Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over 138
newtley writes "Odds are that Patti Santangelo, the RIAA case defendant and New York mother who has made a determined stand against the Big 4, may have won her battle to clear her name. She and her lawyer, Jordan Glass, have signed and submitted a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice the case lodged against her by the RIAA. US federal district court judge Colleen McMahon's language had earlier seemed to indicate it was time to end the farce, and the court had the power to entertain a motion for legal fees. Unfortunately, her two children are still 'in the line of fire' in the court room."
Upon learning of this (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Upon learning of this (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Upon learning of this (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess we could shorten the company names for readability.
Re:Upon learning of this (Score:4, Interesting)
"BMI et al. is behind the first case. These cases wont go away until we start identifying them with the parent company, and not the RIAA."
BMI is a performance rights society. Like ASCAP, they are run by and for songwriters, composers, and publishers. They are not a record company, and were not "behind" the RIAA suit by any stretch. Thus, the GP's joke about BMI going after her for singing "Ding, Dong...": if you want to perform a songwriter's work, you pay the songwriter by licensing it through BMI/ASCAP; you don't pay the record company.
BMI/ASCAP and the RIAA look after different people. BMI/ASCAP represent the artists; the RIAA represents the record companies.
Nota bene that BMI/ASCAP are normally the "good guys" while the record labels are the "bad guys." But, this changes whenever people get wind of BMI/ASCAP shaking down a bar or restaurant owner who neglects to buy a performance license. It seems that we're okay with artists having rights; we just don't want artists to exercise those rights.
Another acronym for them. (Score:1)
Elektra Entertainment Group
Virgin Records America
UMG Recordings
BMG Music
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Thats "E", "V", "U", "B" and "S"
ummm how about V.U.B.E.S ?
Short and sweet <VBG>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
With hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Woohoo! (Score:4, Funny)
Meme granted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase one of the great philosophers [blackjackinc.com] of the 21st Century...
I have a dream. And in it, something eats the RIAA's executives and lawyers.
Hey. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey. (Score:5, Funny)
Just kidding, he's good people. You can catch plenty of ambulance chasers that way, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or just use an ambulance. Might be a tad easier.
Re:Hey. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The signifigance of this case is overblown. (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, there are some significantly more important cases going on for the likes of the everyday file sharer. In particular, Ray Beckerman finally managed to depose the RIAA's expert witness in UMG vs Lindor, and, while not absolutely crushing him, showed him to be a very poor witness on which to build an airtight case. The outcome of that case could have a huge impact on how these cases are done in the future. A disastrous result for UMG might well discourage further lawsuits. Before you get excited, though, that case is months from being solved.
In addition, there are some other cases going in which the defendants might get fees on their own merits, but they need some time to resolve. It's amazing, but these cases are the first ones that might actually go to a trial.
Beckerman's blog, which is great reading for those interested in this stuff, is http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Bhuga
Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like a despot who makes money by demanding it of his neighbors, otherwise he sends his slaves off to explode in their town centers. If his neighbors learn that it is possible to identify and send these slaves back home before they explode in some cases (but not always), then this despot's income and power mechanisms are potentially at risk. His neighbors may in fact be able to join together at this point and find more ways of stopping him. That, and the rich nobles (Sir Sony, Sir BMG, et al) who finance this horrible dictator may finally realize the problems of spending so much money on propping up such a horrible dictator just to maintain the value of their positions, as their own bombs start to blow up in their own faces.
Ryan Fenton
Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why they continued pursuing this case after finding out her children were the more likely culprits I can only imagine; they should have realized this case would not go their way after that but instead they kept trying. Maybe they thought they could still win? Or maybe they felt pulling out would be even worse? I can only speculate.
Regardless
Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His testimony is now inadmissible in court.
How much more "crushed" can you get?
I don't take credit for the crushing; his own carelessness and lack of integrity is what crushed him.
He's a fake.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I read most of the testimony when it was posted on /., but I must have missed that part. How did that come about? Did the judge decide that based on his testimony he wasn't an expert at all, or that his methods were so shoddy that his testimony was irrelevant?
I would imagine that discrediting expert witnesses is a common tactic in the courtroom, but how common is it for that tactic to succeed, at least to the level that testimony becomes inadmissible?
Also, d
Re: (Score:2)
A Stillborn Meme... (Score:5, Funny)
My work here is done.
Re: (Score:1)
It's copying. It's not theft. (Score:4, Interesting)
How would you like it if you weren't allowed to take photographs or pay HUGE fines?
How about going to the library and copying a magazine artice with the xerox?
The Riaa still has the original copies.
I know I will lose this one with all the software people on slash.
But it's NOT theft in any conventional meaning and saying so is lying. Pure spin by the Riaa and software copyright holders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's close enough to theft for practical purposes. The essence of theft is depriving the legal owner of the benefits of possessing the item. The primary benefit of copyright ownership is the ability to control the distribution of copies and thus get paid for those copies. Copyright infringement, to one degree or another depending on the scale, deprives the copyright owner of the primary benefit of their ownership. In short, the work hasn't been stolen but the money that would be paid for copies of that work
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, aren't you just the lawyerly one -- "close enough for practical purposes", shit. Listen up, asshole, this is law, not woodshop.
Theft and copyright infringement are two distinct offenses. Only one is written in the charges. Which one do you think that would be?
If I slap you in the face (get your ass over here!!!), no one is going to go into court charging me wth attempted murder -- the charge will read "battery", no matter how loud you bleat to the con
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the money hasn't been stolen. You can't show a change to your account as a result of copyright infringement. If you can't show a reduction of inventory or a change in account balances, how can there have been theft?
If something has been stolen from you, you can tell by looking at your stuff, counting it, and itemising the things missing. With copyright infringement you can't do thi
When absence is evidence (Score:2)
The big problem, if you are someone who believes in fighting copyright infringement, is that yo
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the big problem for people who want to convince everyone that copyright infringement is theft. For people who want to "fight" copyright infringement (perhaps you mean "enforce copyright law") the problem is to prove that there have been copies made illegally. You do not have to prove financial damage to prove copyright infringement. The real challeng
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why "property is theft" - any private property is depriving all other people of the benefits of the item in question. This is particularly true for items with a near-zero cost of reproduction. "Intellectual property" is stealing from the public.
The essential thing about this concept is not its objective validity, but that it is equally as valid as the RIAA's po
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say "Wrong.". Your position assumes that J. Random Individual has a right to ownership of that item in the first place. That isn't the case. They have rights to specific items, but not to any arbitrary item in general. I don't happen to agree that, just because I worked to obtain or discover something, every other person in the world who didn't suddenly gets an ownership right to it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you deny both positions - that the RIAA is entitled to some 'ownership' rights over things obtained or discovered by other people, and that other random individuals are entitled to them. That is consistent with what I said.
Either both the RIAA and their targets are morally reprehensible, or neither is. That's the whole point. It doesn't mat
Property is theft? (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, who owns your computer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what this has to do with copying cds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone steals my car, I'm going to be upset because I don't have a car anymore. On the other hand, if he could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original untouched in my driveway, then why should I care? I have a car, he has a car too; we both win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"we both win" ...at the expense of the car manufacturer.
Maybe... maybe not. You're assuming that the "thief" would've bought his own car if he couldn't copy mine, but as we both know, cars cost a lot of money, and not everyone can just go buy one.
So it's more likely that there are two possible outcomes: (1) I keep my car, the copier gets a car, and the manufacturer only gets paid for one, or (2) I keep my car, the copier doesn't get a car, and the manufacturer only gets paid for one. The first outcome is obviously better for the copier and neutral for everyone
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"On the other hand, if he could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original untouched in my driveway, then why should I care? I have a car, he has a car too; we both win."
When people make the "copyright enforcement is theft" argument they are not stating that it is theft from the torrent seeder, but the holder of the copyright. Of course you don't care if your neighbor copies your car, or your collection of music, or what have you. You're not analogous to the copyright holder; the car manufacturer is
Re:It's copying. It's not theft. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It still isn't theft, because no one, not the seeder nor the copyright holder, is deprived of the thing that you download. After you download a song, everyone involved still has everything they did before you downloaded it.
Are you even aware of the purpose of copyrights? When you download a song from your favorite P2P network, you have deprived the copyright holder of their right to control distribution of their work. I certainly don't agree with the music labels and their raping of the fair use doctrine, but blatant inaccuracies like this are of no help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like this is some recent invention of Congress and lobbyists. Copyright law goes back five or six hundred years, with something similar to what is found in our Constitution existing since at least the early 1700s.
Oh, I know it does. That doesn't mean it's any wiser than if it had been introduced yesterday, though. Plenty of ridiculous ideas have been around for far longer.
It is exactly false to claim that authors and musical artists have no legitimate right to control the distribution of their work; you are on the wrong side of at least 300 solid years of copyright law.
Two hundred years ago, if I'd said "people have no legitimate right to own slaves", would that also be false because I'd be on the wrong side of who-knows-how-many years of law? Or would I just be talking about something more fundamental than statutes?
There's certainly plenty of room for criticism of the corporate-owned version of copyright that exists in the US today, but your suggestion flies in the face of private property rights, capitalism, and other holy American values
Free speech is an American value too, far more important than any economic principles, and copy
Re: (Score:2)
So the right to own something you create is now being compared to slavery?
Only in that they both show that centuries of law and tradition can still be horribly wrong. There is no legitimate right to own an idea, just as there is no legitimate right to own a person, despite what the laws have said at various times throughout history.
And free speech has plenty of limitations on it...
Stifling free speech in order to protect public safety (no shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) is one thing. Stifling it in order to make it slightly easier for someone to make a buck is something completely different.
Of course, I might point out h
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, as I said earlier, we have all of human history indicating that your ideas will not work in reality. Enough people are addicted to money and power to ruin any and every fair system.
The only especially "fair" thing about what I've proposed is that we'd regain some freedom of speech - which is important, of course, but it's not as if I'm taking money out of the equation.
Whether it is to get or maintain a job, to attract other people to you (for friendship or sexual relations), or just to fit in, people pay $12 for a haircut because they see some benefit outside of having shorter hair.
Yes, that's exactly my point. You don't have to have a monetary return in order for it to be worth spending money on something. Most of us here would be willing to pay for a faster CPU, whether that meant spending $100 on a chip that's already been produced, or contributing $75 to research that eventually produces a ch
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are many pharm labs that could quickly whip up their own batch of drug X and sell it with a tiny bit of the R&D required of Merck.
Which is why it makes sense for the research to be funded separately from the manufacturing - and in the case of medical research, which is more beneficial than people realize (especially for contagious diseases), it might even make sense to have the government fund it. If an independent group discovers, tests, and describes a process to produce drug X, then Merck and every other manufacturer can compete on a level playing field to implement that process.
Why can't I start a computer company named "Apple", put a little apple on my artsy computers, load OS X on them, and sell them? I don't have to say that I'm the same company lead by Steve Jobs and headquartered in Cupertino, CA, in order to make people think I am.
The same reason you can't advertise a Michael Jacks
Re: (Score:2)
"After you download a song, everyone involved still has everything they did before you downloaded it."
You're correct to a point. If the copyright holder wasn't attempting to sell the product to you or anybody else who downloaded it, then they're not hurt at all. For example, if it was some free software, or maybe a song which the copyright holder had purposely released for free. In those cases, they haven't lost the right to control how the work is copied, because the rightsholder has allowed free and u
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you on the "when we download music, the musician isn't deprived of anything" point, but you appear to be acknowledging that musicians will have to find a new way to make money because of our actions.
It's not because of our actions, it's because the march of technology has revealed the fundamental misconception that their business is based on. (Well, in a sense you're right: if everyone voluntarily chose not to download and share free copies when they could buy copies instead, there'd be no need for change. But in economics, you don't base your plans on the assumption that people will choose the more expensive route. You assume they'll act rationally in their own interest, which means getting the most
Re:It's copying. It's not theft. (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason that "infringement is the same as theft" arguement does not hold up very well is becuase you can't prove that there was an opportunity cost for the copyright holder. It is quite possible that the person who recieved the illegal copy was going to pay and now is not, but that is not always the case. Becuase it is very easy to acquire a lot of music for free many people's consumption of music goes up. People who might have owned only a dozen albums in the past may now own a few more. These people probably wouldn't have payed for the music or tried to get it unless it was free.
The RIAA is pushing too hard to convince people that every copied song is the same as theft, and the downloaders are trying to argue that every downloaded song probably wasn't money for them anyway. The truth is somewhere in the middle and sadly both sides end up wrong when they claim these extreme scenarios are 100% true.
Re:It's copying. It's not theft. (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if you're a respected reviewer and you write a negative review of an album, it probably won't sell as many copies as if you had written a positive review. If your review influences 1000 people not to buy the album, that has exactly the same effect on sales as if you had shared the album online and 1000 people ended up getting it for free instead of buying it... in fact, it might have a worse effect, because in the latter case, all those people will still hear the album, and some might go on to buy a different one, a shirt, or a concert ticket.
So under the "opportunity cost" argument--I'm not sure if that term is being used correctly, but I'll go along with it--shouldn't reviewers be held responsible for everyone who fails to buy an album after reading their reviews?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So... You've just STOLEN a hundred million dollars from me, because that's how much you COULD have paid me to respond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
United States Copyright Law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501 [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, can this be considered for private financial gain (through a large stretch of the imagination perhaps) since the "infringer" is not spending the money they "should have" to get the copyrighted recording? That is a financial gain, if only of a few bucks...
I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, but that section (section 1) doesnt seem to have a dollar amount attached to the private financial gain aspect, nor does it seem to spell out what is considered private financial gain in that section, tho
Re: (Score:2)
I read it this way: Private financial gain in this case means that you are producing income from goods that are not within your rights to sell or manufacture. That is, there is an exchange of money involved in infringement under 506(a)1. Under 506(a)2, it's simply a case of reproduction of copyrighted materials with a total value in excess of $1,000. Though it's not clear if it means reproduction of at least one work to the value of $1,000 or the reproduction of at least $1,000 worth of works.
A valid tactic? (Score:2)
I do know that this tactic has actually been used, with some success. Why else ban one color copy of a page of a color photobook at Kinko's?
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to the internet. Please read the FAQ before posting, so you don't start topics which have been covered ad absurdum like a billion times before.
This really means nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
This means that her lawyer filed a motion to dismiss, which is a common practice. Federal judges often issue threats of sorts at parties which are dragging at the process, often ones for dismissal or default, which they are legally allowed to apply at their discretion in situations like this. So at minimum, the judge now has to decide whether to dismiss, the timetab
That word doesn't mean what ... (Score:5, Informative)
A stipulation is an agreement between both sets of lawyers. The case is over except the part where the judge makes the RIAA pay all the legal fees.
Re:This really means nothing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This really means nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
You must be new here.
The fines (Score:1)
Fine them the cost of the product if the individual keeps the item.
How could you sue someone that exaggerated amount? The legal system has been blinded by the Riaa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, maybe for the deterrent effect?
That worked well with Prohibition, didn't it? When enough people want to do something no law is going to stop them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The other reason is that you'd have to reliably find and sue all infringers if you ever wanted to be paid.(Not that there's a whole lot of reliability with the RIAA's current methods)
Downloaders would never have a reason to purchase something outright if they only had to pay $.99 for every song downloaded IF they got caught AND successfully sued.
Re:The fines (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
copyright infringement is one of the few civil cases where they the law as written means they do not have to show actual damages, rather can sue for an obscene amount PER SONG!
it's crazy, and deterrent effects are minmimal....
So, it is shameful, after all... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to point attention to the words I emphasized above... Clear hear name of what? Is it, after all, a shameful act to infringe on somebody else's copyrights and to treat their creation in a way, they did not want it to be treated?
This woman, apparently, has not done it, so her name is clear. But the /. continues to pretend, there would've been nothing wrong in her actions, even if she has...
Her children, very likely, have done it, yet the same author, who slipped into admitting, there is something to clear one's name of here, is describing their fate ("in the line of fire") with puzzling sympathy...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? What has "shamefulness" got to do with it? She was being sued. The court looks set to clear her of having committed a tort. That's a big deal to most people.
Wow. I'll be judge, I'll be jury said cunning old Mi. Where the hell did y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to answer your question, 'clear her name of being wrongfully accused of mass copyright infringement', which is a perfectly reasonable and proper thing for her to do.
The sympathy for the kids is largely based on the fact that the RIAA don't and haven't ever cared whether somebody is guilty of what they've been accus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, uploading means that your IP address and computer can be identified by a simple search. They can then find out the entire catalog of what you are sharing with the world at large. If there is a large enough quantity being shared you
RIAA have to stop if many put up some resistance (Score:2)
Sue and scare the filesharers *without* draining the RIAA finances with attorneys salaries. Basically beef up the legal department and keep it profitable.
With these marching orders, RIAA's chief counsel laid out the, now well known plan, to extort $3k-$4K with little effort, and use this revenue to fund the operation.
This plan has worked very well until now, but with a little resistance from the defendants it will fail, and it looks like tha
A question for any lawyers out there... (Score:3, Interesting)
To this layman it sounds like slander.
Can she sue for slander? If so, can she win?
Re:A question for any lawyers out there... (Score:5, Informative)
Since they've been doing it for about 400 years, there's little chance of getting anywhere with complaints now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can she sue for slander? If so, can she win?"
You could've saved yourself the trouble by typing "dict pirate" or "dict piracy" into your Firefox toolbar.
Odds are that your great, great, great grandparents were familiar with the multiple definitions of this homonym.
Re: (Score:2)
First usage was in the 1600's but it was very popular in cracker/hacker culture in the 80's when I was a young pup "pirating" games for our network gaming group. (Usually one or two legit copies but we were so poor we could not afford it. Then the game companies got wise and started making network copies where you could get 2-4 playable copies as long as they could find a legit copy on the network- then we bought the games since we could
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA safe artist list (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.riaaradar.com/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.
Re: (Score:2)
bandwidth is near free and bands don't need the riaa cartel anymore. just telecom cartel. hopefully obama is going to be elected and jolt them good.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this list of artists. I will now proceed to buy all of their albums on allofmp3.com...
As it should be...or not... (Score:2)
However, in this instance, there is something I don't understand. The basic argument seems to be that it was her children, and not her, that were sharing the songs, thus she shouldn't be the one that is sued.
But at the same time, in the US one is responsible for the actions
Re: (Score:1)
Further, when she signed up for internet access from her provider, I'm sure she also agreed to the standard "what happens on your account is your responsibility, even if its someone else in your household" blurbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think, especially in the case of minor children. that someone needs to be responsible. Apparently not.
This pretty much leaves the RIAA and folks in the position of suing an IP address that may or may not belong to any real individual. Apparently, they then try to gain access to a computer to "depose" it through forensic examination. And if they find nothing then obviou
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is that the RIAA is suing under copyright law. They sued her for direct infringement, and tried to keep her in the suit on direct infringement, and copyright law says that you cannot be held liable for direct infringement unless you personally infringed. It doesn't make an exception for children. So in this particular case the specific details of copyright law trump the general principles that apply elsewhere.
Note that if the RIAA had dropped her from the suit when it filed suit against her kids,
Re: (Score:2)