Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Defendant Cross-Sues Kazaa And AOL
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In what appears to be a first, RIAA defendant Michelle Santangelo, the 20-year old daughter of Patti Santangelo, has made a motion for leave to serve a third party complaint against Kazaa and AOL, as well as against someone who installed Kazaa software, in Elektra v. Santangelo II. Her proposed third-party complaint (pdf) alleges that any injuries plaintiffs might have sustained were the result of the third party defendants' "negligence and breaches... in the defective design of Sharman Network's program, "Kazaa" which was a dangerous instrumentality in its each and every use as it existed in 2002-2004; the trespassing and reckless installation by Matthew Seckler [the person who allegedly installed the software without authorization] of such program; the failure to warn by AOL and Sharman; the failure to block the downloading of such files by AOL; the improper blocking of alleged (RIAA) warning messages by AOL and Sharman; and, the secretive file sharing system of and by Kazaa.""
As I said, interesting...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
While I'm not sure what you mean by 'Stand up and declare your rights', I'll let it go and talk about weaseling for a second.
In this case, the defendant claims to have done nothing wrong and to be guilty only of the following:
Taken at face value, I don't see any weaseling going on. The only seemingly weasel-ish aspect is the way that the third party complaint spreads across so many defendants. This, however, is perfectly acceptable in the legal system if, again, you take the original defendant's testimony at face value.
The way I see it, Miss Santangelo is basically saying, "I didn't do it. It's not my fault. I don't know who is responsible, but it's probably one of these guys, let the court figure it out."
It's not that she's accusing aol and Sharman as much as she's saying that they had more to do with any infraction than she did.
Looking at how this looks for precedence, I'm interested to see how this turns out. We currently have laws that hold a bar liable if a patron gets a DUI on the way home. Bars serve alcohol, it's what they do. But they get in trouble if people use their product illegally. By the same token, aol supplies internet access. Should they be held completely harmless if people use their product illegally? If so, why is there a double standard between bars and ISPs?
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV...
This reminds me of people who leave their bong in the lounge room or other "communal area" in share accommodation. If the cops burst in they can't prove who was smoking the pot, so they can't arrest anyone, right?
Well, no. The cops just charge everyone with possession and when they try to pull that communal area crap in court they get laughed at by the judge.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This would be the best case scenario, as we would not only keep our few, remaining, rights; we would regain all of those which we've lost in the last several years.
Many people I know, including myself, are waiting for widespread support for just this.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
It's like the tagline for Alien vs. Predator: "Whoever wins... we lose"
This is more interesting, though.
This poo is cold.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Interestingly enough, thats actually more (18 cents) than an artist gets per song.
The RIAA, record companies and their distributors get the rest.
I had a long fight once where I was at a house visiting a friend, a knock came at the door and the guy came in to split some coke up that they bought together. Literally 3 minutes after he walked through the door, they were passing it back and forth looking at it and three knocks came to the door followed by it bursting open with about 6 officers running in telling everyone to get down. IF you weren't on th floor by the time they reached you, they put you on the floor and I don't mean helping you either.
In the commotion, the 8ball got tossed onto the floor and everyone got arrested for it. Including me and another friend I was riding with.
It took 10 months of fighting in court and almost 5 grand to get out of it. Evidently, the guy who came in, bought it from a undercover cop and they followed him home instead of busting him there because the two (who were splitting it) were actually talking on the cell phone trying to haggle the price when the one got it from the cops. I had both of them saying I wasn't involved and it didn't matter at all. This was about 12 or 13 years ago during an election year and they were tough on crime.
Sometimes you will be in just as much trouble just being there until you can prove your innocence. The cops kept saying they were going to take my cars and sell them and all that shit. Fortunately, My job easily payed enough to cover my "lifestyle" and they couldn't find anything indicating I was selling drugs to support it. And yes, they had my banking records and frozen my accounts for 2 months when my lawyer was finally able to got them back. They charged me with conspiracy, trafficking, possession with intent (which was part of the conspiracy) resisting arrest (because I wasn't on the floor fast enough), then they attempted to say I could plead out to on charge of possession and get 5 year probation. Of course I refused and fought it but the guy who drove me there took the deal and got hit for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was still out almost $5000 though and had a bunch of checks bounce when they froze my accounts.
My advice, if you see it happening, throw it out or move out yourself. Maybe breaking it a couple of time would force them to keep it locked away. It just isn't worth it if your not doing it "too". Pot alone is a little more relaxed then an 8 ball of cocaine and a few quarter bags. But I could easily see a cop being an ass and trying to make an example or something. My lawyer said if it wasn't an election year when it went down, I would have probably been let go the day it happened.
People should stop using the "I'm stupid, which absolves me" excuse for everything. If you're that stupid, you should not have a computer; you should have some sort of restricted-access restricted-function system that lets you surf the Web and read your e-mail and use some sort of instant messenger, but does not allow you to install anything. Or at most, install programs that some external entity/company is willing to take legal responsibility for, since you are too stupid to do that yourself (meaning trivial and safe stuff). Hmm. Having written that, maybe that is the point of Windows Vista, and the current direction of Windows; protect the stupid user from liability. And protect Microsoft, of course. Because, you know, that is the next logical step: "Why does Windows allow me to install programs that let me break the law? They are responsible for this, not me!"