Runaround Suits --Godwins Law

(More commentary to be found if you click the link!)

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

Posted by mnemonic on Aug 29 2005 11:16:51 AM EST

"you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits."

I LOVE IT!!! A judge like this is awsome.

Why is this reposted?

question is will the RIAA drop the case once they realize they may not be able to win??

Thats a good question. I'm very interested in the outcome.

That judge is awesome! Putting the RIAA in their place after clogging up his court docket with their frivolous lawsuits.

"question is will the RIAA drop the case once they realize they may not be able to win??"

Comp,
I am not sure they can afford to drop the case. If they lose it, I wonder if they will just appeal the crap out of it in order to drain the opposition of funds.
Only time will tell.

Dreddsnik, that would be a tactic to worry about

IF

(Boycott-Riaa, among others) were not doing all we can to keep it in the public eye.

(Does THAT answer your question "Why is this reposted?" above RaidHHI?)

If Patricia Santangelo decided to stop fighting and only wanted our sympathetic dollars to pay the settlement,

I myself would loose all interest in helping her.

But she currently appears to be FIGHTING the injustice (and therefore doing MORE than just getting herself off the hook!)

I'll back her up as long as she fights. in fact, I'm going out on a limb here. if there are any musicians here who are willing to do it, I'd be willing to write her a couple of songs with the understanding that the proceeds from any sales went to help her pay legal costs. any takers?

If I were a musician, capt, if only. I'm sure someone will step up.

hey I'm no musician but I can do a pretty good imitation of jim morrison

mojo risin'

What about a defence fund? I would contribute.

Here's some info for you brenthannah--

Ray Beckerman is one of the lawyers representing Santangelo.

http://p2pnet.net/story/6062


p2pnet: About how much will cost to mount and maintain Patricia Santangelo's defense?


Beckerman: We have no idea what the total cost will be in the long run. We do not expect it to be wildly expensive, because (i) we are charging drastically reduced fees (e.g. my personal rate is half my standard rate) and (ii) we expect the case to be dismissed, based upon the motion to dismiss, which has been briefed, submitted, and argued, and is now awaiting decision. If the motion is granted, there will be no pretrial discovery, and no trial.


p2pnet: Where will the money to pay for it come from?


Beckerman: We expect Ms Santangelo's costs to be picked up by the RIAA, since (a) the copyright statute permits the Court to shift the attorneys fees to the losing party, (b) these cases were clearly frivolous and brought in bad faith, and (c) it is a matter of public interest that the RIAA be deterred from bringing more such meritless cases.


But he also said this:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15479871&postID=112508574061695622

I guess if you want to contribute to Ms. Santangelo's defense, you can send the check to "Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, As Attorneys" and mail it to Ray Beckerman, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, 99 Park Avenue (16th Floor), New York, NY 10016, and we will do with it as we are instructed by Ms. Santangelo.

This case is very important. If the RIAA loses, or even drops the case, it will open the door for others who are subpoenaed. These subpoenas are the strongest weapon that the RIAA has right now to try to stop file sharing (even thought it's not working!). It's possible that others may not be able to use the same defense as Ms. Santangelo. (I believe she's claiming that she did not do the filesharing, and didn't even know about, even though it was her computer.) Nevertheless, it may inspire others to go to court instead of just settling. It will be very interesting to see how this turns out. I don't think the judge will let the RIAA drag the case out in an attempt to bankrupt Ms Santangelo. However, if the RIAA loses, I assume they may be able to appeal the decision. If so, they might get a judge who is more sympathetic to the RIAA.

"We expect Ms Santangelo's costs to be picked up by the RIAA, since (a) the copyright statute permits the Court to shift the attorneys fees to the losing party, (b) these cases were clearly frivolous and brought in bad faith, and (c) it is a matter of public interest that the RIAA be deterred from bringing more such meritless cases."

This, by itself, is enough incentive for the RIAA to stop this if enough people fight and win.

having looked at the facts. i'm pretty sure you could beat the riaa in court even if you had downloaded the files yourself.

There is the inherant problem that under us copyright law filesharing is acctually legal...

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

section 1008.

filesharing is non comercial and is done by a consumer.

The RIAA prefers to call them "defendants." I'm afraid there's a firestorm coming, iamthatis. Keep your head down.

I "think" ( don't remember for sure, but someone will clarify ) that tactic ( or variant ) was used in the Gonzalez case.
the RIAA won that in summary, so the judge didn't see it that way ( those many of us would agree with you ).

My OPINION is that this case has a better chance because they are demanding actual proof of infringement, which the RIAA attorneys haven't seemed to be able to come up with.
This was discussed quite heatedly several months ago ......
Admit nothing and demand proof of infringement.
We'll see which way the Judge goes.
That's the only opinion that really counts.

I could be wrong but, don't courts usually have this thing called a Jury?

not in civil cases. for the most part the judge is the man.

Or in this case, the Woman.

"I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs"

Not for me! For me if a corporation sue another corporation it's OK! But when it sue the public it is a mortal sin and the RIAA will have to face the consequence souner than later.

"That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars."

Because they know that what they are doing is wrong and they are not at all certain that they can corrupt the court.

RaidHHI is an RIAA agent.

I am sending her money.

"There is the inherant problem that under us copyright law filesharing is acctually legal...".

Where does it say that? It says that you can make and/or distribute devices for listening to the music. And making noncommercial copies for private use is fair use. It does not say that you can distribute these copies. Not at all.

Indepedent,

"(Does THAT answer your question "Why is this reposted?" above RaidHHI?)"

I wonder if your intentionally allowing people to mislead others here. Surely you've spoken to other lawyers about the fair use laws people are preaching here. I don't see anyone claiming that personal copies being uploaded still count as fair use under the current laws. I personally hope the lady loses, and the riaa burns her for the hassle. Then it will give people like you something to think about.

Fair use DOES NOT MEAN COPIES FOR YOUR FRIENDS!

Really? So all the vageries of the DMCA mean Fair use is dead... Interesting.

I upload and download music to the internet or wherever and because ONE part may be an RIAA song, everything I've done is illegal.

How about this? How are these files competing with the market? People are still buying CDs of the RIAA in record numbers. Why don't you prove that file sharing is costing those billions the RIAA wants from the people it sues?

RaidHHI is an RIAA agent ignore him.

"Fair use DOES NOT MEAN COPIES FOR YOUR FRIENDS!"

Good luck trying to stop or enforce that one. What are you going to do, turn in your buddy because he borrowed a CD and copied or recorded it for himself? How are you going to catch and stop them?? DRM??? While that may keep some digital copies from being made, the CD can still be recorded on cassette. Legally, I might add.

""Fair use DOES NOT MEAN COPIES FOR YOUR FRIENDS!"

You're right, It doesn't.
I does mean ( or so I thought ) that once I have paid for a CD ( expand that to include a single song file from a "legal" service" ) that I should be able to do anything I wish to with it for my own use, that means to me, backing it up for safekeeping ( software and music ) making "mixes" for my car ( as many as I wish ) , copying it to whatever computer in my home I own for my or my kids convenience, etc. P2p is "stretching" that , and yet ...
I don't feel like a "criminal" for helping my mom DL MP3's of her Elvis Presley vinyls ( she paid for them, ya know ) so she can listen to them on her PC. After all, she DID purchase them, and it is for her personal use ( I didn't keep 'em, can't stand ANYTHING Elvis ).
It's may not be entirely gray, but it's not really all that black and white either.

JC123,

"I upload and download music to the internet or wherever and because ONE part may be an RIAA song, everything I've done is illegal."

Everything? No dude, And it has very little to do with the RIAA itself. It's a very simple thing. If your transferring files that are copyrighted, that you don't have permission to transfer, then and only then is it copyright infringement. It all comes down to permission. If you have the copyright owners permission, you can transfer the file all you like, subject to whatever terms you worked out with the copyright owner.

"How about this? How are these files competing with the market? People are still buying CDs of the RIAA in record numbers. Why don't you prove that file sharing is costing those billions the RIAA wants from the people it sues?"

My point of view is restricted to what is or what is not copyright infringement. The RIAA's reasons for lawsuits that go beyond that are not something I'm concerned with. As far as I'm concerned, the only legal ground they have to stand on is the fact that some people are knowingly transferring files that the RIAA owns the copyright to, and didn't give permission for distribution by those individuals. The RIAA can grandstand and say this or that all they like. The real root of their lawsuit is a simple copyright infringement case. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure in some cases, the mp3 versions of a cd are costing them money. I myself am a co-founder of a ripping group. Every single day, I commit copyright infringement towards the RIAA and the MPAA. I have no issue with this, I'm not even trying to defend it. I know full and well that I'm a copyright infringer for doing it. I don't try and claim it's fair use since i'm giving the copies away. Back to my original point, Some cd sales are lost on individuals who will obtain things for free, and never seek out the original. Yes, some people are that cheap. I do know of a few personally that are not going to buy the cd, because I already provided them with it. They were going to purchase it.

So yes, the RIAA is losing some money on individuals who want a free ride. Some people wouldn't buy it anyway, but I'm not including those individuals. I'm only considering the ones who would have bought it, but since a friend gave them a copy, they see no reason to buy it.

INeedALover,

"Good luck trying to stop or enforce that one. What are you going to do, turn in your buddy because he borrowed a CD and copied or recorded it for himself?"

Umm, Hello. I'm with a ripping group, I have no intentions of enforcing anything with regard to copyright laws. I'm not a hypocrite.

At the same time, I know full and well it's not fair use, and that it's blatant in your face copyright infringement. This is where you and I disagree, because you don't understand that Fair Use doesn't mean copies for other people, it means copies for you, to enjoy privately on your equipment.

"How are you going to catch and stop them?? DRM??? While that may keep some digital copies from being made, the CD can still be recorded on cassette. Legally, I might add."

You really don't read much of what I say do you? I'm familiar with drm, from a cracking and coding points of views. Legally, you can back the cd upto a casette, yes. But, it's illegal if you give said cassette to your friend. As long as you keep it, it's fair use. It's no longer fair use when it slips into someone elses hands.

Just to be clear, I am not against downloading music. Obviously, I'm quiet happy to offer much music to be downloaded. Commercial music, indie music. DVDrip Xvid copies of movies, etc. I am a proud copyright infringer of sorts. But, I understand it's illegal. I'm not trying to hide under fair use. Thats why I disagree with some of you here. Your unwilling to admit your breaking the law.



How are you going to catch and stop them?? DRM??? While that may keep some digital copies from being made, the CD can still be recorded on cassette. Legally, I might add."

The RIAA is suing people for sharing, or so they say. Sharing is not infringing. One judge likened it to leaving the door to your library open and when someone comes in and makes a copy, you are guilty of infringement. They have to prove that you downloaded music to prove infringement. So by looking at a shared folder how could they do that?

There's many ways this argument can go. For one, I love remixed music. But who should an artist have to go to? The label? The artist? Their mom?

That's what's been at issue here. The RIAA, a lobbying group, is suing people for their Big Four masters. We have no way of knowing when the copyrights might end, what we can and can not do, what's the exceptions, EVERYTHING is too vague and too much of a mess.

They sue for downloaded songs and the RIAA has said, itself that their main mission is to get people to use the "legal" sites. As if places such as Dmusic.com isn't legal! Sorry if I don't like pop a lot. Sorry if the Beatles are a great band or not. But if I were to get music in a respectable format (.ogg sounds good) for cheap when all they're paying for is server costs and not things I don't need (hint: DRM) then perhaps I'd plunk down the money.

And I love music, and love putting it onto my CD. Law says I can distribute it in a first sale manner. Hell, I could rip the CD or anything else that the medium is held on. But I put it on a P2P site or BT site and suddenly the law is irrevocably broken?

My point is, that no matter how you look at it, the law needs to be defined so it works. It's not working in its current form.

"One judge likened it to leaving the door to your library open and when someone comes in and makes a copy, you are guilty of infringement."

That was a judge in Canada! I think you know that. And wasn't that judge later overruled?

I know who it was, mroop. Pretty soon he'll probably be a Supreme pain in the ass.

Here's the link--I hope it still works.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000988941

Judge Roberts.
USA
Not overruled

Hey, mroop--gotcha!!

here come de judge! who *was* that robed man?