have a stern talking-to.
I mean, thats the new industry standard, isn't it?
Seriously, who will think of them? If they are the parent's responsibility, and the charges against the parent are dismissed, what will protect them against the blood-thirsty lawyers?
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
IANAL, and therefore I may be showing my naievity, but I was under the impression that only a judge could dismiss a case, but that the plaintiff could drop the case. Makes it sound like the RIAA was playing judge and jury... though of course that might not be far from the truth...
IANAL, so is it possible for the RIAA to continue the suit against the kids, get some sort of settlement, and then re-sue the mom for the same thing? Or what about jumping back and forth between suing the mom, dismissing the case without prejudice, suing the kids, dismissing that case without prejudice and starting the sequence all over again?
Is it not the case that they have moved to dismiss without prejudice, but that the motion has not been granted? Big difference, as you can expect Santangelo's lawyers to try to have it dismissed with prejudice or even to have it not dismissed at all so that the case can go to trial and the RIAA can lose.
As the submitter, I would also like to point out that FightGoliath is the legal defense fund for Patti Santangelo, and appears to still be taking donations.
well I did't know what kazoo was either.
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The RIAA cannot dismiss a case, with or without prejudice. The court does that.
Man wird am besten für seine Tugenden bestraft.
The mob also gave reprieves to families to show the public they were not cold hearted killers.
None of the behavior of the RIAA is any different from Organized crime.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
When I play some of those MMORPG's on the net, I often wonder why in the heck do I have to treat "children" in game any different then an adult. I have heard several times people that defend and excuse some of the most disgusting behavior only because "they are children." Does being a child mean that you get away with a heck lot just because of your age? Even if you did know that what you were doing was wrong? Does something magically change when they turn 18?
What about the mother? How could she claim ignorance when it was her job to educate and take care of them? Parents already have Free School (more like a prison really), a free ride to school, they get a heck lot of money back in taxes for having those dawn children. Couldn't she take at least care of their Internet behavior? What about having 5 children? Come on, we live in 2006, not 1906, family planning is there, one is a mistake, after that it was her choice.
Downloading those music files with her computer and paid for net access was like going into a store and robbing the place with your parents' car and gun.
There should be a law against entities wasting the time and resources of the courts, such as this persistent RIAA filing suits against people before they even bother to gather the facts. This is a waste of the taxpayers' public institutions and personnel.
"When Santangelo, 42, was sued last year, she said she had never downloaded music and was unaware of her children doing it. If children download, she said, file-sharing programs like Kazaa should be blamed, not the parents. The judge called her an "internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.""
It's interesting that the RIAA made two cases here. The kids appear to be in some serious trouble. Of course, that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring. Apparently the original defense was to convince a judge of the mother's illeteracy and blame everything on her inability to know what was going on. The 20-year-old daughter is certainly old enough to be sued on her own (kinda surprised about the 16-year-old son, though).
I really would hate to see something happen to the children. They're just another one of the RIAA's "making an example" cases, and it's really not a good example. This sort of legal bullying simply polarizes people into the submissive "Please don't sue me, I'll do anything you want" group, and those that are willing to escalate their grey-area file sharing into actual criminal activity.
Why can't they make an example of one of the "real problems"? You know, the pirates that are making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. I'd like to see those rich criminals go to jail too, and I'd bet that most people on P2P networks would too.
IMO, winning a high-profile case like that would be a terrific example to casual users as well. It'd be like putting drug dealers in jail instead of drug users. You still send the same message "Drugs are bad", but the person who gets punished actually contributes significantly to the problems caused by drugs.
Oh wait. There are no pirates making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. That must be because there are legitimate people making hundreds of millions of dollars off legitimate music and movies. To me, the "real problem" is clearly stated in the last two sentences. Persecute criminals, not their victims or groupies.
mandelbr0t
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Kazaa from Kazoo
From Kudzu
From Kudu
From Kodo...
This whole thing is stupid six ways from Sunday. Of course the mother is responsible for her children's lawbreaking behavior, even if she doesn't know how they do it, or how the law works. If she didn't know "glock from Spock", would she not be responsible if her kids smuggled plastic guns onto a transatlantic flight?
But they didn't smuggle guns. Maybe they did redistribute some files. In which case they might be liable for negligible damages. And the stupid copyright law should be changed, even if just for the survival of a music biz that obviously can't figure out how to make money from the "remix culture" that is where all the cool kids are. All the RIAA knows how to do is rip off musicians and resell the same crapola in new crapola-wrap, protected by politicians they bribe.
Will the legacy of the RIAA finally be to not only kill Rock & Roll, but to put actual chains on kids by making their parents totally irresponsible?
--
make install -not war
...be responsible for what their kids are doing. If you don't know what they are doing, you should do everything in your power to learn and understand.
The "I didn't know what they were doing" defense is pure and utter bullshit. I hope the RIAA wins it's suits against her kids, and the judge makes her pay. It's her fault for not paying attention to what her kids do on computers, not the RIAAs for defending copyrights against those who don't wish to pay for music.
Well when majority thinks that a law is ridiculous and start breaking, I guess only then the law is changed. Isn't that what happened in the past?
Essentially, what the RIAA has done, is to drain the target of resources before going in for the kill. With how they have drained Patty's coffers fighting her, she is now broke while they go after her kids. This is similar to how some viruses attack the human body.
Anyone have a truckload of coal to spare? I know someone who needs it wrapped, individually, and dumped on their front door.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Any time a plaintiff drops a suit (for the first time) it is dropped without prejudice. The RIAA could not have dropped the suit with prejudice. If the judge had dismissed it (an entirely different action altogether) then it could have been with prejudice up to the judge's discretion.
Essentially the RIAA said oh, oops never mind we don't want to sue this person. The court says ok thats fine we'll let you drop it. If they sue her again, and then try and drop it again it WILL be with prejudice. This rule is generally supported by public policy to prevent the courts from being flooded and to prevent tactics (like the RIAA's that are harrasing).
Its just the way American courts work...
IANAL, but I am in law school.
I'm saw sick of hearing "but it's The Law". The Law is just an abstract idea, tell me why I should obey something just because I'm told it's The Law?
Yeah yeah yeah it's all the parents fault. Let's see what YOU have to say when one of your kids gets into trouble. I bet you won't be blaming yourself when that happens. You probably don't even have kids. And if you do I bet they do(or will) all kinds of things that they shouldn't and it's all going to be your fault.
Are they essentially judgement proof anyway?
Does it somehow flow up to the parent anyway (even tho she had no control or knowledge?
Say Riaa wins $50,000 from each of the boys. What's the likely outcome?
I ask because I was hit by a broke hispanic guy from behind- got a $25,000 judgement and never saw a dime of it. He had so few assets that there was nothing to collect the judgement on (tho he probably earned 30 to 40k per year.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well if the RIAA isn't going to hold idiots with computers responsible, why would a technical savvy parent be held responsible? They didn't necessarily teach their children not to use kazaa or whatever.
By saying the parent is not responsible, and most of us can assume many children do not know the law, then its safe to say that the RIAA is responsible for not getting the message how to CHILDREN not to download music. I guess they need to start running ads on cartoon network and so forth.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
So it's like this. Suppose there are some kids, from your neighborhood. They're always on your damn lawn. No one of them is doing anything significantly malicious, but taken as a whole, they're starting to wear a path and beat it down. Unfortunately, the only thing you own is a tank. No, you don't have a house, you just live in the tank, parked on the lawn. Now, as it stands, you've got two choices: Let the kids trample the lawn to a muddy mess, or shoot them, with the tank. Unfortunately, every time you explode one of the offensive little twerps into a misty pink cloud, invariably mothers' groups and angry citizens will harrumph and criticize, saying you went too far, and that the young child-who-is-now-a-crater didn't deserve such treatment. But, if you hold off on your right to evaporate the malicious darlings, you'll find that your well-cultivated lawn starts looking like more of a post-Woodstock mud-pit.
What the law needs to do is give this fictional property owner a beatin' stick, so they can give the kids a wailin' they'll never forget, but not obliterate them into bite-size morsels. I think casual infringement is a problem, for artists' rights if not for profits, but the common response is so heavy-handed that more sympathy gets shown to the infringers. Copyright law needs to have some manner of punishment for casual infringement that is well above the market value of the work (as it should be a discouragement, not just a payoff), but not so high that families are bankrupted just thinking about it. Unfortunately, it seems the homeowner (tankowner?) may have started to enjoy exploding small children.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
If everyone followed your wise advice how would anyone learn anything? Or make discoveries? You need parents who allow their kids to surpass their own abilities. "How can you protect them if you don't even know what they're doing?"
Now this is very true, parents need to get more involved with their children, but certainly not by restricting what they can learn about.
How does allowing the RIAA to punish kids (maybe young adults in this case) by putting them into bankruptcy with overly high fines help anybody, or prevent more file sharing?
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
I wonder how many songs the RIAA members sell annually ? Billions ?? Pressing 100'000 copies of a 15 track CD equals 1,5 million songs. 1000 songs equal about 68 15 track CDs, which I guess is easily covered in less than thousandth of a second of all the album sales.. notwithstanding the publishing catalogues put into compilations around the world all year long..
The RIAA alleges that Santangelo's children downloaded and subsequently distributed more than 1,000 songs. The damages they seek are presently unknown"
...the minimum they'd get is $750*1000+ = $750,000+. Bankrupcy court next up.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not that I agree with the RIAA and not that im not happy they droped this but..
last I checked ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for not following it. I hope she at least learned that she should know what HER children are doing on the computer.
Parents have to take some responsibility for there children when there on line and to teach them right from wrong.
The article contains a link to an old Slashdot article which has an incorrect link to the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's appearance before Judge McMahon. Here's the correct link to the transcript: http://info.riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/tra nscript050506.txt
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Did the fact that he was hispanic figure into the judgment?
madclamor.com
If the RIAA actually represented ARTISTS instead of their own 600 pound gorilla bureaucracy, I'd side with the RIAA over a lot of this music stealing. Unfortunately, the RIAA is a Trade Association (translation: lobbiest group) with "record labels" as supporting members and the "record labels" use ARTISTS as slave labor. Being enslaved is only profitable for relatively few artists because most of them get a monthly statement from the "record label" showing they owe money. Not a single ounce (dollar) of of whatever the RIAA extorts in court goes back to the ARTISTS who were supposedly harmed.
Wouldn't it be great of all the ARTISTS banded together to form their own group to develop, distribute and protect the music they create. Something which would cut all the middle men out of the loop permanently and directly benefit the ARTISTS. I'll bet most people would respect copyright law a little more. Only THEN would I consider paying a blanket tax on products (iPods, recording media etc) instead of putting up with DRM to support ARTISTS.
Most of the stuff on
Shame on RIAA for dropping the case against the parent.
It should not be the job of anyone else but the parent to get the point across that "Stealing is not only unethical, but also unlawful" Personally, I don't think that the current crop of juvenile are all delinquents and dumb enough not to understand the concept of theft, ethics, and the law. Rather, I think the CHILDREN understand these concepts perfectly well, but they think they can circumvent the system just because they are legally "minors".
You also need to allow the RIAA and others to combat "crimes" of a lessor magnitude before they are faced with an adult that belives nothing can touch them so it is OK to hack into web sites and deface them. Or to redistribute movies and music in bulk.
What has instead happened is the RIAA cannot contact the mother and say "Your kid is getting out of control with this file sharing stuff." without bringing a lawsuit. The threshold for filing the lawsuit is high enough that they need lots and lots of evidence of infringement because the costs of filing are high. So, everyone sits and waits until the problem is of a large enough magnitude that it justifies the time and expense of the lawsuit. When it could have been "nipped in the bud" a long time ago.
that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring.
No, actually that was the 1997 NET Act which made sharing files with no profit motive a felony criminal offense. The RIAA didn't need to convince a judge, just pay off legislators.
The article's incorrect. The RIAA isn't dropping the case. They can't, the defendant's already answered their complaint and once defendant's incurred costs plaintiff can't just wash their hands of the case. What they're doing is asking the judge to dismiss their case without prejudice (ie. they can refile the same case in the future). Given the judge's comments to this point I suspect he's going to be disinclined to do that, he'll give them a choice of having it dismissed with prejudice (can't refile) or not dismissing it at all.
You might be right about that. I felt rather safe from copyright infringement as a teen. I ran websites with bootleg music and things.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
True. It is prohibitively expensive to bring proof, and that cost has to be passed on to the sued, while people who aren't worth it are having no problems at all. It's too bad nobody came to a "piano roll" decision and made some manner of compulsory licensing scheme. It would take freedom away from creators, but it would probably "sane down" the system to some extent.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
It's not hugely different at all.
The mob first tries to suck you dry if you made the mistake of crossing their business path, and then if that's not enough they kill you to preserve the atmosphere of fright. They have no qualms at all what effect their actions have on people and their families, as long as it preserves that fright.
The RIAA is devoted entirely to sucking people dry, and they have no compunction whatsoever what that does to people's livelihoods or families or reputations. They do so even when you haven't crossed their business path, because they invent a totally fictitious one of their own: the ridiculous and totally non-existent "loss" that they claim to incur when people share music.
The RIAA don't kill, but they might as well do so. After your life and reputation and credit rating is shattered in court and your livelihood is demolished by utterly incredible invented damages and lawyer fees, there's very little left worth living for, you're a total wreck. Yet, what did you do to deserve this? You did a GOOD thing, you shared what you enjoy with others. And for that the RIAA mobsters destroyed your life.
And as for your point about not killing
So, don't come to us with crap about the RIAA being nice people. They're utter scum, like their paymasters. If those lawyers had a shred of professional decency, they'd tell the studios to get stuffed and hire some hitmen to do their dirty work instead.
Mod parent up! I wish I had mod points left...
Great Intellect...
Next thing you know* you'll get a spam email asking for you to send money to the mother [Patty] through the website so that she can afford to buy gifts for her children for the Christmas season because she is so broke...
:).
* No insult intended to the mother, but this kind of spam stuff happens (just like that Nigerian Prince that was put in jail and needs money to get out, btw, did he ever manage to get out?
> ...the RIAA has also dismissed the case 'without prejudice...
They have done no such thing. They have submitted a motion _requesting_ that the _judge_ dismiss their claims without prejudice. The defense will reply, undoubtedly asking that the claims be dismissed _with_ prejudice (meaning that they can never be filed again) and probably also that the RIAA be ordered to pay the legal expenses of the defense.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Downloading those music files with her computer and paid for net access was like going into a store and robbing the place with your parents' car and gun.
This is a poor analogy. It is much more analogous with they being a band of thieves, laying siege to the land. To amass such amounts of music so quickly, it is analogous with an unpresedented crime-spree in many different music shops. Not just classical music, but Beatles, and Madonna and Britney Spears. Whole cities and libraries full of music on their harddrive. To do this in the real world, they wouldve needed a dusin tommy-guns and alot of death in proceeding with their crimes.
Death penalty is really to mild to such bad people. They should be forced to life-long slavery, with 7 generations born into slavery cleaning the RIAA moguls` pools and country cabbins. After that, nobody remembers the original crime and they believe this is how life should be. Serves em right. You cannot be too mild on such behaviour, or itll spread like wildfire.
Must be fun to make up crimes..
Someone needs to make a parody of the RIAA/MPAA commercials that are like "You wouldn't steal a CD..." It should go something like...
You wouldn't steal a kid's lunch money
You wouldn't rip people off
You wouldn't ruin others' livelihoods
Suing innocent people is extortion
Extortion is a crime
Someone take this idea and run with it.
It should not be the job of anyone else but the parent to get the point across that "Stealing is not only unethical, but also unlawful" Personally, I don't think that the current crop of juvenile are all delinquents and dumb enough not to understand the concept of theft, ethics, and the law. Rather, I think the CHILDREN understand these concepts perfectly well, but they think they can circumvent the system just because they are legally "minors".
Or alternatively the children didn't realise the legal construct of copyright even existed, given its utter lack of any counterpart in nature.
Shame on you and the riaa for making the ASININE claim that copying is stealing.
It isn't.
Did the fact that he was hispanic figure into the judgment?
It implies that he had no insurance.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Not because I'm sick of RIAA going after people, but because people somehow think breaking the law is OK. I'm not crazy about the current state of copyright laws, but they're still laws.
There really is no reason to change a law that the majority of people are obeying so if you really aren't crazy about the current state of copyright laws you should be encouraging people to ignore them.
Deal with the consequences of your actions people. And in this case, the consequences of your children's actions. You're the parent, you should be able to control your kids and know what they're doing.
Here I'm going to agree with you to a certain extent. More people being punished for sharing means more people screaming to their Congresscritters to change these bad laws.
And in this case, the consequences of your children's actions. You're the parent, you should be able to control your kids and know what they're doing. If you don't know 'Kazaa from kazoo' you should learn. At a minimum don't let your children do things you don't understand. You're the parent and you're supposed to be protecting them, start acting like it. How can you protect them if you don't even know what they're doing? I hope RIAA wins against the children.
Either you really aren't that upset with the laws as they are or you are stuck in some adolescent "rules are rules" stage of life. There are many children who grow up learning things that their parents didn't even know exist.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Jeez, get a grip. Not everyone on this site is 22 and unwilling to pay for music.
This is the same RIAA that just filed a suit to try to nullify a 1981 contract that gives the songwriters a substantial percentage of the income from their songs. Apparently they feel that with all the additional money coming in from things like ring tones and such, the artists who actually create the content are making too much money and the RIAA's corporate members don't get to keep enough.
Even though many of us are aware that not everything on the web is OK to "play with", it would usually seem, and is often a common misconception, that if it is out there for the taking, than there is nothing wrong with doing so. I am glad they dropped the charges against the mother, but they shouldn't still be going after the children. They should be concentrating on those that started the file sharing/music sharing bullshit to begin with. They are the ones that are truly guilty of the wrong doing to begin with. Maybe that doesn't make all others involved completely innocent, but they (in this case the children) certainly don't share a larger portion of the blame. They are having to take the brunt of it however, because those that should be taking the blame are much harder to find.
It appalls me, that a huge corporate industry is picking on the little people of the world in order to line their pockets even further. I can't say it surprises me as the record industry has spent their entire existence lining their pockets off other people's talents, and good looks. After all, recording artists don't make money off CD sales and air time on local radio stations. They make their money from touring because the record industry has already taken almost every last dime from the record sales and radio air time. Recording artists can tour because of the publicity they get on the radio stations, so for them the situation works well in a sense. Exactly where will Patti Santangelo and her children "tour" in order to make up the money the record industry has raped them for? Perhaps the "Today Show" or "Regis and Kelly"?
It's a fact.
I could also add he was driving a pickup truck and that he was in his mid 20's.
And that it looked like his parents were not here legally tho he was a citizen (so probably by birth).
Or that it was halloween.
Or that I was sitting stopped at a red light when he hit me doing at least 30 mph since it broke my seat.
And that he tried to escape the scene but his truck was too screwed up to get more than about 150 feet.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
She'd better get attorney's fees, etc., or the system is seriously broken.
No plaintiff be allowed to simply drop a case with no penalty.
No sig today...
It's worth pondering whether or not she was ever curious as to where her kids kept getting all that new music they were listening to...
I love my sig.
She's accountable for the debts of her infant (under 21 in common-law.. no clue about her state) children - and debts can usually be recovered from parents until you turn 26. The distinction is that she didn't commit the act, and therefore the tort is against her children - but the payment will probably come from her finances.
The system works by errosion - legislatures throw shit on top, and lawyers weather it back down.
-GiH
Litigation costs make it unlikely that RIAA would move down to any scheme that resulted in smaller payouts. They'd go broke suing.
-GiH
Such a burden.
-GiH
"It should not be the job of anyone else but the parent to get the point across that 'Stealing is not only unethical, but also unlawful'"
True.
The RIAA is not suing people for stealing, however. Try again.
Welcome to the land of freedom and opportunity, where might is right, where truth and fairness are something you can buy, if you are rich enough, and where opportunity means that you have a right to take and keep whatever catches your fancy, as long as you can pay enough for your lawyer.
Sounds like the fun my dad had a few years ago. Totally screwed him up from the base of his neck to the bottom of his spine. Hit dead on from the rear at a stoplight by an old lady. The insurance ... I don't even think they covered his rehab, and I don't remember just how badly he went into debt during his inability to work (Due to being in a brace 24/7) in his field (Professional driver. Mostly long-haul) but the little old lady got her car replaced and was unhurt. My dad's car.. Heh. The entire rear section of the frame rolled under the car, making it inoperable even if the insurance company didn't want to total it out. Isn't the law fun when it comes to liability!
You are right, RIAA is suing computer-illiterate, irresponsible parents and their juvenille delinquents so that the slashdot community can mentally masturbate on the meaning of "stealing".
Maybe you prefer the irreponsible parent's suggestion/alternative... "Mrs. Santangelo proclaimed ignorance, arguing that she did no such thing, and if her children did it, then the RIAA should pursue the makers of the software."
I'm not passing judgment that it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing". It is what it is, and it generally seems to work. I'm just pointing out the the RIAA isn't some dear-god-who-could-have-seen-the-serpent-coming sort of organization. This is an agency we all built together, the unavoidable product of our economy. If I remember correctly, Eli Whitney either broke even or *lost* money on the cotton gin because farmers stole his intellectual property (plans to make a cotton gin) and refused to buy Whitney's gin. In fact, the arguments were nearly the same as they are about file sharing: Whitney's gin damages the cotton! (purchased music comes with DRM!). It's cheaper to make my own! (It's cheaper to download my own!). Could you really tell me that if Whitney had an agency like the RIAA for farm equipment, he wouldn't have enlisted their services?
Sony ha
More to the point (the one that just went flying over your neutronium-packed skull), the RIAA is suing people for redistributing their IP.
Your point seems to be that it's common for businesses to be evil, so we shouldn't think of the RIAA as being particularly bad, as they just reflect the common evil.
Well sorry, but not everyone is in terminal moral shutdown like you are. Some of us actually care when evildoers driven by pure greed seek to destroy the lives of millions. If nobody did anything to combat bad things just because "they're a product of our community" then the world would rapidly spiral downwards into universal evil.
There are many grey areas in the "IP" world that arise from universal network connectivity, but they're grey only because bloodsucking vultures wish to suck the community dry and so invent the greyness. Music is the classic example.
Marketeers are happy to pay huge money for anything that increases exposure for their products, and every uploaded song is doing precisely that. They should be overjoyed that it's being done for free, instead of swallowing up their marketting budgets. For any thinking organization, it should be clear that for any single sale lost due to P2P, dozens or hundreds of other people are getting to hear a particular item of music, and each of those are a potential customer for the physical product. In any balanced argument, such marketting gains need to be offset against any possible sales losses. What's more, that alleged "lost sale" also entailed a production saving to add to the marketting saving.
It was exactly so in the past, when radio stations would commonly play entire albums, and marketting would benefit hugely from cassette-recorded copies spreading the word and creating legions of fans -- a physical form of P2P. And then later in life, those usually cash-impaired schoolkids and students would eventually turn the best of those old but dear cassettes into physical music sales, and the studios would reap the rewards. It worked, just requiring community awareness and a little patience.
But what we have now is just simple mobster-like evil incarnate in the studios/RIAA coupling, no longer interested in the long-term view and in recognizing the benefits of P2P both to fandom and to themselves, and instead seeking to criminalize an activity that a very large proportion of society considers to be positive.
Well, I have no time for anyone whose business plan is entirely parasitic, their contribution to community is nil, and their effect on the lives of people is completely destructive. Those lawyers should be ashamed at their choice of employer.
Clear anti-community evil needs to be combatted, not ignored like you seem to wish.
Why not just throw it through their window...aiming for their tree of course.
Direct community feedback to the RIAA is long overdue actually.
Seeking to criminalize something that hundreds of millions of people (maybe billions) consider a GOOD thing (sharing) implies a total disconnect from the real world.
A brick might be a useful wakeup call.
You will have to excuse my ignorance but it worries me that they can try to sue a person for this, fail / give up, and now go after this persons children for...the same thing? If that fails, what next? Any person that ever used the computer?
Actually, you can get away from the RIAA. Two possibilities come to mind:
- 95% of the people in this world live in a place where the RIAA can't touch them
- In this one place where the RIAA does seem to have some power, you could try voting for politicians that will stand up against such practices.
After all, even the UK has realized that there should be fair use rights.
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
Dude, I want to sue you because you might have caused me to miss a lucrative business deal
in 2012. (Butterfly effect). I potentially could have made $12 million dollars, but I havent so
I want that money back.
Oh btw, if I record analogue radio using a 96khz digital card, and downsample to 44khz, would that be ok?
People did it in the 80s, no one cried foul then. Besides, britney doesnt need more money so she can
go out partying with Lindsay!!
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Damn right.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Seems kind of cheap to compare a technological advance the increases the production of clothing (a necessity) with a music track... Around the time Eli Whitney was around, musicians' sole source of income was a tip jar on the front of their stage (if they even had the luxury of a stage)... Not to mention, RIAA and the record labels are the ones getting the money, not the musicians... You think Eli would have enlisted the cotton gin association if he knew they were going to take 90% of his income?
Better yet, the cotton gin is an invention, which is what our patent system is designed for. Song are NOT inventions, in fact throughout history, musicians made their living not by the creation of new songs, but in their performance of existing songs & tales. Eli would be turning over in his grave if he knew you equated his invention to a simple song written by a drug-addicted modern day musician.
America's entertainment industry has plenty of business. We should probably look at protecting the people who are actually making our country progress, the people that are designing and manufacturing things we NEED... the people that the silly entertainment industry depend on for their livelihood as well. To do that, we need a government that will put its people before its businesses.
Do some research, if you're interested. Things that you should be looking for are:
- Recording the judgment-
- Garnish his wages-
- Charge interest-
By now, you've probably guessed that I Am A Landlord. We have many more tricks up our sleeves to chase down deadbeats and make them pay, but this ought to get you started.This, depending on your state, may place an automatic lien on any property he owns or purchases in the state. It will also likely show up on his credit report, which means he ain't getting a secured loan (mortgage or auto loan) until he pays up.
If he's making money, you can probably garnish his wages. His employer will pay you a little bit each pay period until the debt is satisfied.
Most stages allow you to charge interest on the debt. Each year, forgive the interest on the debt and give your Hispanic friend a 1099 (and don't forget to send that 1099 to the IRS as well). He'll have to pay taxes on that "income" every time you do it. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Merry Christmas!
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
+1 Infomative, +1 Fast. Thanks.
I guess it's because IANAL that I expect that which looks correct and just to prevail in court. At any rate, the Elektra v. Barker case will be interesting to watch; I'm especially interested in how high (or low) the "standard of evidence" bar ends up for the the RIAA going forward.
Pi Ran Out
RareButSeriousSideEf said: "I guess it's because IANAL that I expect that which looks correct and just to prevail in court. At any rate, the Elektra v. Barker case will be interesting to watch; I'm especially interested in how high (or low) the "standard of evidence" bar ends up for the the RIAA going forward."
Well IAAL but I also "expect that which looks correct and just to prevail in court". Maybe I'm a slow learner.
In any event I hope Judge Karas does the right thing in Barker. It would go a long way toward clearing up the mess that is inundating the federal courts at the moment.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Sheesh.
Replace photocopy with "use digital camera to copy the book".
Doctor Strangelove would have been orgasmicly enamored with the corporatist, politics, and religious dogma synergy of today.
....
... none of the shut makes any fycking sense to me. I do know "nepotism and corporatism" ain't "democracy and capitalism".
He would request the De_jure Excellency Bush for appointment as the ambassador to the sovereign fascist RIAA VaporLandia.
VaporLandia VaporLandia Over All Others
Don't Worrying about the RIAA and Love the Bombdigity!
IOW: DRM, RIAA, IPR
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Do you realize you're entirely offtopic, since nothing whatsoever was stolen here? Even the RIAA's lawyers are smart enough to figure that out!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Ah, but then it's not the library's digital camera! It's not the library's fault that the info is lying around; it would be violating its duty if info wasn't lying around. Copying library books is our choice.
I don't support the RIAA's tactics, their choices of lawsuits, or the current laws against sharing music without permission. Clearly their tactics were esp. bad this time around. And I'm NAL, so forgive me if I say something legally ridiculous.
Nonetheless, these cases look more grounded than many the RIAA have attempted. I can understand why they might think that someone who owns a computer and an internet account is computer-literate. Now that they believe that other people did the Kazaaing, it's proper for them to shift the case to those other people. It's just painful that they are related to their original victim and that mom will likely be pay any enormous fines or settlements the younger one incurs, at the least.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
The library is promoting borrowing, actually. It's not the library's fault if we make copies off-premises. (I think the savvier libraries are starting to ban digital cameras on-premises.) It's certainly not the library's fault when the RIAA thinks borrowing is illegal and tries to make the legal system agree.
Some libraries have CD collections. But the ones that don't probably never will. True audio CDs are more vunerable to copying than books or DVDs by design. The RIAA is less merciful to those who do the copying than book publishers or even the MPAA, and the RIAA has been known to sue middlemen. So a library might want to stay out of their way.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Okay. You say that because our lady of messy RIAA lawsuits barely understands computers, she won't understand the owner's manual for the computer. .html help menu to find how to work the more obscure features. If you must use Windows to learn how to use Windows...
But the owner's manual is supposed to tell you how to use whatever the manual is for. It's not strictly necessary, but if you don't already know how to use the thing, the owner's manual is the safest way to learn without breaking the thing.
So, if she is unable to understand computers, she won't understand the owner's manual; but if she can't understand the owner's manual, how will she learn to understand the computer?
This catch-22 is a real problem. Many people are putting the instructions for software on the software itself; you have to wade through a scary and long
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I thought the RIAA already tried to sue Kazaa?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Again; I have been able to take a point from the corporate righteous of America.
/. by depleting the righteousness lobbyist resources on /.
/. moderating to collect and then dispense points for the neo-righteous/corporatist agenda.
/. admin ain't involved, but maybe there is an organized group of users ... pushing a subversive agenda? I wonder, could they have an automated system slightly slanting content to trivia and downgrading /. folks that show independent or odd thoughts on /.?
... rate me how you will. Look at my past years of post ... no change ... I think Bush killed 3000 USA Warriors by lying to Congress for a self-righteous neo-conservative agenda (I could be wrong). THANKS GOD he is now a lame-duck President.
... Reality is self induced hallucination. (%~o)
It is a small victory, but it helps
I wounder how many righteous lobbyist minions are on
I know
Anyway, I always have a three-point to one advantage. I write for me
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?