Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own

[cosmicone]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051226/ap_on_en_mu/music_download_suit

WHITE PLAINS, New York - It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer, but the industry didn't see it that way. The woman from Wappingers Falls, about 80 miles north of New York City, is among the more than 16,000 people who have been sued for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks.

"I assumed that when I explained to them who I was and that I wasn't a computer downloader, it would just go away," she said in an interview. "I didn't really understand what it all meant. But they just kept insisting on a financial settlement."

The industry is demanding thousands of dollars to settle the case, but Santangelo, unlike the 3,700 defendants who have already settled, says she will stand on principle and fight the lawsuit.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. 5 kids, some teenagers and NO firewall?

Well at least she learned that lesson.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Wouldn't matter if you had a firewall..... many "bundled" software

packages, "phone home" and people allow it, (give permission in their firewall settings cuz they think it is the right thing to do) and I believe that software "tells all".

www.epic.org

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Well then could she put a password on her computer?

Ours at school are password protected. Kids can't do a thing on them unless a teacher enters the password.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Passwords mean nothing. Read this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/437967.stm




Cryptographers mark up code for a new key found in Windows

By Internet Correspondent Chris Nuttall
Cryptographers are sounding the alarm on a major security issue involving Microsoft Windows that could eclipse its Hotmail public relations disaster.


The BBC's Kathy Riddell: "This has set alarms bells ringing"
The findings of a computer security expert that America's National Security Agency (NSA) may have been given a back door into every copy of Windows 95, 98, NT4 and 2000 worldwide are being debated across the Internet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. But they work on kids don't they?

Like I said, we use them at school and we change them frequently. So far, they keep the kids off the computers unless we are there to enter the password.

If my kids were young, you can bet I would have my home computer password protected.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. Yes.... passwords will keep almost all children and many physical

adults out of your computer.... but if you are connected to the net... and the gubmint wants in... chances are they are in without much bother.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Well that goes without saying

It just seems to me that this mom would have saved herself a lot of trouble and $$$ if she had passworded her computer.

[LisaL]

2. There is probably very little doubt that her kids did it.

I guess the question is whatever the parent is responsible for what kids do on the computer.

[cosmicone]

3. Maybe some lawyers may answer...

a question I have always had.

I had always felt that in order to sue, one needs to have "standing" i.e. be the injured party and that standing cannot be assigned.

How is RIAA damaged by someone downloading music? The damages belong to each individual artist and individual record company. Shouldn't each artist and/or record company have to sue instead of the RIAA? RIAA suffered no damages and is not the injured party.

The dynamics of these cases will change if the artist himself has to take the risk of suing an innocent mother rather than a faceless organization.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. The RIAA is the agent of the artist(s)

That's standing enough.

However, in case there was any question of standing, the RIAA is wealthy and powerful. And wealthy-and-powerful always trumps any other legal consideration.

For instance, how many artists have made even one thin dime from the RIAA's barratry?

--p!
The Poor. It's What's For Dinner.™

[NashVegas]

6. Here's My Question:

If it's stealing, why aren't the defendants being arrested, instead of just being sued?

[Toots]

7. Yes that is usually the accepted rule of Law but

explain how in the hell did Bush* ever have legal "standing" in the 2000 suit he brought against Al Gore? How was Bush* any more hurt than Gore when the Votes had not yet been certified or even counted yet. If anyone at all was damaged it was the voters themselves but certainly not Bush*.. Every single attorney I have asked about this just shakes their head in wonderment. Bush* had no legal "standing" yet his case was accepted anyway.......It was indeed a political coup...

[MrPrax]

11. This is what..

I was thinking...if the industry insists it's losing all this money through this piracy, then the artists could do much better than suing fans, but suing their record companies for failure to protect their artistic rights.

Mind you that might get dicey as claims vis a vis actual artistic claims and format claims...

How many people out there really believe after say buying their fav record, first on vinyl, then on cassette and then again on CD, might have a bone to pick with these artists and their companies.

Why pay the same royality rates simply because the 'song' you originally 'bought' rights to is being re-released on incompatible formats. How mny times does Van Morrison expect to be paid for the SAME F*CKIN' music year in, year out by his fans.

This so-called piracy simply comes down to convenience as I see it and that's directly related to the technology.

Also can artists really expect that 2 weeks worth of session work back in 1971 is going to continue to pay them dividends into the future? Do their record companies think that they can simply 'bait and switch'?

Go out and tour like artists have traditionally done and maybe I might feel sorry for the bigs.

[BuelahWitch]

15. This relates to something I want to know

If someone downloads music that was on an album that is no longer in print, is it still piracy? Or if you have the recording on some type of non CD media already (like vinyl or cassette), meaning you've already BOUGHT the song, and you download it from the internet, is that piracy?

Singer Janis Ian wrote an excellent article back in 2002 about this issue. She states that people downloading her old songs from her site has MADE her money (ie. more people are coming to her shows). Here it is:

http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html


Don't get me wrong, I don't condone stealing. But don't ask me to be sorry for members of the recording industry until I see them shopping at Costco buying a month's supply of Kraft Mac n Cheese...

[Solon]

16. Technically your first example is copyright infringement...

The second one, however, is allowed under fair use as long as you own a copy of the album/song, doesn't matter in what form it was in(Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Wax Cylinder:)). But the RIAA would argue that if you threw that album away, for any reason, or lost it in a fire, that the song has to be deleted off your computer. That is just stupidity.

BTW: Just an FYI, it NOT stealing, its copyright infringement, to steal something you deprive someone else from buying it legally, that doesn't happen under copyright infringement.

ON EDIT: You can own one backup copy of ANY copyrighted material in another form, for backup and archival purposes, only for personal use, you distribute it, and you break copyright law. Another thing that is odd is this, according to US law, it is technically legal to have a copy of copyrighted material for 24 hours, even if you didn't buy it, but I don't know if it applies to music or movies, I do know it applies to video game ROMS(copies of Atari/Nintendo/Sega cartridges). You, of course, are obliged to delete the copy after the 24 hour period is up, or buy the original.

[BuelahWitch]

17. Thanks Solon

I guess I said "stealing" because I have seen it described in print so many times as "theft."

[Solon]

18. Yeah, it can be confusing...

That is how the **AA(RIAA and MPAA) terms it anyways, even though they are factually wrong. I mean, if it really was theft under the law, these wouldn't be civil, but instead criminal suits, and the offenders would go to jail rather than losing money. However, look at the FBI warning on movies, as an example, there is apparently a stiffer sentence availuable to copyright infringers that shoplifters, does that make sense?

[onenote]

21. You can be held criminally liable for copyright infringement

Its just that the RIAA and MPAA prefer to go the route of recovering damages. A criminal action doesn't provide any $$ to the content industry.

onenote

[Solon]

23. I know that...

I was just talking about how it would actually be less risky to go to the store and steal a CD, than to get a copy off the internet. Hell, shoplifters get less than 90 days(most of the time probation, don't even get a record half the time), usually, and a less than 5,000 dollar fine(First time offenders only, obviously), cheaper than copyright infringment, penalty wise, even if you just count civil suits.

[onenote]

25. of course, your risk of getting caught shoplifting probably is greater

than your risk of getting caught downloading. (RIAA has only filed around 9,000 lawsuits over the past couple of years, and the number of people estimated to have engaged in downloading from unlicensed services at its peak was in the millions and probably still is in the hundreds of thousands). I agree with you about the penalties if you do get caught.

onenote

[Solon]

26. True, though I do find some of the lawsuits filed as Doe suits to be...

Somewhat ridiculous. I don't know about you, but many of these suits seem to be making the RIAA look bad, I mean seriously, how many underage kids from my time used to copy music onto cassettes and pass them around? Millions if not tens of millions, everybody where I grew up did that, and they didn't get sued, then again, they didn't get caught either, and the RIAA fought the marketing of Cassettes, feriously, just like the MPAA fought the use of VHS tapes at first. Both lost the edge, and yet have survived, this is just new technology for a new age, just like VHS and Cassettes of the '80s-early '90s. Now, they are going to ridiculous levels to try to get rid of fair use laws, if not in law, then in practicality, like installing Rootkits without user's knowledge that prevents CD burning. Hell, I'm surprised they haven't tried to get radios banned, how many tapes, and now CDs or MP3s of radio broadcasts do people have? Is that copyright infringement? Plus the fact that the RIAA get's money off of every blank CD ever sold, yet they still bitch and moan that P2P trading is losing them millions in revenue. Maybe if they actually marketed CDs to be less than many DVDs then they would sell better, I mean, how much of a profit margin should they have, its ridiculous. Think about it, who in their right mind would buy a CD for 20 bucks, when a new DVD, which cost a LOT more to make, costs 15?

This isn't really to justify copyright infringement at all, but rather simply to state that the RIAA is beginning to get a little extreme in the enforcement of copyrights. Should they enforce them? Yes, but it shouldn't be from defending damaging other people's property as Sony did, or lobbying Congress to pass laws that make it illegal for me to modify my own property(DMCA), or allowing me to use my property, as they intended, on platforms they don't like, like playing encrypted DVDs on Linux. They are getting stupid, and aren't winning many new friends, I will say that much.

[onenote]

27. agree wholeheartedly

RIAA has been both heavy handed and incredibly narrow sighted about new technology. And they're paying for it now. One example: without getting into the technicalities of it, the downloading of recorded music typically involves two separate copyright owners and two sets of rights: the sound recording copyright (usually held by the record company) and the musical composition copyright (usually held by a music publishing house). Back in the early days of Internet music, it was pointed out while it was possible to identify and attempt to get a license from the record company to copy the sound recording, it was nearly impossible to get the rights to copy the musical work because the agency that handled such licensing for the publishers didn't represent everyone and because many songs have multiple owners, etc. The record companies sought to frustrate efforts to come up with a streamlined "compulsory" or "blanket" licensing scheme for obtaining the rights to copy compositions because they didn't want it to apply to the sound recordings. Now that "legal" downloading services have finally gotten a foothold, RIAA has turned around and is supporting blanket licensing for the composition copying rights. The situation should've been resolved years ago.

onenote

[Solon]

30. One thing I think the RIAA is trying to do is validate itself in today's..

World. For one, they are having an increasingly difficult time competeing with independent labels. Not to mention that they are heavy handed with artists as well. Artists don't get control of the songs they produce, that's the label's property, and they get a pittance from CD sales, and make most of their money off of tours and concerts. Many are thinking about bailing entirely(Not renewing contracts) and going online, marketing directly with their fans. This has the benefit of them being able to not only reach out to more people, but they can retain control of their Intellectual Property. Think about it, they could sell songs themselves, at one fifth of the cost of iTunes, that would be about 20 cents per song, and still make more money off that than CD sales through RIAA affiliated labels.

[Solon]

19. BTW: off topic, but if you like classic films, you can download many...

for free, legally. Many old movies failed to have their copyrights renewed, and are now public domain, so they are now available to download from the internet. I would recommend "Salt of the Earth" or "Nosferatu" those are good.

www.archive.org

[onenote]

20. actually second example probably isn't fair use

If you take your personal copy of a recording (whether or vinyl, cassette, cd, etc) and copy it onto your harddrive or burn it onto a cd, that's fair use. If you obtain another copy by having it transmitted to you from a third person over the Internet, that arguably isn't fair use.

onenote

[Solon]

22. The third party would have violated copyright, not you...

First, there is nothing in copyright law that says that the introduction of a third party in any way puts any type of bearing on your fair use rights. The law simply makes no judgement for you, as long as you own an original, it doesn't matter how you came about your archival copy.

[onenote]

24. "stealing" has lots of definitions

Unlike larceny, which tends to be formally defined in the law, stealing is essentially a colloquial term that covers any dishonest transaction whereby one person obtains that which belongs to another without consideration. Intellectual property is property and infringing an owner's rights in that property (for example, by making a copy without obtaining a license or in circumstances that do not constitute "fair use") is a form of "stealing" as that term is informally used. You are correct that it is not larceny.

onenote

[depakid]

28. Economic analysis shows that the industry makes money

Through sampling (or file sharing). Their artists get expose (which they would NEVER GET on consolodated generic radio) and it costs the industry nothing in terms of marketing costs. I've seen several journal articles on point, and they're pretty convincing.

The RIAA is cutting off its nose to spite its face- which is typical of exploitative bullies like that.

[Sin]

9. This should be her response.

Dear RIAA
No i never downloaded any songs.
because someone spoofed my ip address and used it to dl the songs.
+ at the time my hard drive was infected with rather bad virus it corrupted many sectors including track zero upon which i removed it and tossed it into an industrial chipper shredder.

if you wish to Press the case any more plz try to come pull me out of my house.

*Ps I will not go Willingly

[bleedingheart]

29. I fear for her chances....she was on TV but she had a hard time

even discussing the case...if I were her I would have hired a lawyer....

[depakid]

31. I wonder if parents are even liable in cases like this?

In many tort cases they're not, although there are exceptions.

If she knew, that would be one thing- but if she didn't- I dunno. An interesting question for someone to look up.

[shawn703]

35. Would it be related to social host liability laws?

Can't they hold parents liable for actions that occur without their knowledge in their home in those cases?

[progressivebydesign]

32. I have a teenager. She is not allowed unsupervised on the internet.

The door is open and the computer is password protected. End of story. Trust? yeah, nice concept, but those of us with teens know that some you can trust, some you can't... depends on the kid. You can do things to block downloads and such, if you have to. If your kids have not been educated to NOT download things, then that's your problem right there. Kids do stupid things.. they think they know better, but if you have no understanding of the internet yourself, or understanding about downloads, then you shouldn't have an accessible internet connection there for your kids, because you're too ignorant to keep them out of trouble.

It's kind of embarrassing to hear her complain about this, as it's easily proved that the downloads were done at her house, on her computer. (in church while they scanned it, NICE TOUCH for her to add).

[bleedingheart]

37. I don't let my 9 year old do anything on the computer without supervision

I love my kids but kids are kids....and they do dumb things without knowing or just out of curiousity...

[fedsron2us]

33. Music sales not looking good

Time to get into a new racket like demanding money with menaces.

[toopers]

34. Why can't she just say that she did not download any music?

If one of her kids downloaded the song then the RIAA has to figure out which kid, right? I am sure I am missing something.

[SomewhereOutThere424]

36. I hope she wins

The record industry is the one who should have to make better protection -- not the parents of kids download happy. If they're so bent out of shape about people downloading mp3s...why the hell are mp3 players legal? Bait and switch, I hope the RIAA goes down in flames soon.

[genieroze]

38. It's not downloading, it's uploading. If you download a song you could

be liable for a buck per song because that's how much it costs from iTunes, Napster etc... It's uploading that costs the industry thousands of dollars because every song that is uploaded from your computer costs the industry a buck per song per download which could theoretically cost thousands in revenue. There are programs like Peerguardian and Protowall which block RIAA and MPAA among others as well as using a anon proxy server. I use Shareaza and I am very careful about what I share. I only share freeware and other non copyrighted items. When my kids go on I check my computer I make sure there are no copyrighted materials when they are done and if there is I DELETE THEM. Plus I use Peerguardian2 because I don't like the fact of any governments or anyone else snooping into my computer. I do this even if Shareaza isn't up. You can set this up for http as well as udp. Peerguardian2 http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ Protowall http://www.bluetack.co.uk