Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA 670
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
Quakity banter in TFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).
It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (Score:3, Interesting)
Good for her and everything, but "the tide" is not shifting to the RIAA's disadvantage.
Just wait (Score:2, Interesting)
Someone at the EFF or something should help this lady. It shouldn't be difficult to get her a civil trial attorney that wants to do this pro-bono.
It's refreshing to see this type of thing after all the crap of the past few years. Maybe if all those people that settled with the RIAA and forked over their savings to get off the "hook" would have fought them in front of a sympathetic judge things would be much different now.
RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."
- Greg
The RIAA should drop this one (Score:4, Interesting)
They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?
Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".
What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?
What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?
What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?
There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.
And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?
Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?
Is the IP address infallible?
Re:It's About Sloppy Legal Practices! (Score:3, Interesting)
Though, no doubt the RIAA will probably throw some legal weight onto this case soon (I'm surprised they didn't do it already, but the defendant's lawyer says RIAA still has junior lawyers on the case [p2pnet.net]).
Re:Quakity banter in TFA... (Score:2, Interesting)
The judge sounded very laid back, and sounds to me like he's read about a lot of these lawsuits and is willing to give this lady a chance.
Re:Something to point out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because, it will be presented like this:
"DRM will help secure you and your computer so that nobody will be able to pirate movies or music through your computer and you won't have to worry about being sued for $100k".
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the most interesting thing about the transcript as I read it was that the lawyer for the music industry wanted the defendant/her lawyer to mess around with some industry settlement process, but the judge basically squashed it flat:
The judge earlier stamped on an attempt to get the defendant to state a position under oath before having the chance to take legal advice pretty heavily, too.
If I get caught... (Score:2, Interesting)
I love this judge... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, how far does the judge have to go in saying that he's leaning towards a particular party before the evidence is even presented, before he starts risking invalidating the whole trial?
Salient Quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.
The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
OUCH!!!
Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.
Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.
Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.
This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.
Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
Just curious, what happens to those.. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't "settle" and it manages to go to trial, and you lose, what happens if you don't pay? I mean, I'm not up on the current law on that but like, remember that one case where the guy owed like $15,000,000 for like 3 songs or something stupid? What would they do, garnish his wages? Force him to pay it each week?
I'd just refuse. I mean who has the money to pay that kind of fee, even if they chose the settlement.
I just cannot see them putting some poor guy in jail...
"I murdered my family, friends and over a dozen people up and down the coast line. It all ended when the cops found me in the street pissing myself while eating shit out of a dog food can. So, why are you here?"
"...uh..I downloaded some Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan songs off the Internet"
Sure, they'll probably put them in the most lax prison there is, minimal security and whatnot. But still, prison for downloading music? Why should "the rich" be the only ones entertained? By rich I mean, those who can afford to drop $15 for a CD, or $25 for a DVD? I know guys who can't afford gas for their cars! And they don't drink or splurg their paychecks on stupid shit. They pay rent, little food and gas to get to work, and they still have a hard time affording GAS.
World's going to hell in a handbasket
Re:What is the Value of an IP address? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to college in Long Island. I got a letter from the RIAA claiming that I'd been sharing episodes of Sex in the City. I've got no interest in that series - I wasn't sharing those at all. They listed an IP address they claimed was mine, but I have a dynamic DNS service that logs what IP I have, and I'd never had that IP.
My landlady opened my mail because it was marked "urgent" (I was out of town for a few days to go to a programming competition), saw the legal complaint, kicked me out of the house one month before finals, and refused to give me my deposit back. This was one of the major factors that led to me dropping out of college for the second time.
(Admittedly I dropped out of college and went straight into a programming job at Google, so I'm not about to claim "this ruined my life" - if anything, it was a net win for me. But still.)
I'm not claiming that the RIAA is responsible for my landlady's actions, but they did send me offical legal papers that were not based in any way in fact. I wouldn't believe any of their lawsuits without some real concrete evidence.
Re:Only 1 day behind the times (Score:3, Interesting)
The benefit isn't necessarily timeliness, it's relevance. Or rather, how relevant the news is to what I'm concerned with.
I checked out digg.com -- it looks like a useful website but there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of overlap between their recent news and Slashdot's recent news. The Slashdot news seems to be more along the lines of what I'm interested in.
I suspect that's not the case with you. Thanks for the link though.
Kevin
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
I tend to agree with the thought that they are two separate things, the civil/legal aspect of joining resources, etc and whatever your beliefs are. By doing so it truely keeps the separation of church and state, if your religions allows to marry 20 women and 20 goats, well you can go do that; the state wouldn't have to give you the benefits but you could be "married" under whatever you believe. Today because in most states still the civil/religious parts are tied to gether, it's more of a government enforced religious mandate (for example if you allow/disallow gay marriage, because marriage basically came from religion, the government is then forcing itself onto the church doctrine)
Re:Something to point out... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, he "shares" some of the songs he ripped from a CD or someone shares a song with him in return. Now "sharing" is a crime and it shouldn't done.
I understand that it really isn't sharing to the adult world, but to a child who has been taught that you should "share", it seems natural that it is okay to share something of yours which you bought with your own allowance.
I am not saying that it is right or wrong, but I think the "powers-that-be" need to be a little less "heavy-handed", and realize that file-sharing may be non-obvious crime to a typical young person.
I am reminded of a story that someone told me recently. A boy was three or four and saw a pile of money on the table. He didn't see it as "money" like an adult, but as just some funny pieces of paper. He took the money, not realizing its importance. The mother caught the boy with the money and punished him for "stealing". The boy protested saying that all he did wanted to do was play with the paper. Instead of explaining the significance of the paper (educating the youngster), she applied adult standards of conduct to the child. I would wager that the boy had no idea what he did wrong, because in his eyes, he was just playing with some paper which he had probably done before.
The point is that we should not assume that children know what they are doing wrong. Rather than looking to punish, we should be looking to educate and bring about understanding. Children are not small adults. They are naieve to the ways of the adult world, and anyone who expects otherwise is an idiot.
I would imagine that those at the RIAA are all child-less, because they have no common sense when it comes to these things.
Re:Sounds Fishy to Me... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Copyright infringement, NOT THEFT!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
The law they are using is even call the "No Electronic Theft Act" or NET Act (does every goddamn law have to be a stupid acronym?)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA - High Priests of Virgin Sacrifice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An embarassment, really... (Score:3, Interesting)
. . . And while recording artists are treated quite poorly in comparison to authors and actors, every time some music is pirated, it IS money that would have otherwise gone to the artist (and a lot more that would have gone to the recording studio, of which quite a bit should be going to the artist instead in my opinion, but that's another issue).
Oh boy, I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let's start with the 'every time music is pirated bit'. Are you talking about piracy (the wholesale duplication of materials for illicit sale) or are you talking about file sharing (which doesn't invlove any money in the first place)? It is utter nonsense to say that that every song swapped is money that doesn't go to the artist, since there's no money involved, and a song copied does NOT equal a song not sold.
I like to borrow CDs from my local library. Does it mean that I've deprived the estate of Otis Redding $50 because I borrowed the box set? What makes you think I would have bought it? Do you think Otis Redding is unhappy with me? How much of that non-existent $50 that I didn't spend would have gone to his estate anyway?
As far as payments to recording studios go, you apparently don't have much of an idea how the business works. A top producer can get a couple points on a record. Top shelf session musicians can get a point or two also, but in both cases it is a trade-off -- lower rates up front in exchange for the possiblility of fat royalties. The studio itself (and the recording engineer, mastering engineer, and musicians and producers without big time clout (or who choose) get a daily or hourly rate. These are not really excessive and are negotiated well in advance. Tour musicians don't get any points but are paid a daily rate.
This works more or less the same way for actors. I've got a buddy who had a supporting role in City Slickers, for example. Apparently the studio didn't think the film would do much, so they offered the actors generous (relatively) royalty deals so they wouldn't have to pay so much up front. It makes me feel good that every time that film comes on TV now (which seems like every other month) my buddy gets a check.
Your beef is more with the labels, which are run like a cartel, not the recording studios, which are run more like dentists' offices or car repair shops. If you don't pay your mechanic, your car doesn't leave the shop, and if you don't pay the recording studio, your master doesn't leave.
The problem in music is how this particular equation works. When an artist gets a major label contract, that sack with a $ on it is a loan, not a payment. Worse, the label decides how the money is spent, not the artist. Further, the artist is responsible for paying back everything that is spent out of future royalties, after the recording studios, sessions musicians, producers, engineers, video directors and crew, radio promoters, roadies, truck rentals, venue rentals, caterers, etc, etc, (and I mean etc) are paid. The labels have ways of working this so that the contracted artist is never quite out of debt.
There was quite a bit more I wanted to say on topics of 'ends not justifying means', particularly where the ends are so inexplicable (why do companies that sell music not want people getting exposed to music?), and about wondering how you, an author, intend to make people want to buy your work if they've never heard of you or read you before, but I've spent long enough on this already.
Re:Not a lot about nothing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps, perhaps not, but both the headline and the blurb rather remarkably accurately portray the story as an RIAA case finally having gone before a judge.
And a good many people have been following this case to find out if that was actually going to happen. This is actually news.
KFG
Re:I too... (Score:4, Interesting)
Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model.
Alright, I'll bite. I've had MythTV running for about a year and a half now, and I must say it's jolly good fun.
I'll also say that it was far from simple to get everything up and running just right.
I'll also say that the thought has occured to me on many occasions that a tidy little business could be built off of MythTV -- not selling boxes on ebay, but a legitimate, local, service business. And not by locking the source, but by providing the benefits of my own experience and expertise -- in much the same way that the knowledge of how to change the oil in a car is not proprietary, but most people are unwilling to do it themselves.
But the major thing that prevents me from doing this is what my box is capable of, and what that means in Good Ole Litigious USA.
By selling a machine that is capable of recording copyrighted materials in an unencrypted, non-DRMed, and easily duplicable format, I would leave myself open to a situation where I'm held liable for a separate instance of copyright violation for every single program recorded by every single client, let alone DMCA-related charges for what Myth can do if the user installs a very small bit of code that lets it play (and archive) DVDs (not to mention the fact that Linux doesn't even register the new CD copy-protection schemes, which may in itself be a DMCA violation).
Because of that, I have not started a business around it, and so am not working full-time to innovate on it, and have not hired others to work full-time innovating (the benefits of which would, of course, be released back to the community under the GPL).
Remeber that this machine was not designed to distribute copyrighted content without consent, but to time-shift (or format-shift) content that the user has already bought. This used to be legal. MythTV can also catalog and play back your music collection, as well as burn compilation CDs (which also used to be legal).
That is a very concrete and very real situation demonstrating how the current interpretation of copyright is harming innovation.
There, you've had your example so humbly suggest that you 'can it'. I also suggest you put together something a bit more edifying and worthwhile that a collection of cheat codes for video games before you start considering yourself literary.
And I'm assuming that all the tips you found on the internet and included in your books were properly documented, and the sources properly compensated. Right?
Re:The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:2, Interesting)
They do have the same rights to marry as us, a gay woman could marry a gay man at any time. And who is to say they can't set up a covenant between themselves and wear the rings and all. Oh wait, they want the marriage benefits? Hell, so do I, but I don't expect to be allowed to marry my roommate, though he's a swell chap.
I think the notion of rights is a little out of context here. Why shouldn't I have the right to marry multiple women concurrently. Why shouldn't I be able to marry myself and get those marriage benefits?
The institute of marriage has, in my mind, has proven itself as a beneficial structure to society, and perhaps deserves those benefits. To cheapen marriage in the name of "equality" is to jeopardize the entire structure.
The battle has yet to begin (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
Re:I too... (Score:2, Interesting)
Snore...it's late and I'm actually asleep right now, but I can still answer your question, because it's that pathetically easy to do so. One word: Disney. The majority of their animated movies are based on the expired copyrights of others. Turning Cinderella from a story about the stepsisters cutting parts of their feet off to make them fit in a shoe into a classic children's movie qualifies as innovation.
And not all of the stories are centuries old, either. If Rudyard Kipling had enjoyed the copyright protections demanded by Disney, the studio would have had to pay his estate royalties for the Jungle Book.
So you get the one-two of Disney using other peoples works for themselves but no one can use any Disney created charachters. I read a nice article on how some animators would like to do something with Mickey Mouse, since the only thing Disney uses him for now is harrasing kids at theme parks, but they can't because of perpetual copyright extensions.
See, like I said, easy. Come back when I'm awake if you actually have a hard question to ask.
one might think.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I too... (Score:3, Interesting)
By selling a machine that is capable of recording copyrighted materials in an unencrypted, non-DRMed, and easily duplicable format, I would leave myself open to a situation where I'm held liable for a separate instance of copyright violation for every single program recorded by every single client,
Wrong. You leave yourself open to a situation where the users of your commercial MythTV box could get sued for infringement. In the Betamax Case [wikipedia.org], a judge ruled that a company cannot be held liable for unlawful actions taken by the users of a company's product, as long as the product was not created for the specific purpose of breaking the law. The more recent ruling against Grokster [wikipedia.org] clearly stated that Grokster promoted and fostered infringing use of their software. Format shifting is still legal by precident, and companies who manufacture format-shifting devices and promote non-infringing use are still not liable for their users' actions.
Linux doesn't even register the new CD copy-protection schemes, which may in itself be a DMCA violation
We'll see. The law in this country is based heavily on precident, so if a court hasn't ruled on a law yet, no one is sure whether the law will stand. That is the best part of the checks and balances in this country: Congress can write all kinds of wacky laws and even have them signed, but if a judge decides the law is unconstitutional, that's it. (As a side note, I would love to see this specific part of the DMCA battled in court, since I think it clearly squashes the consumer's rights to non-infringing copying, which was spelled out in the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 [wikipedia.org], and which the DMCA contradicts.)
Remeber (sic) that this machine was not designed to distribute copyrighted content without consent, but to time-shift (or format-shift) content that the user has already bought. This used to be legal. MythTV can also catalog and play back your music collection, as well as burn compilation CDs (which also used to be legal).
Since when is this not legal? Please specify a court case where the consumer's right to copy media in a non-commercial, non-ditributive manner was revoked. Until the court rules that such things are illegal, the DMCA is just smoke and mirrors.
Now, if you'd like to discuss the current situation of patents in this country, I would be happy to state that yes, they are stifling innovation. Somewhere along the line, the USPO decided that people can patent an idea, and not merely and implimentation, and that's where things got screwed up for software patents. (For example, one should not be able to patent "a device that wakes people up in the morning", but they should be able to patent "the AlarmWaker3000." In the context of software, someone should not be able to patent "causing a video game character to hallucinate [slashdot.org]", but they have every right to patent "this bit of code that makes video game characters hallucinate". If I write a different bit of code to do the same thing, I should not be violating the patent, as long as the code I write is significantly different than the pantented code, which would be determined by a court.)
I also suggest you put together something a bit more edifying and worthwhile that a collection of cheat codes for video games before you start considering yourself literary.
And on behalf of Mr. Marks, I'd like to ask you to lay off the personal attacks. This is a discussion of opposing viewpoints, not a flamewar.
ObHeinlein (Score:5, Interesting)
Heinlein put it best.
------
Re:I hate this line of thinking. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you see the elegance in what I'm saying? You are basically saying we should oppress the church to keep the church from opressing the gay community. Why the hell don't we just divorce the religious concept of marriage from the government completely? That way if your religion says you can marry an animal you can, heck it's your religion not mine but you don't have to expect the state to allow a legal contract between your dog and you, you can go shouting through the streets you are married to your dog skip, but you won't have a binding legal contract between your dog and you. And with bigamy, if your religion supports it; what the hell why not, it's not the goverment's roll to determine your religious doctrine for you; but it is their roll to determine what is a legal contract. Go ahead and get married to 50 women at once in your church, but just take one in front of the government to mingle your assets, etc with in a civily binding contract.
It is not impractical and pointless, it is the most elegant solution I've seen put forward to remove history's error when the government took a religious concept and incorporated that into their laws. You want to be a polygamist, be a polygamist under your religion I don't care, just don't expect the government to allow a legal contract simply because *your* religion says you are married because it's not a marriage it's a civil union.
Re:Maybe it's worth it (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA strategy uncovered? (Score:2, Interesting)
Firstly from my standpoint he seems to approach everything with an attempt to appear almost as benevolent as a mother of 5, hence setting the tone of voice accordingly and the non-aggressive approach.
Secondly, the complaint didn't follow due process, why is this? Many here ridicule it, but I suspect it is part of the strategy, in which its ultimate goal is to make an agreement in court between plaintiff and defendant to sort the matter outside of the court, more specifically at the conference settlement center. It would serve several purposes which make sense, court and judge keeps their schedule open and plaintiff has a very good chance of a settlement that fits their agenda. That the plaintiff representative suggest she meets at the conference center without an attorney, to "facilitate things" nails it for me. A good settlement early is a hell of a lot better than a long drag in court; they have a lot to loose here.
Paid advertising to offset legal costs (Score:2, Interesting)
I am the author of the blog "Recording Industry vs. The People", and one of the lawyers representing Patti Santangelo and other victims of the RIAA lawsuits in the New York City metropolitan area.
There is, rightly, a lot of concern on how regular people can handle the economic imbalance in these lawsuits.
And there are in existence certain tools: (a) the copyright law's fee-shifting provisions, (b) Federal Rule 11, which bars lawyers from signing frivolous litigation documents, and (c) the willingness of some lawyers to take reduced fees, or to do some work without a fee at all.
My reading on the internet over the last several weeks, and especially of this thread on slashdot last night and this morning, gave me an idea for another possible tool.
I decided to try something a little innovative this morning, and added 'pay-per-click' advertising to our blog, http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com [blogspot.com], and to its companion site hosting the litigation documents, http://info.riaalawsuits.us [riaalawsuits.us] , with all proceeds from the ads to be used to help defray legal fees and disbursements of our clients defending the RIAA litigations.
I've never seen or done anything like this before, so I don't know how it will work out, but just thought you guys -- who have been fabulous in your passionate, thoughtful, and sometimes even scholarly exegesis of the Elektra v. Santangelo litigation documents -- would like to know.
Best regards,
Ray Beckerman
Contempt of Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is typical of the attitude that the RIAA has towards the courts. they expect the court to, in effect, rubber stamp the RIAA's private laws and fines.
Maschio quite brazenly tried to reverse the courts decision that council for both sides discuss the matter, instead insisting that Santangelo be dragged into the RIAA's private interrogation chamber, so that they may have their way with her. Maschio tried this no less than three times. If the judge was not so lienient with him, he would have been considered to be in contempt.
It's clear that simply going before a court to force someone into private arbitration is a waste of the courts time, and the judge made that clear. Hopefully more judges will beging to realise they are being taken for granted by large corporations.