Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the won't-back-down dept.

Music 670

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."

cancel ×

670 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally..... (4, Insightful)

DotNM (737979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459669)

I think it's about time that someone is standing up to the **AA's in the world!

Re:Finally..... (3, Insightful)

eosp (885380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459687)

Maybe someone in the govt. is sane for once.

Quakity banter in TFA... (4, Interesting)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459721)

...but the judge said "So let's set another conference date for July 8th at, 9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then." She had 60 days to find a somewhat competant lawyer...

It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).

Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (2, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459775)

This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing.

This was not a trial, but it was most certainly a court case, otherwise there would have been no preliminary hearing.

KFG

Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (2, Interesting)

w98 (831730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459830)

My favorite line was "If you find a lawyer than can handle a little bit of this and a little bit of that, they can handle a little bit of this"

The judge sounded very laid back, and sounds to me like he's read about a lot of these lawsuits and is willing to give this lady a chance.

Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459869)

and "his" name is Colleen.

Why do people keep calling it **AA? (5, Funny)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459728)

Seriously, it should be either *AA or ??AA. **AA is completely reduntant...

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (5, Funny)

The Outbreak Monkey (581200) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459758)

Ah, a fellow wildcard purist.

Good catch.

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459795)

Ahm,

As this is a organization we are talking about and not file names, we we should be using reg-ex rather than wildcards...So dare I suggest \w*AA

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459918)

Don't you mean \w{2}AA ?

Or maybe even [A-Z]{2}AA ?

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (2, Informative)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459862)

If they mean it to be a wildcard substitution you'd be completely correct.

If, however, they are treating the acronym in question as an expletive, it is standard procedure to blank out multiple letters with the '*' character. (Ex: Those s**tty suits) If that's the case, however, it should more properly be 'R**A'... so they more likely did intend it as a wildcard.

Still, not inappropriate to consider them as expletives given their behavior of late...

I think I'll start using 'Random Evil Media Or Recording Association', REMORA.

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459910)

I think it's pretty unlikely that they're blanking it out like an expletive, as it's constantly used to refer interchangably to RIAA, MPAA, etc. For example, there's quite a few posts where people say stuff like "**AA's". I think it's obvious they're using it as a wildcard, as it's unlikely that all these slashdotters are stupid enough to refer to a single organization in plural form.

FUCKING AMERICAN PIG-DOG (1)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459916)

"Still, not inappropriate to consider them as expletives given their behavior of late..."
You're not not a shitfaggot! And you haven't not sucked a dick.

Stay the fuck out of my country you piece of trash.

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (1)

rcbarnes (875915) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459892)

Bah to both of those! '..' for two chars, or .* for flexible length instead of any of those. Viva la RegEx!

Re:Why do people keep calling it **AA? (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459942)

And as to the regexp posts, while they *do* have their place, this isn't it. Wildcards work just as well for this, and are easier to use. Using regexps in this case is like using a swiss army knife to open a fucking cardboard box.

There will be nothing to stop us this time... (5, Insightful)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459743)

...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.

RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (5, Interesting)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459748)

The judge may be standing up to them, but it seems only to their use of the courts to try to armtwist people into quietly settling.

Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.

The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.

So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."

- Greg

Re:Finally..... (2, Insightful)

payback451 (867372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459794)

Yea, and end their power trip. Granted, they have valid reason for going after people for what they're doing (Or in these cases apparently not doing), I believe there has to be a better way to try and stop all the file sharing other then charging someone a couple thousand and giving them jail time.

Re:Finally..... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459870)

Rather against the RI** or even better: the *I**!

gnaa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459675)

gnaa

About time (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459684)

Good this is getting ridiculous. Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.

Re:About time (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 8 years ago | (#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 (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459931)

I loved this:
"THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge"

heh.

Re:About time (4, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459934)

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?

Re:About time (1)

Spetiam (671180) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459853)

Try telling that to the lawyers. :)

A Sequel.. (4, Funny)

kaede128 (911697) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459689)

Download Wars: Episode V - The Mom Strikes Back

Only 1 day behind the times (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459693)

Slashdot is now only one day behind. This was on digg.com yesterday.
Get with it guys. Your getting your trousers whipped!

Re:Only 1 day behind the times (3, Funny)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459701)

Yes, but it sure didn't take that long to slashdot the server...

Re:Only 1 day behind the times (2, Informative)

Tidal Flame (658452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459714)

It was on MetaFilter several days ago... it's an ongoing thing though, so Slashdot isn't really "behind" on this one.

Re:Only 1 day behind the times (1)

putzin (99318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459816)

Oh please, it doesn't take a genius to know that the /. submission process has been /.'d for years. I have submitted several stories that turned up a day later obviously submitted by someone else earlier than I did. So my news is a day late, I'm still a little geekier for having seen it here!

Time to kick some RIAA ends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459695)

Unfortunately, you can't kick a MPAA end.

Posted Yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459699)

Posted Yesterday [slashdot.org]

Full Blog Text (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Full Blog Text (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459899)

I have the feeling that the judiciary is starting to look askance at the RIAA. There have been a number of cases I've read about recently where judges did their best to see that the defendants weren't steamrollered ... hopefully this is a trend.

Why read the summary? (5, Funny)

convex_mirror (905839) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459706)

When you can download the audio off bittorrent?

Re:Why read the summary? (4, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459756)

You might be able to find it with KaZaa also.

Re:Why read the summary? (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459889)

I know that was a joke, but I wish more people would actually share that sort of thing on peer to peer networks. Being able to get audio records from a conference from eMule or BT, for example, would be great...Even if the conference has a site (like HOPE does) with records, being able to grab them off of p2p would let people get them quicker and maybe even expose them to folks who wouldn't have heard about them otherwise...

Three Cheers! (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459709)

Hip Hip
Hooray!

Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (5, Funny)

The Outbreak Monkey (581200) | more than 8 years ago | (#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*

Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459747)

*Cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA [wikipedia.org]

Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (5, Insightful)

The Outbreak Monkey (581200) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459897)

Good cough. However...

While Clinton signed the DMCA, the RIAA were the ones that decided to use it for extortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [wikipedia.org] ). Luckily, a judge that Clinton appointed is trying to put a stop to that. Checks and balances...more than just an idea?

Good cough none the less ;) Touché.

Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459757)

Wait, what does this have to do with who invented the Internet?

Re:Judge Colleen McMahon, nominated by... (1)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459854)

Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;

I doubt Clinton knew what he was doing. The judge was probably suggested by some high ranking senator, and Clinton obliged and made the nomination. In almost all cases, the senator where the Judge will sit is the one who picks out a couple good candidates, and then the president picks one.

Before Clinton, actually before Reagan, in most cases it did not matter if the senator was in the same party as the president. It was considered a courtesy for the president to pick someone who the senator from that state was in agreement with. There was little political value, they just wanted a person who knew the law and would rule based on law, not idiology. It should not matter what the political idiology the judge is, the law should come to the same conclusion without regard to who is sitting in the judge's chair.

Now here is what I would like to know. What kinds of pictures are on president Clintons computer? What kinds of music is on his daughters MP3 player? Did she ever share music with friends? Look at the Bush daughters and their drinking problems. Kids are kids. They will share openly, they will drink together, they will be a better community than adults in many cases. They are not so bogged down with wanting money to start tearing the fabric of relationships.

It's time to go after the RIAA in a big bad way (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459730)

Let's face it, they're scum, they're criminals, they don't represent artists, in fact they do everything they can to fuck over the artists they claim to be protecting and to keep them in a condition of indentured servitude. So how can we fuck these bastards? Simple. Take your entire MP3 collection, every single song you have, rip a dozen copies of it on DVD or CD taking care to anonymize it and leave no traces that the files came from you. Now, go pick out 12 names at random in your local phone book and anonymously send the discs to them saying "Here's a bunch of free music, you don't have to pay anything to anyone for it. To make sure that the music actually does get delivered to someone instead of ending up in the dead letter office pick out 12 more names from the phone book and use them for the return addresses of each package.

Now, will this screw the artists? Well, yeah, to some extent it will, but most artists are already getting fucked so hard by the RIAA so it's not like this is going to add to the burden that much. If you want to support these artists go to one of their concerts and buy T-shirts or figure out ways of getting money to them that don't involve going through the RIAA.

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.

Re:It's time to go after the RIAA in a big bad way (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459764)

Wouldn't sending out freely redistributable legal recordings of non-RIAA artists in order to promote them make more sense? http://creativecommons.org/ [creativecommons.org] http://dmusic.com/ [dmusic.com]

Re:It's time to go after the RIAA in a big bad way (4, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (2, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459732)

The RIAA might lose one to a determined defendant who attacks what at this point must be a kind of system the entertainment corps set up to sue individuals.

Good for her and everything, but "the tide" is not shifting to the RIAA's disadvantage.

Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (2, Interesting)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459785)

The RIAA's representation seems to suck quite a bit [wikipedia.org] now too... saying that there's an "an ongoing and continuous infringement" AFTER the defendant told the court that the computer "was wiped out and taken by my ex-husband".

Though, no doubt the RIAA will probably throw some legal weight onto this case soon (I'm surprised they didn't do it already, but the defendant's lawyer says RIAA still has junior lawyers on the case [p2pnet.net] ).

Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459837)

The RIAA doesn't need to throw any competent legal talent at this, since most of the defendents just cave in anyway.

-jcr

Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459883)

Right, but defendants standing up to the RIAA have already caused the RIAA problems (requiring a separate $200 subpeona for each john/jane doe, where they used to be able to get many john/jane does on one subpeona). If defendants stand up to the RIAA, and particularly if they prove in court that the RIAA is a bully and often files frivolous lawsuits, then that could make it much easier for other defendants to get a successful motion for dismissal.

Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459932)

Better still would be getting a judge to set some reasonable numbers for the damages.

-jcr

Something to point out... (5, Informative)

guaigean (867316) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Something to point out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459762)

what a stupid wank.. *I just cant believe it*.. ok.. hrmm

"the captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files"

hrmm. nearly 2000 songs.. and she had no idea.. that her children had all this music? from no where? .. hrmm, and i dont think timmy from down the street downloaded 1500 or even 100 of these songs..

place blame where it is due.

-dustin reeves

Re:Something to point out... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459833)

If you own a car and your 14yo kid takes it for a joyride, are you responsible? Legally, I mean. Are you liable for the actions of your child? Honest question, I don't know how this works.

Re:Something to point out... (2, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459850)

If you own a car and your 14yo kid takes it for a joyride, are you responsible?

Yes, actually, you are. If he gets into a wreck, your insurance will probably not cover the damages, either.

-jcr

Re:Something to point out... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459876)

You're kidding right? If someone steals your car and runs someone down, you're liable? WTF?

Re:Something to point out... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459913)

Read it carefully: If your own kid steals your car, you're responsible for the consequiences.

-jcr

Re:Something to point out... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459924)

Almost certainly, yes. Unless you had delegated the responsibility of supervising your child to some other appropriate person (day care, school, etc.) then you're responsible for whatever they do as a result of your obvious neglect to properly supervise them. Not to mention that by allowing a child to get in a car who doesn't know how to drive, you're probably also guilty of risk of injury to a minor, probably some child-neglect type charges also.

The point is, the car manufacturer wouldn't be responsible, unless there was some obvious and ignored defect which allowed the child to get into the car and drive it away. So if the parking pin sheared off and the car rolled down a hill with your kid in it, while you were getting the mail from the box at the end of the driveway or something, then you might have a case against the manufacturer. But if you left your kid in the car with the key for a few hours while you went in a store, and the kid decided it would be fun to run over some pedestrians in the meantime, then you probably would be responsible.

At least that's how my limited understanding of our legal system tells me it would be. Luckily the more dim-witted members of Congress haven't managed to push strict liability through yet, although they do try from time to time on industries they're trying to eliminate (file sharing, firearms, etc.).

OMGOMGOMG (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459767)

"OMG I can't believe they made streets, and now they accuse my son of jaywalking? OMGOMGOMG!"

Seriously, when someone commits a murder, don't blame the knife manufacturer. Even if it was a knife that said "MADE FOR MURDER" on the hilt.

Re:OMGOMGOMG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459821)

But, of course, it's OK to blame the gun manufacturer.

Re:Something to point out... (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#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".

The Anwser is the ACLU (0, Troll)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459737)

It is time for the ACLU to do something helpful to the people, why not defend the people the RIAA goes after? It is a better group to defend than homosexuals or blacks. Why not help EVERYONE?

People are going to mark this as a troll. But it seems like every small group has extra rights. The majority meanwhile is getting sued by these small pest groups. Aeithists sue to not have the pledge said in school because of "In God we trust". Muslims sue schools because of christmas plays. Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man. Blacks want reparations. And the RIAA wants to go after children who share. The world is going to hell in a handbasket. And at the same time, any American who likes France is a traitor.

Did I order French Fries? I meant Freedom Fries. I hope you did not get that on tape.

Lets hope that the RIAA starts loosing. Of course, that might be worse for the consumer, as the RIAA will go back to congress asking for more laws.

Either way we loose.

I guess the solution is closed networks where people are invited by trusted friends. Anyone know of any?? LOL

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459778)

Holy crap, it's LOSE not LOOSE.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (2, Interesting)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459782)

The ACLU does do a lot of things for legitimate causes, you just don't hear as much about them. For some reason making sure kids have decent bathroom facilities at a school doesn't catch as many eyes as fringe blacks wanting reparations or queers wanting to get legally married.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459787)

GNUnet is pretty nice. Anonymous, encrypted, deniable searchible. Only thing missing is speed and NAT STUNing.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459797)

Hurray for biggots!

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459818)

Thinking that giving blacks "reparations" for slavery that occurred about 150 years ago is bullshit is hardly bigotry. Most older blacks that I talk to about it feel that it's just young people trying to get something for nothing.

Wow (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459827)

Ah you Americans always fun to watch... I don't know what the ACLU is, but surely blacks and homosexuals deserve representation...? What about black homosexuals being sued by the RIAA, the way you talk sounds like you'd prefer them not to be represented... I digress.... and btw, they are CHIPS, we invented them y'know, and the things you call chips, are CRISPS... of course refer you to
http://www.stephaniemiller.com/declarationofrevoca tion.htm [stephaniemiller.com]

Anyway I don't know what you have against blacks, they built your country, and as for homosexuals, they usually liven up the party...

Now if this is a troll, then surely the parent should be made a troll for inciting one...

Re:Wow (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459914)

He didn't say that blacks didn't deserve representation. He said that the ACLU shouldn't concentrate on flagship issues like reparations for slavery or homosexual marriage, and that they shouldn't concentrate on minorities to the detriment of the majority. There's a difference.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (1)

VoidWraith (797276) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459828)

I don't mean to feed the troll here (dont you try to get out of that, no doubt this is a troll post) but apparently you've never been married.

Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man.

This is quite false, because marriage is, in fact, an act that has to go through the government. Ever hear of a marriage liscence? I won't get into the details of why that is important, but even a troll should base his flamebait off of something. The fact is, that marriage is performed by both a religious official (if so wished) and a government official.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459846)

GNUnet.
OpenPGP+IKE+TFTP
SMPT+OpenPGP
BBS
hard copy bootlegs
Usenet
Any other ideas? This is a fun problem. Start hacking.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459849)

"Overrated?" It was at score 1, not even "rated". If you think it's a troll or flamebait, MOD IT AS TROLL OR FLAMEBAIT. If you're right in moderating it as such, you don't have to worry about getting nailed in metamoderation...or is that what you're afraid of?

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459890)

I guess the solution is closed networks where people are invited by trusted friends. Anyone know of any?? LOL
I'd suggest we start by using slashdot UID's.
You've got a 1000+ posts, so you're obviously not new here
but you're close to 670,000... not likely you're going to get much respect

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459907)

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I get the newsletters and summaries all the time. You'd be very very surprised to find out how often they defend a middle aged white catholic male who has received unconstitutional treatment. Won't see it on CNN unless it's a gay devil worshiping baby rapist, but hey ... you surely have figured that one out by now haven't you?

The ACLU is pretty much the last organization that defends actual CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as they were written and intended by the founding fathers. I consider them pretty much our last fighting chance.

You don't have to agree with everything they do, but they are, with one minor reservation, extremely consistent. I don't nessicalry like thier policy on immigration, or their policy on the right to bear arms, but if the ACLU are not taking case after case to the supreme court, then who is?

Your freedoms are literally preserved every time they win a case. Ask yourself this: When is the last time a new law actually gave you rights instead of only taking them away?

http://www.aclu.org/contribute/ [aclu.org]

I pain for a full membership becuase when they say "we have over 400,000 members" I feel like it's a vote. I'm voting and saying "hey I'm kinda pissed off at all my rights being taken away".

http://www.aclu.org/about/ [aclu.org]
"We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state."

That's pretty significant.

Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (1)

GoldAnt (899329) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459937)

Rumor has it the RIAA's is really cookin =D

Just wait (2, Interesting)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459740)

Until some genius decides to introduce mandatory sentencing or some other stupid thing like that for these cases and then we'll stop seeing the judge being nice to mom and giving a general reaming to the sleaze lawyer working for the *AAs of the world.

Someone at the EFF or something should help this lady. It shouldn't be difficult to get her a civil trial attorney that wants to do this pro-bono.

It's refreshing to see this type of thing after all the crap of the past few years. Maybe if all those people that settled with the RIAA and forked over their savings to get off the "hook" would have fought them in front of a sympathetic judge things would be much different now.

No news at all. Move along. (1)

geekee (591277) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459772)

If you read the actual transcript, the judges gives her some time to find a lawyer. The only other interesting thing is that outside negotiations are off the table, and instead must go through the court now. BTW, sounds like a sons friend used her computer so the RIAA probably identified the right computer.

Do people really think this happens? (4, Funny)

scribblej (195445) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

The RIAA should drop this one (3, Interesting)

One Louder (595430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459779)

The RIAA is really going to have to work for this one - this judge is clearly not going to allow anything remotely questionable on the part of the plaintiff. If they have anything less than photographic evidence, a signed confession, and a time machine so the jury can witness the act first-hand, they're screwed.

They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.

Re:The RIAA should drop this one (2, Informative)

One Louder (595430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459835)

Sorry to respond to my own post, but here's a followup article [mtv.com] .

Re:The RIAA should drop this one (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459855)

I don't know, I'd give it about even odds. The mom originally didn't have money to pay for a lawyer. Now she has a lawyer, but the lawyer is still charging 50% of his normal rate, who knows where she's getting the money from.

The case [wikipedia.org] isn't THAT obviously open-and-shut, is it? The computer has been wiped, so neither side can say too much more about the physical evidence directly. It sounds like Kazaa was actually on the computer at one point, even if she didn't personally sign the Kazaa EULA.

Yeah, the judge seems to lean heavily towards the defendant from the word go, but if RIAA loses, they can get an appeal from a different judge. And if the judge says things that are too far out there, that can count against her case.

Re:The RIAA should drop this one (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459884)

It would be interesting to see, in light of recent court findings that file-sharing software in and of itself isn't illegal, whether the presence of file-sharing software would be sufficient.

Kazaa isn't exactly a rare program, nor is it only used to illegally traffic in copyrighted material (granted, that's probably what it's mostly used for, but still).

What is the Value of an IP address? (5, Interesting)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459783)

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?

Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459824)

What happens to the majority of DSL subscribers that have dynamic IP's? They do change and are not assigned like a static one. How do they make a case on that?

Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (1)

jred (111898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459903)

ISPs keep a record of who had what IPs at a given time. That's why the **AAs file suit against "John Doe". At that point, they can request the IP lease information from the ISP, and have a name to attach to the IP address.

HTH

Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459864)

Yes, and that's correct when it comes to an actual trial where evidence is presented. The entertainment industry simply uses the threat of court proceedings, thereby scaring the hell out of the alleged filesharer, costing him or her some thousands of dollars, all the while not spending a nickel on court time. A cheap "win". Really, though, I would think that such a practice would itself be subject to some kind of government censure, although they are still doing it.

Am I the only one who has noticed? (1)

jonfields (643711) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459788)

Its september now. The court date has already passed.

She lives under a rock! (0, Flamebait)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459789)

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 11 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 that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.

Look... I realize that not everyone is going to understand the legalities of P2P or the key players in the arena, but come on! Where have you been living? Under a rock? P2P has been on every freakin' news station and newspaper multiple times. Turn off the reality TV and pay attention to the world around you.

Dude, not everyone (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459877)

lives in the same world as you.
I know many peopel who don't knwo what kazza is, or more importantly, how it works.

Re:She lives under a rock! (4, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459921)

I have mod points, but there's no -1 asshole option.

So back in your face fuckwad...
Why don't you pull your ass out of your world of warcraft fantasy world, turn off the computer, walk outside and TALK TO PEOPLE.. you might just find that very few people care that much about computers, software and gadgets and of those few that do, maybe 3% have any real understanding of "what it's all abut".

And just how much time do you think a single mother of 5 has to devote to figuring out all the nifty shit a computer can do when she has work, bill, and five pesky kids to watch over and feed? Hell, I bet she uses her computer to do her taxes, pay bills and chat with family when she has time to use it at all.

So to you and others like you, wake the fuck up and get out more because you're a borderline sociopath who's clearly lost touch with the real world.

Copyright infringement, NOT THEFT!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459806)

Did you notice in the transcript that the lawyer for RIAA never mentions the the words, "steal", or "theft" even once in the court proceedings? He only mentions COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!!

Remember folks:

DOWNLOADING CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT!!

who gives a fuck? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13459822)

get your heads outta your asses. people are dying in New Orleans. Help them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pavesina/39371245 [flickr.com]

hehehe... (1)

Mad_Rain (674268) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459839)

Read the whole transcript - it's pretty funny from the start:

MS. SANTANGELO: I really don't know where to start. I wasn't sure, because I had just gotten served last week, that -- I haven't had a chance to -- they say here to get an attorney.

THE COURT: Well, it would be a good idea if you did.

MS. SANTANGELO: I really wasn't able to at this time. I have made phone calls to try to find an attorney.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. SANTANGELO: The reason why, when they called and they wanted to make a settlement, I no longer have that computer that the IP address was on, that they say the music was downloaded onto, because it had developed a major -- a lot of major viruses, apparently, and was wiped out and taken by my ex-husband. He was going to try to get it fixed. And I guess he has it down in North Carolina right now. So, at the time, I have nothing in front of me to say, okay, this is what happened. And I have five children, so I wasn't real sure how it had happened, to be honest.

THE COURT: I have some guesses.

MS. SANTANGELO: I realized when I looked at this that the downloads, I guess they call it Exhibit B, the screen name that this Kazaa was under doesn't belong to anyone in my family. And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with that my children had downloaded anything. Apparently, it belongs to a friend of my son, who is now 14.

THE COURT: I see.

MS. SANTANGELO: And I didn't know about it. And I really don't know where to go from here. And so I'm a little dumbfounded by the whole thing.

THE COURT: Yes, I know. I keep saying I live in -- although I've read the riot act to my own kids a hundred times --

MS. SANTANGELO: Oh, yeah, now I have.

THE COURT: -- I live in perpetual fear that something I don't know my kids are doing is going to come back and bite me in the butt. And the difference between you and me, Ms. Santangelo, if it happens to me, it will be in the headlines of the New York Post.


At the end of it all, it sounds like Ms. Santangelo has an ex-husband, more-internet-savy-than-her kids, her kids' friends, ISPs, unknown-to-her screen names, and a computer that she doesn't currently have physical access to, and no attorney to blame for her being sued by the RIAA. Sounds like she's taking this whole thing pretty seriously! ;)

Ah well. At least it appears that she has a judge that understands a few of those arguments.

Second Conference July 8? (1)

AFairlyNormalPerson (721898) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459859)

5 THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see.
6 And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy
7 with her.
8 So let's set another conference date for July 8th at,
9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then.

July 8? This is Sept 1. Has anyone found a transcript from their July 8 conference? I want to read Part 2!

If I get caught... (2, Interesting)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459868)

My defense is that my computer was infected by a trojan horse for many months without my knowledge :P

Did anyone even read the transcript? (2)

Vacant Mind (449927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459901)

The judge really didn't stand up to the RIAA, they just told the defendant to come back in 60 days with a lawyer.

I have no idea how the legal system works but, this whole thing seems to be an advertisment for the lawyer mentioned in the script. Is it customary to have that in there or is someone just trying to get publicity?

I love this judge... (2, Interesting)

ninja_sqrl (829421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13459928)

Only one thing to say: RIAA: 0wn3d by the law!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>