Although we have seen notices in the past about a single person here and there standing up against the RIAA, the latest case may go the distance. Who would have predicted it would be a 42 year old property manager named Patricia Santangelo living in Wappingers Falls.

I think just about everyone who opposes the RIAA and MPAA has been anxiously waiting for someone to bite back hard at the Copyright Cartel.

From
SOURCE we read :
"None of the cases has gone to trial.

That may change. And it may change with a soccer mom who said she would rather pay a lawyer's fees than give in to what she calls intimidation tactics by the record companies to get her to settle.

"I am still nervous about the whole thing," she said. "I just got so aggravated about how threatening they were."

The risk she is taking is that, if she loses, she may wind up paying much more than the $7,500 the record companies initially wanted from her to settle the case.

The offer came through the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement center, which was designed to facilitate Internet users' paying penalties to the record companies before they were sued. Santangelo said the settlement center bullied her, trying to get her to accept a settlement offer.

"I didn't do anything wrong," she said. "Why should I pay them?"

She never used the Kazaa program — one of the networks that facilitates file sharing — that was downloaded onto her computer, she said. She didn't even know what it was before she was sued, she said. The Kazaa account name in the lawsuit belongs to a friend of her children's, not to her or anyone in her house, she said.

Opponents of the record companies' lawsuits have said they hoped someone would challenge the companies' tactics in court rather than settle.

"If this particular woman is willing to go to trial, that's something new," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group that opposes the lawsuits. "The threat is so great that most people don't even risk it."

But, it seems not only young folks and P2P enthusiasts are anxious to have one of these lawsuits go to trial. The judge is even quoted in the above article saying :
"McMahon already has had a glimpse of the case from a conference May 6, before Santangelo had a lawyer. The judge told Santangelo she should get an attorney. She told the record companies' lawyers that the settlement center was no longer to be involved in the case.

"I would love to see a mom fighting one of these," the judge said."(emphasis added by me) .

I believe that there has to be answers to why this madness is going on. The record labels are the ultimate offensive on this deal.

The copy protection on the CDs, especially the earlier copy protected CDs out there, wrecked havoc on the consumers. Some artists are even breaking up with record labels, Now, with recording industry suing innocent people over the network, I think that we need answers.

The quick way to resolve this is for consumers, the tech guys, and the recording industry to sit down at the table, discuss what the problem is, and solve it out. This practice has really damaged the releasionship between content providers and consumers.

And, let's get the fact. The society is changing, and the CDs have to go.

And, by 2010, under the new law, The Digital Media Enviornment Act, it will be illegal for record labels to sell media on compact disks or other physical media. And, I support the law, because it will help reduce the cost of delivering media, allowing the artists more royalty for every music downloaded, and every iPod, or other portable media players

And if they don't like the law, because they can't release it on CD, well, tough. The price of crude oil is now going 70 bucks a berral, and the CD sales are really hurting our economy, as each CD uses up precious natural resources. And, record labels can kick and scream all they want when I take the CDs and melt them to plastic to give back to the oil companies, but we need to save oil for other more critical stuff. The truck delivery is causing smog in the cities, we are having global warning, and the elimination of physical media containing music will be a big step towards cleaning up the earth and eliminating pollution.

"And, by 2010, under the new law, The Digital Media Enviornment Act it will be illegal for record labels to sell media on compact disks or other physical media. "

Yeah, right. If anyone in Congress really thinks a law banning "physical media" is going to work, then they must be nuts. More nuts than, say, YOU JD.

"...each CD uses up precious natural resources. "

LMFAO!!! Who are you kidding??? CD's use up precious resources??? How about the MILLIONS of cars on our highways??? Not only do they use GAS, but OIL too! How about inventing a vehicle that DOESN'T USE OIL??? Why don't we just ban the sale of gas using vehicles althogether. Yeah, America will really love that one. You are insane JD.

JD, your computer runs on electricity, which is burning precious natural resources to generate. And the food you are eating is produced with machines that burn fossil fuels and chemicals that may be petroleum based.

I really think that, above all, you should turn off your computer. Do it now! Do not turn it on again!

And second, for the sake of the environment, please go on a long, long, long fast.

I tell ya, there oughta be a law.

This brave lady is taking on the Riaa, we have set back and watched and waited for someone like this. We need to throw our money in the pot to help her, be it, win lose are draw i thank it will be money well spent.

I'd donate. I just hope she goes all the way. For some reason my pessimistic side says it will never see it's day in a proper court or will be long and drawn out (Like we won't see it come to fuition until some distant date).

"The quick way to resolve this is for consumers, the tech guys, and the recording industry to sit down at the table, discuss what the problem is, and solve it out."

That's the long way because the record labels will not compromise.

The quick way is to stop sharing RIAA music.

Legally, what are we talking about here? It is hard to find an analogy. Apparently a friend of one of her children gained access to the computer and used it (allegedly) to upload copyrighted content that was not authorized for distribution.

That's like someone staying in my house using my telephone to make calls promoting a fraudulent scheme selling a product that is never delivered, or some similar crime. I am at fault because someone else used my phone?

Or I let a neighbor borrow my car and he uses it to rob a convenience store. I am now an accomplice?

No wonder the judge said he was glad to see one of these go to trial.

Is the a legitimate to contribute to this lady's legal fees?

Try again
Is there a legitimate means to contribute to this lady's legal fees?

(That's the long way because the record labels will not compromise.

The quick way is to stop sharing RIAA music.)

Quicker way, stop buying Riaa stuff.

"it will help reduce the cost of delivering media, allowing the artists more royalty for every music downloaded,"

You honestly think by lowering costs the recording industry would give the savings to the artists??

Also I hate to throw cold water on this but I believe the record label will drop the case once it see's that it is really headed to trial, to avoid any bad PR or court defeat. They will not allow a court decision to uproot the extortion tactic that has worked so well for them.

One defeat in court or droping the charge for the sake of losing face just makes it easier for the another being sued to say no to a settlement.The mind set of going where no man has gone before is gone. when they see their is a chance people will take a shot at it. SO Goes The MOM

I just hope she realizes that come what may, she has to keep this in the news..otherwise the riaa just quietly goes away with a signed "confession" and on to their next victim....all those cases that were dropped? I'd be willing to bet they were people prepared to call their bluff.

She's gonna lose. Period. Money vs. Peon, bet on the money.

anybody have her phone number?

allow me to be the first.

I pledge any support I can give this woman as long as she goes the distance. she needs someone to do research I will help all I can. She needs help with beating up riaa lawyers, I'm there. If she fights all the way and loses I will help her raise money to pay the fine as long as she doesn't settle out of court.

anybody else?

Lets do this! I can beat the Riaa. They are easy.

nope, she let a kid use her comp, and download stuff, i wouldn't ler some random kid download stuff, getting viruses and stuff, she had it coming, shes not innocent, she probably is one of those cheap ass people that her and her kids crack programs, download music etc. not to mention take all teh free samples at the grocery store and the complimentary candy at the resturant* she is a plague, how clueless can u be, if she saw it she could have uninstalled and if she didnt kno wut it was when it was there, she should have deleted this foreign program, and if she didnt see it on her comp at all, then shes clueless and should'ny have a computer cause stuffs gonna get downloaded on it, and its gonna get fried, waste of money.

Though downloading music should be an honest thing, no1 is honest, if u dont like it, u delete it, if u like it, buy it...

If she fights, I'll donate to her legal support.

leflaw, I think her number is unlisted. But her lawyer's isn't. Morlon Ty Rogers at Beldock, Levine & Hoffman. Phone #s 212-490-0400 or 800-275-4977.

Also, you might be able to contact her through the paper that reported her story--the Journal News. The reporter is named Timothy O'Connor and the paper's phone # is 914-694-9300.
She's got my support, too!

"she had it coming, shes not innocent,..."

????? No ther'es some real intelligent logic! I don't normally bash, but this is ranks among the really stupid comments.

Out in the real world, people do really nasty stuff...So far this week, I've had to deal with a hacked system and a mutli-variant worm that has totally consumed my life....And I do this stuff for a living!

I've dealt with relatives and friends who are very nice, law-abiding people but got there computers trashed by trojans, spyware and mallware. Not because they they were "cracking programs" or among the "cheap ass people". But simply because they wanted a little convenience in there life.

In the case of the recent hack, it was done smack in the middle of some very intelligent, tech savy people. And guess what it was used for once it was exploited. Yup, a p2p share point for MPAA crap. BTW - We traced it though a hacked PC at a college all the way over to France (probably another hacked drone, but yet to be investigated). A lot of money and man power was spent on this thing. If you think for one second, that the average person (who by the way got to use a PC in school only as a reward for doing a lot paper learning) has the skills and knowledge to deal with some of the greedy blood suckers out there, then you fit well in that rank of the uneducated you whine about.

Sorry Shmoo (and Code) for the rant...I just get tired of hearing that this is everybody elses fault. The blame for all this grief does rife solely on we the people for allowing the lifeless corporate concept to exist. When people are trampled by a piece of paper covering a group of faceless carpetbaggers it drives me bonkers. All I need if for someone to try to paint a picture that lays blame on the shoulders of the victims.

rife = ride

Peatrap pledges cash support for MOM. Someone have a paypal account and a honest face. If we do create a pool of money and she folds we should agree on what to do with it, maybe donate to DM./

Yeah, but K3VIN does win the award for one of the longest run-on sentences ever. Who can top that one?! (Okay, I'm capable of it, I admit.)

Patricia Santangelo, (845) 298-4084, 50 Fenmore Dr, Wappingers Falls, NY 12590

Gee, ya just have to look in a phone book....

WHAT phone book, pepe? All I could find said her number was unlisted....

ShadowMom The google phone book. Type in her name and location...

Thanks, I'll remember that. I'm computer-challenged, remember!

she had it coming, shes not innocent, she probably is one of those cheap ass people that her and her kids crack programs, download music etc.



I don't care if she downloaded sinead o'conner and said bad things about the pope. this isn't about the woman in question this is about somebody fighting a battle we've all been waiting for. If it's time has come then we have to put up or shut up. I say we put up. that's why we're here.

I'd like to think she's a feisty Italian woman who doesn't like being taken advantage of. I'm with the captain!

Count me in too!!! I'll give some financial aid to help with the cause! She needs a website and/or paypal account. If she wins, I hope she writes a book too!!

Hold up a second. If the RIAA lawyers drop the lawsuit, should she just be glad, or countersue?? I'd donate for that as well!!

I'll contribute, as long as she fights.
Nothing for settling.

I'll contribute, as long as she fights.
Nothing for settling.

DITTO!

Here is a pic of her

Photo

Best put link to source too

Link

Totally,

"
Out in the real world, people do really nasty stuff...So far this week, I've had to deal with a hacked system and a mutli-variant worm that has totally consumed my life....And I do this stuff for a living!"

I do this for a living too, but I'm primarily on the software side of things. So I'm curious about your worm you've discovered, having extensive knowledge of av/vx fields... and the fact i'm an ex virus writer, probably qualifies me to assist you in its removal if you'd like.


"In the case of the recent hack, it was done smack in the middle of some very intelligent, tech savy people. And guess what it was used for once it was exploited. Yup, a p2p share point for MPAA crap. BTW - We traced it though a hacked PC at a college all the way over to France (probably another hacked drone, but yet to be investigated). A lot of money and man power was spent on this thing. If you think for one second, that the average person (who by the way got to use a PC in school only as a reward for doing a lot paper learning) has the skills and knowledge to deal with some of the greedy blood suckers out there, then you fit well in that rank of the uneducated you whine about."

I'm unable to seperate the outright horse shit, from the real information in this paragraph. Please explain in detail, or a securityfocus.com, slashdot.org, something! this exploit your speaking of. I'd also like to know the certifications these high level techies possess that you mention above. I've done this a very long time, I do have credientials, street credit, scene fuckin credit, etc etc etc. I smell a serious case of horseshit coming from you concerning this hack. I'm also very interested in this "worm" you've discovered. Do you code in asm by chance? If not, I suspect you will not be able to gain much knowledge from your limited abilities to study it. IE: if you can't code, you can't reverse code either.

I have no problem with people giving sound advice, but to try and claim some super l33t hack has bested some super l33t unknown techies, and you've had to deal with some super technical worm; without any significant details whatsoever, except for this tracing crap you speak of, it reaks! of bullshit.

And no, I'm not some punkass kid who used computers because he had too; Like you suggest at the end of your article. If posted your shit verbatim to slashdot, they would laugh at me for years; And tear me to ribbons. Your entire post lacks merit, it has no basis in fact, and as I said; smells offly like bullshit. Let me give you an example of what your story sounds like to me:

(Occasionally, I checkout other electronics stores by bringing them something that I have already messed up. I publish the results of the tests in the local newspaper; It lets people know whos honest, and whos trying to take advantage)

I walk into a circuit city store; I tell the service tech, I was trying to install this cdrom drive, and for some reason; My computer won't boot windows anymore. (Now, what I actually did; was reverse the ide cable on the mainboard; it was one of the not-keyed models; everything else including the cdrom was fine.)

I was told to come back in a few hours, his team of experts would diagnose it and offer me repair options. 2 hours later, I was told I have some super virus (like your example) in my bios (of all things) and thats why my computer wont work anymore. I'll need to replace the mainboard, AND i've probably lost all my data too. This is the type of story you sound like, when I read your post. If you didn't intend to come across like that, then clean it up abit; know that other computer oriented people read this site, and we dont need it dumbed down. thanks.

Regarding this lady fighting her court case.. I guess I don't agree with most of you who have posted. I don't think she has a chance in hell of winning. Her computer did the crime, whether she knew it or not (and I seriously doubt, in this day and age; especially with what she does for a living) that she didn't atleast think "all mp3s are illegal!" no flames, I know better; but even the slowest customers are getting that impression these days.

I have found, if you loan someone your vehicle, and it's involved in an accident; your insurance company still has to pay if it's found to be your fault. Even if your not driving. Because! (duh) it's your car/truck.

I believe the same applies for phone/cable/etc. If you allow your neighbor to tap your cable line, and try to tell the cable company you didn't know anything about it, you can try fighting it in summary judgement... But most likely, you will pay.

I am so sick and tired of hearing people try to weasel out of responsibility for one's own actions. No wonder we have so many laws and lawyers, everyones trying to screw everyone else in some way. Or, me first me first. Or, I'm innocent, I didn't know. It's old news people. It's been on the radio, it's in movie theaters, it's on tv commercials. Unless you live in a cave (and then you wouldn't be downloading music anyway) you can't realistically expect someone to believe you if you say you didn't know anything.

Some music is copyrighted, and the copyright owners (be it riaa or someone else) decide (not you, legally anyway) how/when/where that music will be released. Despite the fact you think it's your god given right to just download it for free, the law doesn't agree with you now, and it's not going too in the future.

Capt-nJack,

"Count me in too!!! I'll give some financial aid to help with the cause! She needs a website and/or paypal account. If she wins, I hope she writes a book too!!"

think about this for a moment. The lady has in her possession copyrighted files which do not belong to her, and which at no time was she given permission to have them. The lady has no case from a legal standpoint. This "extortion" many here speak of is hardly that. When your placed on probation, or fined, or given a speeding ticket; do you consider that "extortion" as well? They can threaten you with jailtime if you don't comply, after all.

I can't think of one legal reason she could beat this. Claiming no responsibility when the computer is in her home isn't going to work. It's never worked for child porno, warez busts, etc. It's not going to work for people who seek to evade punishment for copyright infringement.

Sometimes I sit here and seriously! wonder how many of you have actually dealt with law enforcement concerning computer crimes. You wouldn't post such insane comments if you had, You already know how the system works. Those excuses, I didn't know, my kid did it. NOne of it works people. None of it. I've yet to read/see ONE single case where "I didn't know" saved anyones hide.

If you wanna stay safe, don't share riaa music on p2p. Better yet, don't use p2p. Much better options exist, those willing to spend a little time to hunt for them will be greatly rewarded. The rest may continue to be technically illiterate lap dogs.

RaidHHI said "Her computer did the crime..."

It's an alleged crime, and if the computer did the crime, let them nonsuit the lady and sue the computer....

Good luck recovering statutory damages from a CPU chip.

Totally behind anyone who wants to fight the RIAA! And if there's a place to donate, I'd love to chip in. No settlements - don't give in to fear.

Raid, you're assuming ignorance is going to be her defense. After reading the article, I don't think that's what her lawyer has in mind.

The proper analogy is law abiding Sally Sue Jones who has a snub nosed 38 in her purse at home. Someone comes into her house while she is in the back yard and steals the gun and some ammo...goes a mile away and kills someone while committing a robbery...under Raid's premise, it is Sally Sue Jones who should be charged with aggravated robbery and murder.

Sad when folks who never seriously studied logic pontificate.

"think about this for a moment. The lady has in her possession copyrighted files which do not belong to her, and which at no time was she given permission to have them."

OK RaidHHI, let me 'splain you something about US Copyright laws. There is a "point of creation" model which holds that, when you as a person create a unique work that has not been created before and is your own creation, there exists an IMMEDIATE copyright which you are the owner of...see, the writing I just put down is copyrighted © CodeWarrior. All Rights Reserved.
Now, given the point of creation model, ALL songs are copyrighted at the point of creation, even if the creator did NOT register copyrights (though to sue under the DMCA you must show proof of ownership of copyright (i.e. Registration with Copyright Office).

RaidHHI said "Sometimes I sit here and seriously! " An exclamation mark is used at the end of a sentence to give emphasis...so sometimes you sit here and seriously!...Hmmmm...do tell. Sometimes I sit here, read the drivel you write and laugh...seriously!



Now Raid, if you ever visit ANY web site, you computer made UNAUTHORIZWD copies of all graphics, all text, WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER (there is no such thing as implied authorization to make unauthorized copies), so yes Raid, even YOU probably have all KINDS of copyrighted materials on your box that you copied without the copyright owner's authorization.

Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, n'est pas?

"The lady has no case from a legal standpoint."

REALLY? You know all the facts of this case from one brief article or two?
And, since you are making an assessment of her case from a legal standpoint, I must assume you are an attorney in the USA...where did you get your law license from ?

"I can't think of one legal reason she could beat this."

Given your writings...that is really obvious, but in a way surprising, given your sterling credentials as a lawyer and legal scholar.

"wonder how many of you have actually dealt with law enforcement concerning computer crimes."

I have RaidHHI, and found them to be idiots and technically unsophisticated...a 10 year old hacker has more ability with a computer than the most experienced 40 year old law enforcement involved in computer crimes in my opinion. Hell, even a script kiddie is better.


"If you wanna stay safe, don't share riaa music on p2p."
I don't think the lady we were talking about did share riaa music on p2p.

"Santangelo's lawyer, Morlan Ty Rogers, who works in New York City and grew up in Sleepy Hollow and Ossining, said no one has challenged the "boilerplate" language of the lawsuits, that the record companies don't have enough evidence to bring their claims to court.

"Many of these lawsuits have been brought against people who are simply the names on the Internet account," Rogers said. He said that's not good enough to sustain a lawsuit. The companies have sued unsuspecting mothers, fathers, grandparents — people who have only grudgingly made the switch from vinyl albums to compact discs.

"It's really surprising" no one has attacked the record companies' basis for the lawsuits, he said, "because the record companies' claims are actually very weak."

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12272
"To date, the RIAA has filed over 13,000 federal lawsuits against users suspected of illegally sharing out copyrighted music. Now, a 42-year-old divorced mother of five who is one of those being sued is refusing to settle. According to her, she is shocked about being sued for something she did not do as she not store music on her computer, let alone run the file sharing software Kazaa on it. The lawyers representing the music industry offered her a chance to settle for $7,500, later reducing this to $3,500, convinced that she did make copyrighted music available online.

As a result, she is determined to fight the RIAA in this case. Rogers, the lawyer she hired suspected this to be the first case where a defendant could fight the RIAA and possibly win their case. So far, several others have tried taking the RIAA to court over their lawsuit, but have failed to get judged in their favour. Many people who were sued that did not download or share out anything decided to settle in fear that they could owe several hundred thousand dollars if they lost their case.

According to Rogers, the RIAA use the same complaint when they file its lawsuits, apart from the name and said that this is too vague to stand of for what should be in a copyright case. As the RIAA just file lawsuits based on the identity of the IP addresses they gather, chances are that the owners of the connection may not be liable at all, for example, some person outside the home could be downloading using a wireless connection, unknown to the household. "

I think this comes back to what George has mentioned before. Does the Music Cartel really want an examination into the legal records of their dealings with music artists? Who actually owns the copyrights? This could cause some troublesome precedents for the labels vs the relationship with their "clients" the music artists.

none of it makes any difference to me. If she's willing to fight I'll back her up.

the possibility of changing the law exists here. the real question is "is it going to change to favor the cartel or the consumers?" the only way that any progress will be made is if someone stands up and fights and the facts come out. it's worth it to support her just for that.

"I can't think of one legal reason she could beat this."

Really? How about this? "It must have been someone else."

Contrary to most of the other victims who were willing to confess their supreme guilt and how bad they feel about it, this woman simply says she did not do what she is accused of. How is the RIAA going to prove that she was the person sitting in front of the computer on the time and date they have logs for? Did anyone besides themselves download any of the music? How do they know? How did they obtain this information? Are they sure they've even got the correct IP address? And that it corresponds, in fact, to the defendant. Did they impound her computer as evidence, or is that it in the picture? Did they compare digital files to paid-for recordings in her possession?

Is there any law which even mentions digital file sharing (other than pre-release material)? Or is the RIAA assuming that laws passed prior to p2p's existence automatically apply to everything the law does NOT mention as well.

Besides, she's using Windows. Apparently, the US Customs Office does too, and they seem to be shut down today, thanks to Microsoft's super-duper focus on security. This opens up so many more possibilities that the RIAA has to prove didn't happen.

"I can't think of one legal reason she could beat this."

I don't see how the RIAA could possibly prove she did anything at all.

In the end, it has always come down to plastic discs.

i think raidhh1 just got put in his/her place, thanks to codewarrior and gdziemann.
if raid is so astute, let's see the responses to what all codewarror and gdziemann said.

By the way, if testimony comes out that the child/end user who allegedly downloaded /uploaded copyrighted material, asked Ms. Santangelo's permission to use the computer, AND advised his usage would be to illegally download or upload copyrighted material, and received authorization from Ms. Santangelo based on that arrangement, I may change my assessment, but I doubt this occured and doubt I will have to modify my stance.

CodeWarrior,

"It's an alleged crime, and if the computer did the crime, let them nonsuit the lady and sue the computer...."

I'm getting the impression you've never been actually sued for this. IE: You have no real world experience on how it works in the court room. This isn't like a murder case in which she has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't do it. The evidence in civil cases is much more open.

OK RaidHHI, let me 'splain you something about US Copyright laws. There is a "point of creation" model which holds that, when you as a person create a unique work that has not been created before and is your own creation, there exists an IMMEDIATE copyright which you are the owner of...see, the writing I just put down is copyrighted © CodeWarrior. All Rights Reserved.
Now, given the point of creation model, ALL songs are copyrighted at the point of creation, even if the creator did NOT register copyrights (though to sue under the DMCA you must show proof of ownership of copyright (i.e. Registration with Copyright Office).

CodeWarrior, I've been a programmer for a very long time, who has several legitimate copyrights for his work; I know how the copyright office works. I know full well that the moment I create something, it's technically already copyrighted to me.
From a legal standpoint, Unless I file with the copyright office; it's much harder to prosecute someone for using my work without my permission. So please, save the copyright reform speech; Been there, done that.

As you have pointed out, technically everytime you load a website; your computer is commiting copyright infrigement. You've made that point very well. It's overlooked tho in the court rooms. Common sense dictates you cannot sue somebody for loading your website. Anymore then you could for reading your magazine on a store shelf without paying for it. The courts are not that nit picky with it.

However! The courts are not so open minded if your caught with a copy of pink floyd dark side of the moon. Which is what your basically saying is okay, because it's copyright infringement when you load a webpage.

You don't have to know the law to break the law and be punished for it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. As sad as that is, and it doesn't make much sense, but it's how things are done. It simply doesn't matter if you didn't know the speed limit on the road was 35; you were caught doing 55, your getting a ticket. Don't assume the judge will feel sorry for you because you didn't know. Your most likely going to pay that ticket.

The material in question was found by a directory scan (do remember, when your doing the p2p thing; everybody can see your shared folder) tied to her computer. It doesn't matter who the person was running the computer. The internet bill is in her name, hence she's the one named in the lawsuit. This isn't out of practice. This is standard procedure for every lawsuit they've filed. Well, with a few modifcations, but this is basically how it's done. I realize you like to play lawyer and put the DMCA

up all over the place and disect it. But it doesn't matter. One individual didn't even goto court over it, The Judge didn't make his decision in her favor. While this might seem like it's new to you code, It's anything but. This is how warez groups are busted and it's been going on like this since the 80s. Back in the BBS days, they didn't have to PROVE you actually had the software. But, you still went to jail/paid big big fines. All the same. Think of DoD the group, they're history. No lawyer in the world could get him out of his 3 year prison sentence, for copyright infrigement.

The p2pers downloading tunes left and right are the new BBS pirates of yesteryear; We couldn't evade the law then, and your not going to be able too now.

"Contrary to most of the other victims who were willing to confess their supreme guilt and how bad they feel about it, this woman simply says she did not do what she is accused of. How is the RIAA going to prove that she was the person sitting in front of the computer on the time and date they have logs for?"

Do you think the riaa has to prove SHE was the one doing the deed? No sir, They have already shown her internet connection, and her computer was sharing copyrighted files without permission. This is a civil case, people. They don't need to prove you did it, you have to prove you didn't! And thats pretty damn difficult when your own isp and computer already told on you.

"
Date: August 20, 2005 @ 5:11 AM

i think raidhh1 just got put in his/her place, thanks to codewarrior and gdziemann.
if raid is so astute, let's see the responses to what all codewarror and gdziemann said."

It's HHI, I not 1. As for being put in my place, as much I wish that was the case; I'd honestly like to see these lawsuits go away, I don't feel that is what has happened.

"And, since you are making an assessment of her case from a legal standpoint, I must assume you are an attorney in the USA...where did you get your law license from ?"

I don't have a law licence code, I've been on the recieving end of a civil lawsuit tho; I tried a defense very similiar to hers. It uhh, didn't work. The Judge wasn't as niave as my lawyer had hoped.

"I have RaidHHI, and found them to be idiots and technically unsophisticated...a 10 year old hacker has more ability with a computer than the most experienced 40 year old law enforcement involved in computer crimes in my opinion. Hell, even a script kiddie is better."

Hmm, the training must be better where I'm from then. I wasn't so lucky. The police who were involved in computer crimes where I'm originally from were not niave, and certainly not of the script kiddie calibre. They were able to recover the evidence from erased drives, damaged media, etc. They burned myself and a few other individuals really well for a BBS we had going.

"Given your writings...that is really obvious, but in a way surprising, given your sterling credentials as a lawyer and legal scholar."

I didn't realize I was considered a focal point for your attacks. I had wrongfully assumed you and I were neutral. I'm not going to stoop this way with you, I had more respect for you then that. We'll just have to wait and see how her court case turns out.

CodeWarrior,

"By the way, if testimony comes out that the child/end user who allegedly downloaded /uploaded copyrighted material, asked Ms. Santangelo's permission to use the computer, AND advised his usage would be to illegally download or upload copyrighted material, and received authorization from Ms. Santangelo based on that arrangement, I may change my assessment, but I doubt this occured and doubt I will have to modify my stance."

This is where you take a left when you should be taking a right. She doesn't have to claim she gave or didn't give permission. That doesn't even matter. If I used your computer to send a death threat to the president, when the secret service kicks in your door; Do you really think they'll ask who was at the computer at the time?

Do you have any real experience with these type of lawsuits code? Have you ever been sued for it? No? Yes? I have, they don't play out like you and so many posters here assume. These are not criminal court proceedings. The rules are different. The way evidence is treated is different, what can be used as evidence in these cases wouldn't see the light of day in a criminal proceeding. You can quote the original copyright till your blue in the face, it changes nothing. The DMCA was used to crush competition, nice and legal like. The mere threat of a c&D gets websites closed.

I wish it was you Code trying to defend yourself in this way, with all the legal talk you spew. This lady has bad legal counsil if he thinks he's going to win this. She should be smart, and settle before it costs her much much more. Unlike a criminal proceeding, if your found liable in a civil proceeding, you WILL pay the money the other side won. Or you'll sit in Jail at .5 cents a day until it is paid off. I wish her the best of luck in any event, but I won't hold my breathe.

I bet tho Code, if I was entirely on your side, you and I wouldn't have problems. That doesn't say much for you, sadly.

"Is there any law which even mentions digital file sharing (other than pre-release material)? Or is the RIAA assuming that laws passed prior to p2p's existence automatically apply to everything the law does NOT mention as well."

Digital file sharing? Do you think this is new or something? We did this all in the 80s and 90s; via bbses. Xmodem, Kermit, Zmodem, all file "sharing". Warez sites existed then, We traded software, music, sometimes a movie (VCD back then.. no divx/xvid). Essentially, digital filesharing has become a buzzword or something. Like it's new. It's not new, hasn't been new in years. It occured the first time a BBS transferred a network packet to another board upstream.

Warez boards would get busted left and right for sharing material we had no right to share. The dmca didn't even exist then, but it was still illegal without it. The only thing in the grey area was the cracks/patches on software some boards had. The DMCA officially made those too, illegal.

History is just coming around again with the internet. The technology isn't any different, nor what your doing with it. People should learn from history, not repeat it.

raidhhi: "I can't think of one legal reason she could beat this."

gdziemann: Really? How about this? "It must have been someone else."

that defense was successful for someone who was in charge of a server that had been used for infringement.
did you hear about that case?
regarding some of the things you wrote, for example concerning how the burden of proof is effectively placed on a defendant in a civil trial, strictly speaking, that's not proper to say in any way.
why, because the prosecution is held to a minimum standard of preponderance of evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal matters, as you know.
it's still a criterion of burden, albeit less stringent, on the part of the prosecution.
the defense's job is to deflect the jabs, so to speak, enough to cast significant doubt in the juror's minds.

"Besides, she's using Windows. Apparently, the US Customs Office does too, and they seem to be shut down today, thanks to Microsoft's super-duper focus on security. This opens up so many more possibilities that the RIAA has to prove didn't happen."

*yawn*. We had os2, ibm dos, desqview, etc. The fact some boards had published backdoors didn't matter to the judges. One particular piece of software had a known backdoor which would give full SysOp rights. A person could upload files without the sysops knowledge and make them available for download. In fact, that was used as a defence for an individual. The outcome was as expected... The individual still lost, and that person paid Adobe close to the tune of $15,000 for having a nice piece of software we werent supposed to have.

This defense even demonstrated the serious security hole in the software. It didn't matter. Windows has it's own share of problems, but the hole in this particular version of BBS software (Dominion if you need to know it's name) was far more serious. Full SysOp rights is SuperUser in unix terms.

jurors', rather

Mr-Anonymous,

"that defense was successful for someone who was in charge of a server that had been used for infringement."

I believe that case was pretty weak to begin with. If were talking about the same case. Was it the case where the Administrator couldn't even tell what patches he'd loaded on the box recently? Essentially, it was a server on autopolite, or are you speaking of another case?

Sorry to ruin the hopes of everyone here, but my oppinion - informed, though not qualified - is that is this goes to court she will lose.

I cannot say how much the RIAA will then attempt to extract. They will certinly want to make an example of her to scare anyone else who considers fighting their suits. So they will claim damages greater than the amount they offered to settle for. Beyond that, I have no idea. This situation has never happened before.

"SuperUser in unix terms"

yep, that's true even with Mac OSX, since it's developed around a unix kernal.

also, are you saying that the prosecution doesn't have to counter possiblilities against its case?
if so, i would agree with you.
that tactic is expected to be utilized by the defense.

the case with the server often on autopilot, meaning there existed opportunities for others besides the systems operator.
in the case before us, if the mother can demonstrate reasonable evidence that outsiders had access to her computer against her knowledge and will, there may be similar reasonable doubt to bring forward.
again, i'm not going to presume the merits of a specific case like this.
i'm smarter than that.
in fact, no one can predict the outcome with certainty, not even the riaa.

i wrote: outsiders had access to her computer against her knowledge and will
i meant to write: outsiders had access to her computer doing things with it against her knowledge and will.

goldenpi,

"Sorry to ruin the hopes of everyone here, but my oppinion - informed, though not qualified - is that is this goes to court she will lose."

I find myself in agreement with you. Once she does lose, the RIAA is going to make a bad example of her. They will extract far more from her then they asked for in the offer to settle. They could try for the full amount $150,000 a pop; each song. If the judge is cool with it, that could be very expensive. And depending on the judge (many are in agreement with the lawsuits...) she might very well be the first person court ordered to pay the max. To make a fine example of her, for anyone else who wants to "goto court".

"yep, that's true even with Mac OSX, since it's developed around a unix kernal."

Yep. hehe. You'd be surprised how many mac users don't know that.

"also, are you saying that the prosecution doesn't have to counter possiblilities against its case?"

Yes. They need only lay out the case, from what I read; In my humble opinion, She hasn't got a chance on a cold snowy day in hell. And I honestly think, when she loses (and I really think she will) the RIAA is going to gut her for the world to see.

Many individuals never have to deal with a civil proceeding, and thats a good thing. When your on the recieving end like this lady, You just want it to go away. Some battles are not worth fighting for, even if you are in the right. Morally, I think she's right in what she's doing; But I'm biased. I have no problem with music. I wish the artists wouldn't dislike it so much, it really is free advertising.

I just from a legal standpoint, feel she's going to lose. I base this primarily on that of my experiences and my friends. who have already done this dance. None of us was a winner in the court cases. The only people who won was Adobe, AutoDesk and the courts.. Oh, and our lawyers. everybody except us came out smelling like roses. I'd hate for this lady to take that road.

Raid wrote...
"up all over the place and disect it"
learn how to spell "Dissect" before you do it Raid.

I've been in courts Raid...and never lost. Also, and more importantly, I've won every other battle without having to go to court...and that's a far better track record.

And, RAID, since you are not an attorney, and certainly not an "IP" atty., I will continue to listen to the owner of this site who IS an atty...leflaw.

As far as experience in these matters, I have had experience, and did not lose. I will leave it at that.

RAID said:
" I wish her the best of luck in any event, but I won't hold my breathe."

It's :hold your breath" RAID, breath, not hold your "breathe".

Nice try at putting thoughts together. Didn't work well. Game Over..you lose. Thanks for playing.

""that defense was successful for someone who was in charge of a server that had been used for infringement."

"I believe that case was pretty weak to begin with. If were talking about the same case. Was it the case where the Administrator couldn't even tell what patches he'd loaded on the box recently?"

No, wrong case. This one was a guy who worked for Fox. He installed servers for them. A bunch of movies and music showed up on it and the server logs showed that it had been uploaded by someone using his username and password.

He said, "It must have been someone else."

He walked.

typo alert...should be "hold your breath"....quotation instead of colon.
Error corrected.
End item.

"If I used your computer to send a death threat to the president, when the secret service kicks in your door; Do you really think they'll ask who was at the computer at the time?"

They damn sure will...I guarantee you. They will be on you like white on rice asking if you did it! That shows how little you know about feds!

CodeWarrior,

"I've been in courts Raid...and never lost. Also, and more importantly, I've won every other battle without having to go to court...and that's a far better track record."

Congratulations. Would you like a cookie?

"And, RAID, since you are not an attorney, and certainly not an "IP" atty., I will continue to listen to the owner of this site who IS an atty...leflaw."

Yes, and what is his take on this? What is mroops take? He's a lawyer as well. Does he feel the lady should pursue this?

"Nice try at putting thoughts together. Didn't work well. Game Over..you lose. Thanks for playing."

Heh. So we're lowering ourselves to wiseass remarks now too? How quaint. Did I spell that correctly Code?

"They damn sure will...I guarantee you. They will be on you like white on rice asking if you did it! That shows how little you know about feds!"

First of all, The secret service isn't going to ask me anything, They will be busy with you. When they have decided (not you) that you didn't send that email, then they will interrogate others who had access to your machine, but rest assured; not until they've examined your anal cavity thoroughly.

Second, I know alot about how the feds and the secret service works. A few years ago, a website I setup and a co partners website was raided by the Johnson City Tn, FBI department. They raided the server in florida and the one here in Kingsport at roughly the same time. They did this over the Melissa virus. Many individuals were questioned, two websites were downed. I missed an interview with them, by 40 minutes; I already turned in my resignation and was on a bus out of state.

I've used this same nick before this happened, and after. I'm the same Raid who used to trash computers with viruses, remote access exploits, The same Asshole published in rolling stones magazine for my hacking/vx accomplishments. I do not need a lesson in how the feds work, from some lame ass outsider who doesn't know an int table from a fucking API list.

Do some reading on Raid asshole, before you suggest I don't know what it's like to be on the recieving end of the feds. I do.

FYI, Feel free (any of you) to check the facts I just posted about the melissa virus and the feds. I'm not some punkass script kiddy who's trolling your site. With regard to the viruses, you can look those up too. Toadie, Irok, etc etc etc. All my creations, all original. You can play word games all day long code, if you wish. You can correct my spelling, typos, and outright improper use of the english language, if it makes you feel superior. But the fact of the matter is, I know computers from a very intimate level, and no matter what you say or what you do, it'll never change the fact that your just a pundit end-user who can't do much more then what windows will already do for you.

My final post on this subject... You can respond to all of it, some of it, doesn't matter; I've said all I'm going to say. This lady will be the first to challenge them in court. I think she'll lose, goldenpi thinks she'll lose. I guess we just wait and see. And with the maturity we all so kindly display, it'll be fun to sling the decision in each others face. Won't it?

Intent, and whether or not someone is a willfull participant in a wrongful act, is certainly something that is examined in courts both in criminal and civil matters.

If the lady did not intentionally allow a wrongful act, she should not be held accountable for what others do, anymore than the person in the example with the gun.

And, the courts certainly look at intent.

In Canada..it was found that just sharing copyrighted works without authorization on a peer to peer network was not infringement withtout intent.
http://www.iptablog.org/file_sharing/
"In Canada, a court ruled that making files available on a file sharing network is not proof of copyright infringement. The Toronto Globe and Mail reports: Court quashes music industry bid for IDs

Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled Wednesday that the Canadian Recording Industry Association did not prove there was copyright infringement by 29 so-called music uploaders.

He said that downloading a song or making files available in shared directories, like those on Kazaa, does not constitute copyright infringement under the current Canadian law."

And, closer to home, this from the Supreme Court ruling in Grokster...
http://www.abxzone.com/abx_reviews/rm4/article_p3.html
"It is important to note that the Court concluded that the mere facts that a provider's software is or could be used for illegal infringement, even a showing that such infringement is the primary use, and that providers profit from this are not sufficient to find liability. Liability depends on an actual showing of intent to induce or encourage illegal downloading of copyrighted material."

Now, that is talking about the P2P networks, which act as mediating facilities for file exchange. This was a poor lady who did nothing wrong, other than not being a Nazi about watching every human that tries to access her box (box in the sense of computer technician slang for a computer).

There is such an idea in law as "mens rea" .


"Mens rea is a criminal law concept which focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof of a positive state of mind such as intent, recklessness, or willful blindness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

We have no evidence this lady had the intent to have anyone illegally share files from her computer.

In criminal matters, one must have the mens rea and the "actus reus".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus
we find:
"The actus reus — sometimes called the external elements of a crime — is the criminal act which, in combination with the mens rea, produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

According to criminal jurisprudence, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea for a crime to have been committed.

The phrase derives from a quotation from Edward Coke actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,1 which roughly translated means "an act does not make someone a criminal unless (their) mind is guilty."

Now, we are dealing with a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and one at that, which will probably be using the DMCA to push the alleged copyright rights of the RIAA. Under the DMCA, as I stated previously, they need to provide proof of copyright ownership in court to properly pursue their case.
This most usually is done by the Registration of Copyright from the Copyright Office. As George has stated, this may indeed be problematic, depending on which songs are alleged to have been unlawfully copied.



and....."Mens rea comes from the Latin phrase; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, translated An act does not make a man guilty unless his mind be also guilty. Mens rea roughly translates to guilty mind."(Ibid)

Of course, I did omit one factor..and that is...was she grossly negligent for not making sure no one had unsupervised access to her computer. I cannot answer that.

"REDUNDANT ARRAY OF INEXPENSIVE DISKS" SAYS SHE WILL LOSE...SO THAT SETTLES IT KIDDO. EVERYONE TAKE YOUR NAP. THE ALL KNOWING SETTLED IT...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLL

"A few years ago, a website I setup and a co partners website was raided by the Johnson City Tn, FBI department. They raided the server in florida and the one here in Kingsport at roughly the same time. They did this over the Melissa virus. Many individuals were questioned, two websites were downed. I missed an interview with them, by 40 minutes; I already turned in my resignation and was on a bus out of state."

Great resume RAID....lol...How do they raid "websites"? I thought they raided physical offices. Wow...the FBI is more powerful than I thought. They can actually beam themselves as electrons onto HTML code....damn...I better go hide.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

CodeWarrior,

Looks like I have one more post to add.. apparently. In fairness, I didn't take my nick for the computer term. I took it from the Raid aersol bugkiller. It kills bugs dead. I used to trash lamers data, dead. It seemed fitting at the time.

Oh, one thing... with regard to your post:
goldenpi
Date: August 20, 2005 @ 1:56 PM
Sorry to ruin the hopes of everyone here, but my oppinion - informed, though not qualified - is that is this goes to court she will lose.

All knowing? LOL. Cute. Gradeschool. But, it hasn't lost it's cuteness effect. Enjoy the comment left by goldenpi, he or she doesn't think she'll win either. Does that person qualify for your all knowing award in caps too?

CodeWarrior,

"Great resume RAID....lol...How do they raid "websites"? I thought they raided physical offices. Wow...the FBI is more powerful than I thought. They can actually beam themselves as electrons onto HTML code....damn...I better go hide."

How do they raid it? Pretty simple, they find the physical location of the server, and enter it usually with a search warrant saying that they are to take the server. In some cases, they let you keep the box after you make them images of everything on it, while one of their computer people keeps an eye on you. Sometimes their guys do the work and you sit there, hoping the secure drive wipe you did was secure.

You should have just checked my facts before posting. I realize you have some support here, and you think your belittling me pretty well; but those raids did take place. Heres an article for you.

url first. I'm snipping my section for pasting here. http://lists.jammed.com/ISN/1999/04/0011.html

For investigators, breaking open the Melissa case had the effect of
bringing at least one hacker -- an unidentified man in his 20s who lives
near Kingsport, Tenn. -- to the attention of the FBI. Two months ago, that
man asked a young local Internet company called Global Connection to host
a Web site for him.

Dennis Halsey, the CEO and vice president of Global Connection, said he
did not think anything of the request at the time. In fact, Halsey did not
require any formal application and never checked to see what the Web site
was. Neither Halsey nor the FBI would release the man's name.

The site turned out to be Codebreakers.org -- one of the main places that
virus creators use to trade code. "We never imagined it to be something
this big, believe me," said Halsey, who described the man as a computer
wizard.

Halsey, who is not implicated in the case, said he knew the man only
because "it's a small town and everybody sort of knows each other." But
Halsey thought it was inconceivable that such a young man could be the
infamous VicodinES or another prominent virus maker. "I'm sure that he is
not the one who wrote the virus," Halsey said. "I mean, this is a
multinational organization, there are members everywhere. How could this
young kid be involved?"

Now Code, Are we done playing little games like schoolyard kids? I told you what I did, Now you can read it in print. Google is cool, eh?

Heres one more, For those who still have the print magazine; you read it in actual newsprint. For the rest, you can read it here...:

http://vx.netlux.org/lib/p0021.html

A member of the VX group Slam and one of the loudest, most unrepentant coders on the Net, RAiD is the kind of virus writer who makes antivirus workers - and often other virus writers - gnash their teeth in frustation. He's the guy who pops into the mind of PC users as they nervously scan their disks with AV software. Not only does he write viruses with malicious payloads, he also takes a fairly obvious measure of delight in watching them spread.

As I said Code, I'm not a script kiddy trolling your site. I have credibility in those scenes. Obviously. Enjoy the long reads, jerk.

RaidHHI, I wouldn't be so proud of your past accomplishments, from my point of view, people doing things to hurt other people should be flogged and burned! I've seen many frustrated users with their PCs when they got hit with a virus. It really isn't fair to take advantage of them.

Regarding this court case, whether this lady wins or loses will ultimately be a win for us. If the RIAA on behalf of their member labels do decide to try and make an example out of her, it will only drive more people away from them. I would consider that a win, even if she loses in court. Either way, I'd still donate to her legal fund. If enough peope donate, she won't have to pay a cent. In the end, we'll be the winners.

CODE INSECT Killer
10 2

Game Code.

******Code***********Bug killer**********************
*******10**************2*****************************
Game Code

I give up

Thanks too all that are in support The truth of the matter is: When the record company lawyers first contacted the defendent there were no downloaded recordings on the home computer. Imagine being told that you had to admit to a crime and pay with no evidence at all to look at, just an ip address that they say belonged to you but did not any longer. Would you pay? It's wrong to send someone a letter telling them they have already been sued and expect them to pay without sending them any evidence whatsoever.

i agree.
it's a good fair question to ask for starters, what are riaa's details of actual copyright infringement?

goodness. more internal feuding. I'm going to say this again.

I don't care if she's wrong or right. I don't care if she has any or no chance of winning. I don't believe the riaa will go the distance. they have too much to lose. So far the stakes have been small so the risk has been small for them. as soon as they graduate into the realm of publicly disemboweling soccer moms, support for them will start to drop and sites like this will become more popular. people will not vote for senators and representatives that will gut and stuff a struggling mom with kids so their political agenda will take a hit. A lot of people think oral hatch is doing a great job of fighting for our rights. as soon as the public sees who he is really supporting and what they are doing that support will dry up. just ask david souter.

The difference is Souter is not elected. Hatch is elected by a lot of people who don't know what a snake-in-the-grass he is. Hatch only fights for people's rights when it suits him. Like most pols.

" do this for a living too, but I'm primarily on the software side of things. So I'm curious about your worm you've discovered, having extensive knowledge of av/vx fields... and the fact i'm an ex virus writer, probably qualifies me to assist you in its removal if you'd like."

Did you manage to miss the bots that brought down half the business on the net?

Here's a current link on the latest variants (those this oner had a much lower impact) that includes links to the original story. My appologies for referring to it as a worm, it it technically clasified as a bot (though they both act basically the same).

As far as the horseshit goes.....Put away the shovel, you blessed us with enough to cover the whole garden. As a matter of fact, form all the snotty comments throughout this thread, I feel the need ap-pologize the "punk ass kids" for making you feel as though I assoviated you with them.

My references were directed to the comments made that this lady was too incompentent to own a computer. If you don't understand the conversation, keep your opinion to yourself.

As far as "testing" people at Best Buy (and other similar places), not much to gain from that. Just call 'em up. You'll find out how incompetent they are without wasting the gas to drive there.

As far as my credentials are concerned. I'm certified in last four versions of MS. I've served as systems admin for VAX/VMS runing on a DEC 4600a as well as a three node DEC 8000 series cluster (alpha - The best damn proc on the planet) and Novell Netware (during its hayday. I served as the point person for a large multi taking care of some SAS and JCL on a mainframe.

I never claimed to be a programmer but I have a close friend who is a super programmer (name the language, and he's proficient in it). I prefer stuff that wasn't written by an amatuer. BTW - assembly's dead, deal with it. Even MS is writing all there desktop products in XML.

"I'm the same Raid who used to trash computers with viruses, remote access exploits, The same Asshole published in rolling stones magazine for my hacking/vx accomplishments."

"Not only does he write viruses with malicious payloads, he also takes a fairly obvious measure of delight in watching them spread."

Gee. That's an, uh... interesting piece of information that you decided to share that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. But thanks for letting us know that you're a sociopath.

It explains a lot.

Ya know, it never ceases to amaze me why an intelligent, knowledgeable and reasonable debate without resorting to incessant name calling and total breakdown of the topic just cannot be accomplished in these forums. Or so it seems to me anyway.

We have a great collection of people here from a wide variety of backgrounds who are extremely knowledge in their fields whom the rest of us could learn from significantly.

And yet, no one can seem to make their point without acting like fussy immature children calling each other silly names.

I, for one, am really interested in each of your views here, but just lose that interest due to all the childish name calling. So I end up leaving the topic because of all the stupid BS by everyone.

Do I have any hope whatsoever of ever reading a well thought out articulate debate that not only shows off each members extraordinary debating skills but also informs and educates the rest of us as well?

Damn it, grow up people!

it does detract from the issues, doesn't it.
however, you know what, this forum like many others is just a microcosm of what transpires routinely on a national level.
current case in point: cindy has called dubya a bastard, and was also quoted dropping an f-bomb.
she's got a good cause and is in the limelight.
you wouldn't think she would succumb to diluting her impact, but it happens.
but it must be noted that the administration has not been weaned from its 'disease' (dirty tricks).
heaven knows rove is licking at his chops, salivating over how to use all the dirt he can find against cindy during the upcoming planned week of being on the offensive against her.
smearing and name-calling will dilute the issues at hand.
'bush's brain' knows this, and can be expected to make the most of the technique.
putrid polarizing politics

there are so many bad examples around, politics and forums, i mean, to the extent that it's like a child who believes more of what he sees than what he is told.
and the way this rotten world is, who can be blamed for being cynical?

but insofar as this website is concerned, i'm still impressed with the good information coming out from knowledgeable posters regarding importanat issues, name-calling notwithstanding.
kyodylee, hint: try to filter out the occasional crap.
there's a lot of meat on the bones.

importanat - new word i just came up with

^ ^
-

"The difference is Souter is not elected. Hatch is elected by a lot of people who don't know what a snake-in-the-grass he is. Hatch only fights for people's rights when it suits him. Like most pols. "

exactly the point shadowmom. if they go to the extreme to punish this woman the people who put oral hatch in office will start looking at who he is really supporting. the cartel doesn't want people to look too close, they want to feed us a steady stream of bs and play on the fact that 99.9% of the voters in this country couldn't give a rats ass less about copyright laws. as long as they can stay just on the fringe they can use their media clout to make themselves sound like victims and thus elicit sympathy. Now when they force this issue into the spotlight and America sees what they are doing, the average joe is going to think pretty seriously about the politicians he's voting for. simple equation, vote for hatch = screwing a single mom. how many politicians will want to be seen as sympathetic to a multi-billion dollar cartel that is totally destroying a single mom over stuff they can get off of the radio? that's where we come in. we say, "I told you so, now quit buying their stuff" then people might actually listen.

she doesn't have to win, she just has to expose them for what they are so that the world can see it. they really don't want that. that's why we haven't seen anymore pepsi ads from 12 year olds proudly proclaiming they got sued. It won't be cute when it turns into millions of dollars.

i hate to be a party pooper, but like some others, i'll be surprised if the riaa doesn't consider discretion to be the better part of valor and just drop the suit rather than have it come to trial and risk something adverse.
i hope i turn out to be wrong, though.

fine, then someone else will stand up. pretty soon they will have to either change their tactics or show the world their true colors.

Perhaps we should go to a threaded comment system - it makes it easier to ignore the many commants here that I consider a waste of bandwidth to transmit, screenspace to display, and my mental resources to dismiss without reading.

but i wouldn't want to discourage segments like this one from gdziemann:

"I'm the same Raid who used to trash computers with viruses, remote access exploits, The same Asshole published in rolling stones magazine for my hacking/vx accomplishments."

"Not only does he write viruses with malicious payloads, he also takes a fairly obvious measure of delight in watching them spread."

Gee. That's an, uh... interesting piece of information you decided to share that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. But thanks for letting us know that you're a sociopath.

It explains a lot.

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

my comments:
that was so amusing, the way george wrote it. i have to give him credit.
i love the comic relief and the occasional stinging statements (based on truth) coming from him.

these forums have a lot to offer.

Mr Anonymous -- Thanks. For a second there, I thought I was the one you were complaining about.

"i'll be surprised if the riaa doesn't consider discretion to be the better part of valor"

I'll be surprised if the RIAA even knows the meaning of either of those words (discretion, valor), much less considers applying them. They aren't politicians. They are not concerned with their public image. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to take away the tuition money of college students; they wouldn't sue 12-year-old children; they wouldn't sue people who are already deceased.

When GM's sales drop, they say, "Hmmm. We've got to make a better car."

The record labels haven't even considered the problem might be with their product or the way they do business. No, it's those CD-Rs, and the college students, and the sandbox crowd, those evil p2p companies, the weak laws, pirates, pirates, pirates.

As for the case at hand, out of 13,000 lawsuits, she is apparently the only one saying the magic words -- "not guilty" and "Prove it."

Have to add this, as it just occurred to me.

We've all heard the legal question of how p2p is supposed to be significantly different from the Betamax case.

In Betamax, a lone consumer was named as the defendant, but given the promise that there would be no legal punishment, whatever the outcome. This gave both sides the opportunity to argue out their best, most compelling case against the larger issue without actually trying to ruin someone's life.

With p2p, they would rather ruin your life than resolve the issue.

"i'll be surprised if the riaa doesn't consider discretion to be the better part of valor"

They've had 13,000 chances to do exactly that and search for a realistic solution.

on this notion of "realistic solution" —

i'm beginning to think the riaa doesn't actually want to stop (infringing) file sharing through civil action.
they then, together with an effort to comply with international treaty-based recommendations regarding intellectual property rights, can use an 'exasperated' plaintiff push to have America become like italy, where the riaa counterpart there recently was able to have a law enacted which makes it a criminal offense to upload copyrighted material without express prior permission.

don't you just know orin hatch and other ilk like him are waiting in the wings for the right moment to lead the way for the same to be done here stateside.

btw, my "discretion being the better part of valor" quote was admittedly loosely applied to the riaa.
i just meant that they would figure it in their best interest, with too much to risk going to trial, that dropping the civil suit would be the preferred choice under the circumstances that were described.
i'm like you, not inclined to ascribe any characteristics of honor per se such as discretion or valor to them specifically at all.
for how many decades now is it, they have yet to show that they deserve any respect.

"Mr Anonymous -- Thanks. . ."

you're welcome.
i had just been sort of rolling with the flow begun by kyodylee, which I felt was directed toward the heavy-handed discourse between raidhhi and codewarrior, which got pretty strong at times.

kyodylee got somewhat upset, although i didn't really.
but i did muse about that microcosm effect seen often in many forums as reminding one of how it's also sometimes done at a very high level -- even our government officials, for example.

Should artist really need the dough or the record company? There are plenty of bands that do good and use there money to help the world.. like orphans in haiti or aids and poverty relief in africa. but to get a butt fill in and a new fur coat? who knows... they work hard.. cause for one... alot of new pop artist dont write their music, someone teachs them how to sing, and all they do is lip synch at concerts. What can we do with this problem. Well.. My idea.. if the songs are older than (enter number here) years old they should be free game. Hard songs to find, luck of the draw... its hard to get a good song that you remember hearing on the radio when you was a teenage that reminds of your mom or dad, that brings back memories.. songs are meant for joy. I think stealing is wrong. and taking a advantage of someone is also wrong. We should pay for songs that we want on the net. But they should be cheaper since we are paying for a picture in a album cover, or a piece of plastic with data on it. Maybe one day pepsi will bring back bottle caps. Peace and love. God bless everyone.

^oh btw... i hope that ladie kicks butt in court if she goes

Wow.. This thread has gotten huge. TotallyFrusted, I was certified with Novell some years ago; but I let it lapse. Nobody uses Novell anymore. Regarding Asm coding, serious programmers still use it. Others, (vb coders, html "coders" and the like don't). The defacto coding standard is still C++ and inline asm. Some of us hardcore asmers try to do the entire app in asm, but your right; in this day and age it's not necessary. Concerning amateur, While I have written viruses, and obviously enjoyed doing so; I've written legitimate applications as well; Some of which are still in use on older factory systems. Touch Screens using a modified msdos like shell essentially. Primarily used in bookmaking plants.

As I said before, I think this lady will lose. This is my personal opinion.. The RIAA isn't going to forget this, or just settle with her. It would set a bad precedent, others might challenge them. They can't afford for her to look innocent or win in court. They're going to ruin this lady. If they settle, then they still haven't won. They'll have to push this, and make an example of her for anyone else wishing to try. She's taking a huge chance on this.

As for them trying to kill off the indies, I think that's being a bit paranoid. Atleast for now.

"As for the case at hand, out of 13,000 lawsuits, she is apparently the only one saying the magic words -- "not guilty" and "Prove it."" ; Yep, true.. What will you say should she lose then George? The RIAA simply cannot afford for her to win, they'll trash her. Make a fine example of her for others who might have the bright idea of sharing riaa music, getting caught and trying to wiggle out of it.

fbar,

"if the songs are older than (enter number here) years old they should be free game. Hard songs to find, luck of the draw... its hard to get a good song that you remember hearing on the radio when you was a teenage that reminds of your mom or dad, that brings back memories.. songs are meant for joy."

Individuals (like me) who enjoy the old nintendo, atari games via emulation would like to see this come to pass as well. As it is however, nintendo can still sue me for having a copy of mario brothers one rom. they own the game you see. even tho the system that runs it can't be bought new and hasn't been sold in years, in fact; I can't even play the game without my emulator. They can still sue the shit out of me for having the .rom. The .rom contains their software.

I just joined this site (which I found a link for off of another site) just to comment on this article. I hope this lady wins and a stop is done to what the RIAA is doing to people. I still am totally in shock how, in the United States of America, these people are able to sue like they are. I understand what is going on from personal experience. This past weekend, one of these complaints was served on me. I have never downloaded music, nor do I even know how. There is no one in my household who could have possibly done what they are saying. I'm a single mom who is unable to work because of disability and have a young child. I have no means to fight this. In the state I live in, there are very few attorney's, from what I have been told, who even practice this type of law. The ones that do, want a large retainer to even begin to fight. The investigator at the settlement center actually told me he believes that I didn't do what is being said, but he said he doesn't make the decisions to sue or not. I've written letter after letter to everyone I could think of--internet provider, congressmen, senators because there is obviously some type of mistake. I got no where--The politicians sent letters back stating they were sorry about my situation, but there was nothing they could do and to hire a lawyer. My internet provider (which I sent letters to two different departments), didn't even respond. The advice you get when you can't afford an attorney to fight these people or settle is to file bankruptcy. In the end, everyone loses by what is being allowed to happen. The RIAA is going to end up destroying what little I do have because of something I have never even done. I'll definately be cheering Ms. Santangelo on.

Tanje, don't let this so-called settlement center sucker you. They employ the same tactics as scum-sucking collection agencies, they use fear tactics and rely on people not knowing the laws. At this point you don't need a lawyer on retainer. Refuse to settle and do what this lady is doing, make 'em prove it. As soon as you receive notice of a lawsuit filed against you, enter a general denial in the court. This stops them cold, that means they can't get a default judgemnent, and don't believe them if they tell you that you still have to work through the settlement center. Once the suit is filed in court the settlement people are out of it.

That's the main reason that the settlement center was set up in the first place, so that they wouldn't have to go court. All it takes is for enough people to take this to court and they'll stop. There is no way they can afford to sue 13,000 people without default judgements. The collection agencies work the same way.

she lives around the corner from me but yet i have never met her. i think tomorrow i will walk to her house and give her a high-five