Thw RIAA is being taken to court for the first time by one of the many people it has filed suit against for file-sharing. While the other cases have all been settled out of court, single mom Patricia Santangelo is taking the RIAA to trial. She claims that the file-sharing program on her computer was not used by her or her family, but by a friend of one of her children. Santangelo told The Journal News, "I am still nervous about the whole thing. I just got so aggravated about how threatening they were." She added, "I didn't do anything wrong. Why should I pay them?"

From http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=107636

stilltrying's post from the In the News thread...

Single Soccer Mom Prepares RIAA Challenge

While most recipients of RIAA lawsuits quickly settle out of court, a big challenge could come from an unlikely source. Patricia Santangelo, a single soccer mom from Wappingers Falls, NY, has decided to go to trial with the RIAA. The mother of four recently received a letter from the trade group, though she claims to have no knowledge of any file-sharing on her family computer. According to a report from the local Journal News, Santangelo had no knowledge that the file-swapping was happening on her PC, and attributed the illegal behavior to a visitor. The lawsuit was originally filed in February by the RIAA in the US District Court in White Plains.

The Santangelo challenge would represent the first time the RIAA has had to go to trial against an accused individual, even after filing over 13,000 lawsuits since September, 2003. For most targeted file-sharers, the threat of paying thousands per infringed track is simply too great a risk to bear, making a quick settlement a sound compromise. But the upcoming trial could be a big one for the music industry, challenging the legal foundation that the RIAA is using to sue thousands of file uploaders. From the beginning, the RIAA has pointed a crystal clear body of law on the matter, though the extreme downside risk made a challenge of this sort unlikely. Now, the stage may be set for an Erin Brockovich-style trial, potentially attracting heavy press buzz.

US District Judge Colleen McMahon, who will preside over the challenge, most recently told the Journal, "I would love to see a mom fighting one of these."

They have only settled with 3000 of those 13,300 people too. They also dropped a few (No reasons given here).

If they think they are going to get beaten they will wiggle out of this one. Depends how bullish they are. They DO NOT want to set a precedent when it's all going their way. If they think there is any chance of her winning they will drop it or some to some other arrangement in order to avoid going to court.

from the article:

"The Recording Industry Association Of America (RIAA) has released a new report, in conjunction with research firm the NPD Group, claiming that burned copies of albums are an even bigger threat to the industry than illegal file sharing. Burned CD-R copies of albums made up 29 percent of all recorded music acquired by fans last year, said RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol. Only 16 percent came from file-sharing networks.

The study claims that only about half of all recordings music fans obtained in 2004 were legal CD purchases, with four percent coming from legal music downloads. Additionally, 12 percent of all households burn CDs, with 17 percent burning over 10 every month."


Wonder what their next plan of attack is for that? Anyone who owns a CD writer or buys blank CD-R/RW must be a "pirate".

Maybe it's time for them to start suing every computer manuf. for selling computers with CD burners.

"Wonder what their next plan of attack is for that? Anyone who owns a CD writer or buys blank CD-R/RW must be a "pirate".

Maybe it's time for them to start suing every computer manuf. for selling computers with CD burners."

Well, they need to be careful in this area, because although I have an iPod now for personal storage for music, there are still some people who don't own an MP3 player, and still relies on burning mix CDs.

But what the Recording Industry SHOULD do, if they are THAT worried about CD Burning, is that they should phaze in to a more secure music storage format which has special DRM that kicks out people who make dozens of copies to sell or give away to other people, but still retain the flexibility that we have...being able to flow our music collection smoothly and at least, being able to synchronize the music collection in an unlimited number of times, but not allow people to copy the music on one person's MP3 player to another person's computer. That's what I want.

But remember. You, as consumers, are the driving forces in the market. If these copy restrictions bother you, than backlash at them, and if they refuse to quit selling copy protected CDs, quit buying them, and pay attention to the labeling of the CDs (Look in the back side for any copy protection information). If a copy protected CD is mis-labeled, than you need to tell the public about the copy protection on that mislabeled CDs.

And the Recording Industry needs some education. They need to let people have broad flexibility of the media, in order for innovation to go foward. I really do enjoy importing tracks from my CD collection to "The Sims 2", and I am also looking foward to the Microsoft X-Box 360's ability to import your own soundtracks into the games I buy. Also, the new digital technology allows me to digitally edit the music I buy for my own listening pleasure. This has to continue, so why not LET the people have the flexible use of the media.

Courtesy of otech, here's a better article about the soccer mom--

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050814/NEWS02/508140316/1020/NEWS04


It seems they made her mad--bad idea. There's one quote in the story that started me thinking, though.

Joseph Singleton, a Beverly Hills, Calif., lawyer who has defended about 15 clients in such lawsuits said record companies are suing people who made songs available to others, whether or not there is any proof they ever illegally copied a song.

"You cannot have copyright infringement if you don't copy," he said.

How can it be on your computer if you don't make a "copy" of it? Or is this considered fair use?

If you bought the cd, and copy it to your computer, that's fair use....how the riaa finds this music and determines it was stolen is still a mystery to me.

Obviously soccer mom had someone using her computer to download music as well....how they determine which is bought music and which is "stolen" music I think is the question. How does the riaa proove which is which?

""You cannot have copyright infringement if you don't copy," he said.

How can it be on your computer if you don't make a "copy" of it? Or is this considered fair use?"

The only way I can see this happening (and this may be stretching it) is if kids ripped their purchased CDs onto the computer in order to listen to them. Friend comes over and installs Kazaa with autostart and the share directory set to the Kid's music folder(s). With Kazaa configured to automatically start every time the computer is turned on, it will make all of the Kid's music available even if they never go in and use Kazaa. If the computer is left on all the time and has a high speed Internet connection, it would be a major file source, especially if there was a lot of "pop" (RIAA crap) on there. If they were not paying attention to what was running/loading at start up, then I could see where they could be sharing without knowing it.

Among other things, the Judge will have to decide if this is a valid defense or not. Personally, I hope he does, only because if he decides that they SHOULD know what is running on their computer, that basically forces everyone to be a sysadmin of their own computer, and there are people out there who just don't have that level of understanding of computers.

Bill

I also think this puts the riaa in an interesting position. If they drop the case, that kind of shows they were (are) in a weak position and many others they try to sue may follow in Santangelo's footsteps.

If they go to court and loose, well, they'd be the laughing stock then wouldn't they?

Of course, worse case scenario, they go to court and win.... We'll see how they play the game.

yes pepe, either way its good. if the win, it will look bad, big company vs single mom, if the lose then its a win for p2p.

* if they win

One of the problems is that we never hear about the cases that are dropped, so we don't know exactly why they are dropped. And I don't think the RIAA will advertise those cases. There are a lot of RIAA files on P2P right now, so I suppose if someone downloaded one of those, the RIAA would be able to track them and see what else is in shared folders. There are so many undecided things involved, I hope this one makes it all the way to the courtroom...just to settle a few things.

"...they should phaze in to a more secure music storage format which has special DRM..."

...and speed up their demise.

--------

As for the case... The RIAA has to prove that the person they charged committed said act and not someone else. Without yelling "pirate" every five seconds.

The RIAA can't get through opening arguments without lying.

"The Santangelo challenge would represent the first time the RIAA has had to go to trial against an accused individual, even after filing over 13,000 lawsuits since September, 2003."

Of course we know this is bad reporting because Cecilia Gonzalez already tried and lost on summary judgment. The assumption that this case will make it to a jury is rank speculation.

I googled Joseph Singleton and I can't find any indication that he is an IP attorney, so this woman may be trying to fight this case with a general practitioner. Good luck, she's gonna need it.

http://www.blhny.com/rogers.htm

Her lawyer is Morlan Ty Rogers

I think he might do....

"Her lawyer is Morlan Ty Rogers

I think he might do...."

Sorry, I thought it was Singleton. Anyway, regarding Rogers:

Practice Areas: Commercial Litigation; Bankruptcy; Creditors' Rights.

Nope, no IP expertise there at all.

Joseph Singleton, according to the article, was another attorney the reporter talked to. He's not Santangelo's lawyer, as pepe points out.

You didn't Google much, did you? Here...

http://www.subpoenadefense.org/legal.htm

What is interesting, is that when you look at her lawyers firms record as a whole, they would appear to be working for the other side...as they have defended the arts and entertainment branches, art law, intellectual property, etc...So you'd suppose they would know best which way these guys are really going to attack her...

"You didn't Google much, did you? Here..."

That doesn't say he is an IP attorney. It says he's an attorney looking to drum up business from the RIAA lawsuits and make some quick and easy money.

"The assumption that this case will make it to a jury is rank speculation."

So is the assumption that she'll loose.

"US District Judge Colleen McMahon, who will preside over the challenge, most recently told the Journal, "I would love to see a mom fighting one of these."

For a judge to say this is interesting.

"If these copy restrictions bother you, than backlash at them, and if they refuse to quit selling copy protected CDs, quit buying them, and pay attention to the labeling of the CDs"

that's exactly what the consumers are doing.

"But what the Recording Industry SHOULD do, if they are THAT worried about CD Burning, is that they should phaze in to a more secure music storage format which has special DRM that kicks out people who make dozens of copies to sell or give away to other people, but still retain the flexibility that we have...being able to flow our music collection smoothly and at least, being able to synchronize the music collection in an unlimited number of times, but not allow people to copy the music on one person's MP3 player to another person's computer. That's what I want."

That's what they want too but it won't happen. The consumers have already shown they don't want DRM control. Any limitations also limit flexibility.

"Nope, no IP expertise there at all."

Are you an IP expert??

"The consumers have already shown they don't want DRM control. Any limitations also limit flexibility."

That's exactly what happened with the Divx fiasco (and I don't mean the codec). Sure, the discs were cheap anough, but to pay whenever you wanted to watch them was a bit too suspect for the consumers to bear. It was phased out very quickly.

"The Subpoena Defense Alliance is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the US Internet Industry Association and other organizations that began in April of 2003. Its purpose is to assist consumers and Internet Service Providers who have been served subpoenas seeking the identity of customers who use the Internet for private communications.

It also provides assistance and links to assistance to people who have been sued or received threat letter from the RIAA/MPAA or others, and to those who might be at risk of being sued."

From that website...I would suspect that most of these lawyers are intellectual property lawyers, although I can't find a webpage for this particular one, either.

"So is the assumption that she'll loose."

I did not assume she would lose.

"Are you an IP expert??"

No.

"From that website...I would suspect that most of these lawyers are intellectual property lawyers, although I can't find a webpage for this particular one, either."

Did you see the disclaimer? "Subpoena Defense provides this list for your convenience but does not vouch for the quality of any attorney listed." They will take anyone. These are not necessarily IP lawyers. They are lawyers who want business.

"That's what they want too but it won't happen. The consumers have already shown they don't want DRM control. Any limitations also limit flexibility."

Look. No copy protection is perfect, but this DRM is the best way possible, and the other people, as well as I, are fighting piracy. I am sick and tired of paying $17.99 for a CD, because of some bozos that are making hundreds of thousands of copies of the albums and taking over the market.

And of course. No one wants to be under DRM control. But if piracy is to go on, than we could be seeing 75% of the CDs as illegal copies, and the music industry is going to go broke.

Listen. My DRM scheme will give you privacy. It will be like no one's watching you. You retain your freedom. The only losers are the pirates. These copy protected CDs that Sony-BMG and EMI are placing out, as well as the East Side Digital's new Watermarking makes us the losers but not the pirates. But my watermarks are invisible to you, and you can still edit and mess with the music the way you want to. You can even use tools that would enhance the sound of your music collection, and you can synchronize your collection to an unlimited number of devices that you own, as long as the fingerprints match.

But the reason why I am complaining to the RIAA is that the RIAA does not give a ##### about evolution. They are pigs themselves, and they need to start behaving like a fair person. Let them copy. Let the tech industry evolve. Let the consumers do what they want with their music. That's what my DRM still allows. The only people who will suffer are the dirty pirates.

News flash. An ip lawyer would not be a good choice. A good general federal litigator would blow the doors off of most ip lawyers in this situation.

For example, the article III constitutional defense to the RIAA administrative subpoenas went over the heads of most ip lawyers. It was obvious, however, to anyone who does federal litigation all the time. Clerks don't issue supoenas, period, at least not in the US federal system.

Think out of the box, or you will be in the box.

"and the music industry is going to go broke."

Good, then maybe real artists and not lip sync artists will have a chance.

"My DRM scheme will give you privacy."

it won't work. Any DRM can be circumvented. the "Copyright infringers." have Geeks just as advanced as any the industry can come up with. Every single DRM scheme has been cracked. it's a waste of money and a loosing battle.

You're right though about the RIAA

JD,
I really hope that you DO successfully
sell your DRM scheme to the "Majors"
and make a huge mint off of them.

No matter how well thought out you make it, it will be busted, they still
wasted their cash, and you get "success".

And they are one more step closer to going broke.

More power to you.

As for most of us.
No DRM at all is the only acceptable option.

JDonahue.. "dirty pirates" cared" Oh-oh.... ya shouldn'ta oughtdn'a said that.. not with Code lurking in the corners!! Keep reading the forums, tho.. you will learn a lot about this subject that has already been discussed here, and on affilate sites.. check the home page..

"I am sick and tired of paying $17.99 for a CD, because of some bozos that are making hundreds of thousands of copies of the albums and taking over the market."

you're paying $17.99 a CD because of the bozo lawyers and money hungry exec's in the RIAA and Labels.

"I am sick and tired of paying $17.99 for a CD, because of some bozos that are making hundreds of thousands of copies of the albums and taking over the market."

Bozo list -- Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI

"But if piracy is to go on... the music industry is going to go broke."

As the demise of the "industry" would be the most beneficial outcome for music, this would only seem to encourage intelligent people to support piracy.

"My DRM scheme will give you privacy. It will be like no one's watching you."

Oh, I get it now. You're trying to sell DRM.

Those security cameras all over are "like" no one's watching you. But they still are.

"Let them copy. Let the tech industry evolve. Let the consumers do what they want with their music. That's what my DRM still allows."

That's what not having any DRM allows.

The audio Red Book standard does not include DRM - Doesn't Resemble Music. I'd rather use the disc space to add another song.

mroop -- A summary judgement is not a trial.

"Contact an attorney for legal assistance. If you do not have an attorney familiar with copyright laws as they relate to the Internet, there is a list of attorneys on this site." Under Help for Internet Users. They will take anyone?! I don't think so. It's the EFF. I know it doesn't explicitly state they are IP lawyers, but the implication is pretty clear. 'Nuff.

I'm posting an update on this story in the news thread right now....

Interesting points ...

- RIAA reduced settlement from $7500 to $3500.
- RIAA had an old IP address.
- RIAA bot found songs in her share folder but are unable to prove if these have been downloaded or any have been shared by someone else.

From the article shadowmom contributed ...

""As an exhibit in the complaint, they typed up a list of six songs that RIAA investigators downloaded from a shared account that was supposedly on my client's computer," Rogers said. "The complaint said those files were there for sharing, but they have no evidence that anyone did share them. For them to prove copyright infringement, they have to show that there was unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted file to the public. If they knew some 16-year-old who downloaded those songs from my client's drive, that would be copyright infringement, but if their own investigators did it, it's not distribution to the public. A copyright owner cannot infringe on their own copyright."

I remember really really well the many versions of "dumbass" Mroop called me when I suggested this a looong time ago.

Now maybe we WILL see what a
judge thinks about it.

You know, if a judge rules that the riaa can't "get" people on the basis of their having downloaded their own stuff? They are going to have to pay back a whole slew of money....

No, there probably not, unfortunately.

I am pretty sure that their legal team
would have had that covered in the settlements.

My guess is that those that settled had
to admit to infringement in writing, thus
eliminating any possible recourse on their
part.

Of course,
Those burned by settling could become
the biggest PR nightmare in RIAA history.

"When [the RIAA's lawyers] called me, there was no music on my computer and they had an old IP address." - Patricia Santangelo

Santangelo said the lawyers representing the recording industry offered her a chance to settle the case for $7,500, and later reduced the sum to $3,500, but she refused. "I just felt like what they were doing was wrong and how they did it wasn't proper," said Santangelo, who added that she's never used Kazaa and that the screen names on the complaint did not belong to any of her kids.

Story here
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507708/20050816/index.jhtml?headlines=true

AFAIK ripping one's own CD's to one's own computer is defensible under the fair use doctrine, format shifting or whatever it's called.

Now it seems to me that the RIAA has just been fishing for shared folders with their stuff on it and assumes that since it has been offered for sharing that it HAS been shared, copied. If there was no demonstrable copying from THAT shared folder how can there be copyright infringement?

Now to allege copyright infingement wouldn't the RIAA have to prove that a copy was made from that shared folder and not from themselves or their agents who (had damn well be immune from copyright infringement) had verified the copy?

Or is merely making available a copyrighted work an offense? And how can libraries get away with it?

In any case I hope Santangelo's lawyer embarrasses the hell out of the RIAA through discovery and rips Bainhole a new one. Sue them for extortion while you're at it Pat!

I'd say that each and every case has been a "fishing expedition."

I told you folks! Like any bully the RIAA is going after those they think are weak.
If you show enough aggressivity they leave you alone. They will try to scare you but they are easily scared themselves! He! They are not Heroes!

This is why they did not sue me while I am openly and provocatingly sharing what is now nearly 7000 tracks.

If they irritate you be strong and promise them hell!

Like many others I am totally enraged to see them robbing moneys from what is now 3000 innocent people and like many others I swear than none of the responsible criminals will go away with this! Hiding behind lawers is not going to work.

Companies are easier to destroy than to build and their financial interests are easy targets.

Anyone investing in one of these
RIAA companies is a moron.

"burned copies of albums are an even bigger threat to the industry than illegal file sharing"

Do not buy CD from the RIAA!

If for some unbelievable reason you really want one of these RIAA piece of crap (such as a Ms lip-sinc CD) this is what you should do:

1) Go to the music store and get the CD.
Bring it home and make copies for yourself and your friends. (No need to make a copy for me I am not interested)Then return the CD saying that it is deffective because you can not copy it!

But of course since the quality of this is very poor and since you are not really in music I think that the 32kbs MP3 version freely downloable should be more than good enough!

"Cecilia Gonzalez already tried and lost on summary judgment."

This Summary judgement is a Shame!

This is one of this case where a gun give more justice than the court and nobody is safe. Corruption! the big destructor of civilisation!

What's about a summary judgment against the judge or the RIAA then?

Let's see how the apeal goes.

mroop...
Carey Ramos is an IP atty...ever see HIS pathetic efforts to argue before the Ninth District? (if I am error on any of those facts, forgive me...hurrying to get ready for work).

They will go for a summary judgement no doubt about it. It's unfair.

I hope she appeals too.

"I am sick and tired of paying $17.99 for a CD, because of some bozos that are making hundreds of thousands of copies of the albums and taking over the market."

Bozo list -- Sony, Warner, Universal, EMI

Inadvertently, George brings out a good point. The BOZO list was known in the 70's and 80's for bootlegging their OWN works. Why would they do that? Because then they could sell them and not pay any royalties. Ask Meat Loaf, he'll tell you all about it.

That's not exactly true. I have had cases dismissed against people who were not the P2P user.

Raoulduke1--been a while. Good to see you back! You mean the cases were dismissed by the judge--not dropped by the RIAA? Why don't we ever hear about those?

INeedAlover -- It wasn't inadvertent.

There are no manufacturing records kept. Never have been. The number of records "shipped' (which the RIAA always uses as a replacement for sales) only include those which go out the front door.

The night shifts have historically shipped out large quantities that never get included in that accounting. They used to be called "cleans".

And there's some scam involving making a foreign release, then getting it into the US and avoiding paying artist royalties (or, at the least, reducing the legally required royalties).

They've been doing it for 80 years.

"If you bought the cd, and copy it to your computer, that's fair use....how the riaa finds this music and determines it was stolen is still a mystery to me."

Umm, it's not much of a mystery. When you are on one of these file sharing programs, your computer is broadcasting to that network, telling them your computers IP, ports it's listening for connections on, it's available bandwidth, and what files it has; and/or pieces of files it has that it's willing to offer you.

The riaa is accessing this information the same way thousands/millions of you are. Nothing sneaky, nothing illegal. Granted, according to the kazaa eula; your not supposed to use the network to monitor users. But you can't very well enforce an EULA against illegal activity if illegal activity is taking place on the network. IE: If I'm growing pot in my house, despite my notices that you being police cannot enter; it's null and void.

Kazaa fully well knows what mainly travels across their networks, Nobody has tried to paint an innocent picture on it. They're pathetic attempt to shield or protect you by saying, "Keep out big brother" isn't even legally binding. They couldn't even use it to prevent the riaa from raiding there own offices.

yep, i'm right. riaa wants that cd purchase price to be nothing but a rental fee, where they control what i do with it, when, how, and how much they can charge....