Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Sep 01, 2005 06:51 PM
from the won't-back-down dept.
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
yro music
story

Related Stories

[+] RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo 190 comments
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"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • About time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2005, @06:54PM (#13459684)
    Good this is getting ridiculous. Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.
    • Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:17PM (#13459840)
      Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.

      Actually, the most interesting thing about the transcript as I read it was that the lawyer for the music industry wanted the defendant/her lawyer to mess around with some industry settlement process, but the judge basically squashed it flat:

      MR. MASCHIO:
      I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
      THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
      MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
      THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
      MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
      THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
      MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
      THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
      MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
      THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
      MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
      THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
      [Emphasis added]

      The judge earlier stamped on an attempt to get the defendant to state a position under oath before having the chance to take legal advice pretty heavily, too.

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by interiot (50685) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:30PM (#13459934) Homepage
        And then, at the end he says:
        Well, I think it would be a really good idea for you to get a lawyer, because I would love to see a mom fighting one of these.
        A little sexist, but she is the single parent of 5 kids, so it would make for good PR.

        By the way, how far does the judge have to go in saying that he's leaning towards a particular party before the evidence is even presented, before he starts risking invalidating the whole trial?

  • Full Blog Text (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2005, @06:57PM (#13459703)
    Runaround Suits
    I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
    That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
    Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
    MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
    THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
    MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
    THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
    MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
    THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
    • Another Blog Link (Score:5, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:35PM (#13459971) Journal
      There's more information at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

      Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer

      Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP

      99 Park Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for her

      I checked out their website and found this gem [blhny.com]

      In addition to their representation of commercial and corporate clients, multinational organizations and creative artists, the firm's lawyers are encouraged to devote a substantial portion of their time to representing individuals subjected to governmental abuse, discrimination and other infringements upon constitutional or statutory rights.
  • by convex_mirror (905839) on Thursday September 01 2005, @06:57PM (#13459706)
    When you can download the audio off bittorrent?
  • by The Outbreak Monkey (581200) on Thursday September 01 2005, @06:58PM (#13459711)
    McMahon, Colleen
    Born 1951 in Columbus, OH
    Federal Judicial Service:
    U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
    Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;

    From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799 [fjc.gov]

    Way to go Clinton ;)

    *quickly ducks*
  • by guaigean (867316) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:02PM (#13459734)
    I think it's important to point out from the transcript that the mother blames Kazaa for this happening.

    MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
    THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
    MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
    • by Seumas (6865) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:16PM (#13459836)
      Do you now understand why DRM will succeed and why customers will *like* it?

      Because, it will be presented like this:

      "DRM will help secure you and your computer so that nobody will be able to pirate movies or music through your computer and you won't have to worry about being sued for $100k".
  • by scribblej (195445) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:08PM (#13459777)

    19 And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
    20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
    21 that my children had downloaded anything.


    Yeah.... that'll happen.
  • by John Seminal (698722) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:09PM (#13459783) Journal
    How can the RIAA force people to pay money just because the RIAA believes a person from an IP address shared music?

    It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?

    Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".

    What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?

    What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?

    What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?

    There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.

    And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?

    Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?

    Is the IP address infallible?

  • Salient Quotes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mpapet (761907) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:38PM (#13459984) Homepage
    This is great arguing by the entertainment corps.

    Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
    Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.

    The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
    This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

    From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.

    MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
    THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.

    OUCH!!!

    Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
    MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
    THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
    MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.

    At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.

    Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
    MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
    THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.

    Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.

    This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
    I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
    THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
    MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
    THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
    MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
    THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
    MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
    THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
    MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
    THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
    MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
    THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.

    That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.

    Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
    • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:15PM (#13459831)
      Admittedly it will take a lot of people doing this to start denting the profits of the RIAA, so be it, but while it's a small thing for people to do it also has the advantage of being a cheap and anonymous way to start chipping away at the RIAA's monopoly.

      An even cheaper way to f*ck over the RIAA is to just not buy any CDs.

      Your method of the free distribution of CDs still gives them a target to attack and a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of "sharing" music.

      The RIAA is interested in just *one* thing - money. That means they want everyone to buy their own copy of every CD or every downloaded song because that way they get even more money. Your demonstrations of "non-compliance" are irrelevant to the RIAA borg.

      The solution to the RIAA problem is to remember that as a consumer in a capitalist society, you simply *don't* buy a product you do not think is value for money or is being sold by a corporation with dubious business or political motives - no matter how much you personally may *want* that product.

      Do that and you start denting the profits of the record companies who, in turn, stop financing the RIAA because they're not achieving anything.

    • by shalla (642644) on Thursday September 01 2005, @07:40PM (#13460003)
      Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man.

      Really? I wasn't aware of that. And here I got legally married by a district magistrate and didn't even know he was working for God. And all those papers I filed, did they go to God too?

      Is God responsible for insurance coverage and cost differences based on marital status of a household?

      Marriage is not only a religious institution. Historically, it's been used as a way to determine inheritance, cement alliances, transfer property, and establish responsibility and rights for others. Saying it is only a religious institution is a fairly narrow view. It can also be legal, cultural, societal, economic, and religious.