RIAA Drops Case It Can't Make Against Mom After Bleeding Her Dry -- Focuses On Suing Kids

from the drive-your-customers-to-bankruptcy dept

Tue, Dec 19th 2006 2:21pm — Karl Bode

Few of the RIAA's estimated 20,000 lawsuits against file traders have seen the inside of a courtroom, as the majority of users, fearing legal fees or a loss, settle out of court. The RIAA of course anticipates this, so many of their cases consist of little more than an IP address, which as we've discussed frequently isn't specific evidence of individual guilt. This half-assed discovery process has led to a number of suits being dropped, and it caused the RIAA some PR grief last summer when they decided to sue a PC-illiterate Long Island mother of five for sharing music. Already $24,000 in debt before her trial even began, Patricia Santangelo became an Internet celebrity of sorts by deciding to actually fight the record industry. Her story gained traction when she lost her first lawyer and proclaimed she'd fight the RIAA by herself -- leading to a flurry of legal donations from RIAA-loathing groups and individuals the world over. Last summer we wondered if the RIAA would eventually cut their losses in this case and run; instead they began investigating her children, ultimately filing suit against the kids after getting the daughter and a neighbor to admit to using Kazaa under oath.

Today the RIAA dropped the lawsuit against Santangelo herself, though Santangelo's first lawyer Ray Beckerman confirms for us the suit against her children now moves forward -- after her first battle drained the family coffers. Obviously forcing cash-strapped American moms to pony up tens of thousands of dollars to force the industry to do their homework is absurd, and as we've noted there's no real punishment for when the RIAA screws up. Even better, the RIAA is trying to have this case dropped in such a way that they won't be held financially liable (despite basically admitting they sued the wrong person), and so the door's held open in case they want to sue Santangelo for the same thing down the road. Of course it's important to remember it's perfectly fine to share music illegally if your father is a wealthy music industry executive.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

85 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ScaredOfTheMan, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:35pm

I can't wait for the day, the makers of music and the consumers of music have a direct relationship with no useless middleman.

With every stupid, wrong, pointless lawsuit, that day gets closer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- fuc em, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re: horse shit
  I stopped buying albums when they launched the first law suite.
  I have no intention of purchasing anything from such a corporation. We know what they are. Dog's.
  Sales when up when they said they were loosing money. Lie. Lost sales on estimated downloads. Not how any corporation should be allowed to conduct it's self. I have purchased over 400 albums. Never again. I have not purchased anything new and refuse 2. You 'RIAA' have truly lost me. Fuc u and your bullish actions. I do not believe many of the artists truly support your actions. Lets see a signature list. Lets see who you are truly representing.
  People Fuc em dont buy their shit. Wait for artists to sell their own product. Then support them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- watch TV Online, 20 Dec 2006 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  To be honest, the lady kinda deserved it. I mean she kept changing her story so many times, she's not like the average p2p user because this lady initially lied and said she didn't own a computer.
  
  Then she went back and said I own a computer, but what I meant was that I don't know how to use it. It was later found out that her children downloaded the music, and when asked about that she denied it - only to later on admit that she had lied. I mean I can see what she was trying to do, but she gives other users a bad name and case.
  
  I think the RIAA is going too far, but honestly I don't really care for Patti - she's messed up so much and she's making it more difficult for other RIAA victims to put forth a comprehensible case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 9:24am
    
    you are confusing things
    she never said anything about not having a computer.
    
    So she could not have lied about it
    
    maybe you are thinking about lindor case.
    
    In santangelo case even a judge said that santangelo is a computerilliterate parent
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Blow, 19 Dec 2006 @ 2:37pm

Riaa
Repugnant Idiot Asshole Association:
I will NEVER again buy another Amreican made recording.
I will never again go to another movie theater. I will not to
to any more concerts. Fuck the ameriKan music industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Geren, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re: Riaa
  That's a little bit harsh, Joe. There are a LOT of independent record labels in the US that are not RIAA members -- in fact, some of the indies simply abhor the RIAA. Any more, the RIAA represents the interests of a minority of labels. Unfortunately, it's the biggest that it represents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrTune, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:45pm
  
  Re: Riaa
  Correction:
  
  1. Buy by buying directly from the artist online
  2. Go to the movies because of the better experience and as nice night out
  3. Go to the concerts - it supports the artists more than the record industry
  
  Don't be an asshole
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MR_Tune the idiot, 29 May 2007 @ 11:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Riaa
    Hey MrTune, shut your mouth up you damn redneck. Why don't you go to the movies and stop sitting here reading posts of people who are anti-RIAA. Your an idiot to be in here when 95% of us don't appreciate the RIAA bullying us. Its just like hanging out with people who like drugs, but you don't like drugs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blapes, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re: Riaa
  Well, I highly doubt you'll do any of what you say. Hek, you can't even spell American. Movie theaters are too expensive anymore plus I bet you'd buy the DVD instead and then they are still getting your money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:15pm

you do realize that theres a version of RIAA in almost every country and they all operate the same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pity, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:42pm
  
  Are you kidding me? They are no way near as harsh, evil or as crooked as the RIAA. All those guys are greedy fat cats, taking every single penny no matter where it comes from. I feel for you guys in the States, you have it worse than everyone. They even had the nerve to threated to shut down the internet because of a case. Are they evil malicious bastards or are they just stupid? Both are more likely
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beefcake, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:19pm

Failed Comparison
Big Music makes Big Tobacco look like Big...um..er...well...oh wait, there's--no, that doesn't work either. Shit, .is there any Big industry which is actually good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pudro, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:47pm
  
  Re: Failed Comparison
  I almost said Big Charity, but the big ones are pretty damn bad once you get a closer look.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:53pm
  
  Re: Failed Comparison
  amen
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trying to help, 20 Dec 2006 @ 6:19am
  
  Re: Failed Comparison
  Try Google the "dont be evil" people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:24pm

The riaa mpaa and all the other bithches can suck my wiener! I have two electromagnets on either side of my case rigged to a button, I can nuke my drives in an instant, and i have a rotating IP.... they can all go to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  Oh yeah. Now you really stuck to the RIAA...oh wait a minute doesnt the artist make money when you steal music? oh no they dont. WOuld YOU work for free? Oh wait a minute you steal for free so maybe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hah musicians barely see a dime if someone buys their cd, the labels take all of it, thats why artists are dependant on concerts and the mechandise they sell at them as well.So dont go cryin about the multimillionaire rappers and the old guard labels, Id rather support musicians by going to live shows and if theyre good, buy a t-shirt and a cd etc
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:24pm

The riaa mpaa and all the other bithches can suck my wiener! I have two electromagnets on either side of my case rigged to a button, I can nuke my drives in an instant, and i have a rotating IP.... they can all go to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vukovar, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:27pm

Amazing....
What's needed is a good test case that can halt the RIAA siuts based on IP addresses and if they withdraw, they can be counter-sued. I'd have to re-read it, but it almost sounds like one could sue them under the RICO statutes. Now if you'll excuse me, I think there's an updated of e-mule I need to get....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:32pm

Gee its okay to steal music if you are a mom and $24K in debt?! WTF? Yes RIAA could clean up its act, but clearly there was theft. Don't like the price of music? Do what other law abiding citizens do...protest, boycott, create alternatives, etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kweeket, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re:
  Where is asserted anywhere in the article (or summary) that it's okay to "steal music if you are a mom and $24K in debt"? The RIAA sued this woman for ALLEGEDLY committing copyright infringement. There was not enough evidence to convict her, therefore the lawsuit was dropped.
  
  The issue here is how it seems that the RIAA can file as many friviolous lawsuits as they want, with no repercussions. On the contrary, these lawsuits are basically free money, since with legal costs being what they are, most people just pay up to avoid the greater court costs - even if they ARE innocent. I believe there is a term for that: "extortion".
  
  You think it's okay that the RIAA is suing as many people as possible, knowing that if they cast their net widely enough they're bound to catch a few pirates? That's like saying we should imprision random people to bring down the crime rate, since statistically at least a few of those random people are potential criminals. Is that really the kind of society you want to be a part of?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re:
  You're missing the point. The point is, they had no real case and had to drop it. You presume she stole music, when the courts say she did not. Still, she was forced to pay, and the RIAA was not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Taylor, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re:
  First no theft is occuring (unless she swiped some cd's from walmart ??) if ANYTHING is occuring its copyright infringement which is NOT THEFT. Period end of discussion.
  
  Second sometimes you have to break the rules when the bad guys are making the rules. Consider this. the founding father's of this country openly and admittedly commited high TREASON to form this country an act punishable by DEATH under british law and STILL punishable by death under current UNITED STATES LAW.
  
  Yet it was ok ? when the industry gets to right a law (the DMCA ring a bell?) Clearly showing the GOVERNMENT and COURTS (the last avenue of legal redress for citizens) have NO interest in siding or helping said citizens breaking the rules is all thats left.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HaVoK, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:48pm
  
  Re:
  I hate you slashdotters, you always take the alternative viewpoint just for fucks sake even if you don't believe it youself. You all should go back to high school you bunch of masterdebaters
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 12:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    I hate you slashdotters, you always take the alternative viewpoint just for fucks sake even if you don't believe it youself. You all should go back to high school you bunch of masterdebaters
    And take the cunning linguists with you!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 11:45pm
  
  Re:
  Gee its okay to steal music if you are a mom and $24K in debt?! WTF?
  Man, I hate industry turf trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 12:04am
  
  Re:
  it became ok as soon as microsoft starting paying off the record labels for every Zune they sell.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- YouKnowNothing, 20 Dec 2006 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  copyright infringement != stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starky, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:32pm

I swear
They have too far! Reading this made me furious. WHY THE F*** DON'T THEY HAVE TO PAY LEGAL FEES WHEN THEY DROP?!

They sue her to use up all her money, drop the case, and then sue her kids?! What kind of Justice is that?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 8:00am
  
  Re: I swear
  They sue her to use up all her money, drop the case, and then sue her kids?! What kind of Justice is that?!
  American. You got a problem with America?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheDreaming, 26 Dec 2006 @ 12:57pm
  
  Justice?
  This has nothing to do with justice. This is about money. The RIAA and MPAA don't even hold the copyrights that they sue over. They are a trade group! The best way to fight these groups is with your dollars. It's simple, stop going to the theater and watch crappy movies. Don't buy music from music artists that wouldn't know real talent if it landed on their heads and started to wiggle! If it's crap, don't buy it! Don't even pirate it! Crap is crap and when they see that no even a pirate will copy their crappy music/movie, they'll be forced to make quality music/movies and then and only then will I pay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:33pm

lol read a bit, she doesnt even know how to use a computer thats why its so bogus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:42pm

Re: #11
You sound like a RIAA Shill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lizard, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:45pm

boycott
if there was a serious boycott -- an organized effort -- this might hurt the artists in the short run, but eventually it would come down to a choice: change policy, or go out of business. perhaps there is still enough power out here in the marketplace to effect change?

eh. you may say i'm a dreamer.

but i'm not the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:49pm

Guilty
I love how some of the posters have condemned her already, and judged her guilty of stealing music without a fair trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Phlatus the Elder, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:50pm

Suing children?
"Children?" They can sue someone under eighteen years of age? Just how old are Patti's kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 1:35pm
  
  age 12 + 16 at IP recording time now 16 and 20
  see headline
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 19 Dec 2006 @ 3:55pm

unwinnable
you realize there's no way we as consumers can win.

we can
a.) stop buying music, in which case they'll claim lost sales to piracy and step up their efforts

or

b.) stop pirating music, in which case they'll claim victory and step up their efforts.

either way these crazy lawsuits and DRM are here to stay forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:03pm
  
  Re: unwinnable
  If Everyone would stop buying there stuff, they would run out of money after a while, might take them some time, but they would go belly up in a few years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 19 Dec 2006 @ 4:42pm

This is why we need to adopt a "looser pays" system for ALL lawsuits filed in this country. It would not only cut down on frivolous suits that cost us ALL money, but would also make the RIAA/MPAA think twice before suing somebody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:02pm
  
  Re:
  One problem with loser pays. What happens when, because your lawyer sucked, you lost? You may even be right and justified and correct by law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 11:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    One problem with loser pays. What happens when, because your lawyer sucked, you lost? You may even be right and justified and correct by law.
    Same thing that typically happens to criminal defendants who can't afford good lawyers: you loose your case and pay the consequences.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Taylor, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:26pm
  
  Re:
  "This is why we need to adopt a "looser pays" system for ALL lawsuits filed in this country. It would not only cut down on frivolous suits that cost us ALL money, but would also make the RIAA/MPAA think twice before suing somebody."
  
  Alas it would not end frivilous lawsuits but simply end lawsuits by those that can not afford the chance of loosing. IE the only people that would sue are the ones that tends to sue now anyway (big corporations with deep pockets)
  
  what it should be is if a CORPORATION sues and loses IT should have to pay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wizard Prang, 20 Dec 2006 @ 8:52am
  
  More to the point...
  ...let's ban that "without admitting any liability" crap that corps try to do when they get caught and have to settle.
  
  The whole POINT is to determine liability...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whirler, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:07pm

The clowns sniffing IPs on P2P Networks at RIAA couldn't trap shit even when they install their bots. The Brass tell 'em to go get 'em but they all have their heads in their asses trying to understand a technology that has passed them by! There are always alternatives i.e., underground!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whirler, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:11pm

Oh and the RIAA should pay that poor lady for THEIR stupidity. It's the right thing to do and not just for PR. Could any of us stand up to ...say, Microsoft's Lawyers when we're of but a modist salary>?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony@cdc-computer.com, 19 Dec 2006 @ 5:27pm

RIAA Crybabies
The RIAA is a biggest bunch of crybabies and wannabies I ever met.
Imagine if I ran a record company ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:03pm

Cant Wait
I am waiting for the day one of the RIAA bots picks up one of there own kids and files all there paperwork without realizing its one of there own.... But then again i do have a bad habit of daydreaming.....
Oh Well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:07pm

RIAA and MPAA can honestly go directly to hell. In terms of free downloads of music, people who make good music that speaks to people will not have anything to fear from the fall of the recording industry.

Gives power to those who have the musical ability and or insight, and kills off record label manufactured artists who do nothing for their genre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:07pm

sigh
Why do stories about music and the RIAA bring out all the people that can't form a proper sentence and tempt them to leave their spew?

Does anyone here realize how many words people are leaving out of their comments in their quest to expend less energy hitting little keys? It's kind of pathetic.

Yeah, yeah, the RIAA sucks, they're evil, blah blah. The kids admitted they used Kazaa under oath. She's screwed. Next victim?

(Yeah, go on, hate me. You know I'm right. Damn pinkos.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Taylor, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:29pm
  
  Re: sigh
  Really ? so when I download that episode of DL.TV with a P2P client I am breaking the law ?
  
  OH you thought using Kazaa was illegal ? How silly...
  
  Knowing they used something is one thing knowing WHAT they used it for having the JURISDICTION over what they downloaded and proving they actually did do it are SO very different from "using kazaa"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sanguine Dream, 20 Dec 2006 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: sigh
  
  Yeah, yeah, the RIAA sucks, they're evil, blah blah. The kids admitted they used Kazaa under oath. She's screwed. Next victim?
  
  If it was the kid that used Kazaa then why did they sue the mom first and just happen to drop the case when she ran out of money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob England, 19 Dec 2006 @ 6:16pm

There must be something that everyone can sue the RIAA for. Mental Anguish. It doesn't cost much to file a suit, but there must be a way to do it without getting it tossed out as frivolous, at least long enough for them to have to send representation to the court to deal with each suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Beckerman, 19 Dec 2006 @ 7:44pm

Attorneys fee award
It is unlikely that the Court will allow the dismissal of a case which has been hotly litigated for a year and a half to be "without prejudice". If it is "with prejudice" Ms. Santangelo will be a prevailing party and eligible for an attorneys fees award. If she receives a substantial attorneys fee award, that will send out an important message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Dec 2006 @ 11:55pm
  
  Re: Attorneys fee award
  It is unlikely that the Court will allow the dismissal of a case which has been hotly litigated for a year and a half to be "without prejudice".
  From what I have observed, the legal system is now so biased towards large corporations over individuals that such an action is not unlikely at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 19 Dec 2006 @ 9:58pm

What if...
The legal system would benefit greatly if instead of having an offense and defense who's goal were to WIN for their team, you should appoint a panel of "lawyers" to seek justice.
No offense or defense - a team to discover the facts and institute justice. Of course, the blood sucking lawyers will say such a system would never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 12:03am
  
  Re:
  What if...
  The legal system would benefit greatly if instead of having an offense and defense who's goal were to WIN for their team, you should appoint a panel of "lawyers" to seek justice.
  No offense or defense - a team to discover the facts and institute justice. Of course, the blood sucking lawyers will say such a system would never work.
  The system you describe already exists in some places, but uses panels of judges instead of lawyers. The US style "adversarial" legal system is not universal, yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Len Dotson, 20 Dec 2006 @ 4:24am

Music industry RIAA
Boycott the music industry and do not buy any CD's or music videos for about a year and maybe that will get their attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug, 20 Dec 2006 @ 4:51am

I pay a 'pirate' tax on every blank CD I buy, and now the Zune has one also. They have no problems with these forced payments because I 'may' be pirating music (even if I am not).

So the way I see it is I paid them through the tax, I can now download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  So the way I see it is I paid them through the tax, I can now download.
  The way they see it is you're supposed to keeping paying them over and over. So it's the way you see it versus the way they see it. Guess whose way counts. Hint: who has more money?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Communist China, 20 Dec 2006 @ 6:01am

American Culture Locked Out By IPR!
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been pressing states to enact new legislation aimed at criminalizing the possession of what they call "unlawful communication and access devices." These measures represent an unprecedented attack on the rights of technologists, hobbyists, tinkerers and the public at large. In essence, these proposals would allow "communication service providers" to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection or cable or satellite television lines. This legislation would all impose a new ban on the possession, development, or distribution of a broad array of "communication" and "unlawful access" devices, along with a ban on devices that enable anonymous communication. Another words, "All Things Not Expressly Permitted are Forbidden". If this s-DMCA legislation is passed where you live, it would illegal to connect a Wi-Fi wireless access point to your DSL line in order to share your broadband connection among several computers in your house. You would not be entitled to connect anything to your cable, satellite, or DSL line without the express permission of your service provider. The MPAA s-DMCA legislation subjects everyone as a criminal by making it a crime to possess a device to "receive … transmit, [or] re-transmit" any communication service without the "express authorization" of the communication service provider. This would give communication service providers such as Internet Service Providers unprecedented control over the "end user" at home and the technology marketplace. For example, your broadband ISP could force you (end user) to use only certain brands of computers, or force you to pay extra if you wanted to connect more than one computer to your DSL line. Cable and satellite TV services could forbid you from using a TiVo, or could charge you extra to connect a VCR to your TV. A simple ban on devices capable of concealing communication would make a wide range of multi-purpose tools illegal. Widely-used home networking equipment could be banned because it often includes "network address translation" (NAT) and firewall features that incidentally conceal the origin and destinations of Internet communication. Some forms of encryption for email and web traffic might fall within this provision. As discussed above, the proposed state super-DMCA proposals forbid a consumer from connecting anything to a communication service without the service provider's express authorization. This creates an enormous opportunity for anticompetitive conduct. Recent experience with the DMCA makes it clear that companies will not hesitate to use new legal protections in order to rid themselves of competition. By the way, China is number #1 GDP... We don't have issues over IPR like the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hideandseek977, 20 Dec 2006 @ 6:37am

RIAA
To Joe Blow and any others out there. Try this site. You don't have to stop buying american made music or going to concerts, instead just check and see if the label that produced the music is an RIAA affilliate. Most indie rock is not. And all this mainstream stuff that is, is just a bunch of shit anyway that monkey's could play.

http://www.riaaradar.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 7:32am

wow. is commiechina's post true? is mpaa pushing an auth-only services?

i wonder how that will work? i mean, everything will have to be backwards compatable, right? i mean, my tv now can play dvd's, vhs, cd's laserdisks, vcd's, cable, sattelite, and computer video, all with a few connections. does this mean that all of my old equipment will not be useable until i purchase new vcrs, dvd plyers, cable/sattelite boxes, compotuers, stereo head units....come on.i'm scared now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 8:25am

i have a problem with america when it doesn't protect americans.

as a law abiding citizen, i should not have to pay for a "copy tax" (which is for legal copies, not for the revenue from "lost income" on illegal copies. how can i be entitled to a legal archive,yet have to pay a tax to do it) . i'm not breaking any laws, yet i must pay for what others have done wrong. make the illegal copierspay the "tax" not us.

america the "free" has turned into America, land of the Big business, and protection area for those with money.

that is where i have a problem with america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2006 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re:
  america the "free" has turned into America, land of the Big business, and protection area for those with money.
  That's what makes America great!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vay, 21 Dec 2006 @ 12:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, greedy scumbags make US great. I only hope I see the day when...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RiDICKulous, 20 Dec 2006 @ 10:27am

Welcome to the American "justice" system
The lawyers have the easiest job in the world. They get paid if they win, lose or draw. Most of them are Jews too, surprise surprise!

If you ever get into a legal battle, take the easy way out as even if you win, financially, you'll lose.

BIG TIME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- theANTIriaa, 20 Dec 2006 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re: Welcome to the American
  Ya... anti-semitic statements are just like omg the most intelligent thing you could possibly bring to this board...
  
  Here's a thought...
  
  so I have my hard drives in a raid-0 array... fast, but not very stable... one disk is useless without the other...
  
  Everything i own. music-wise is on this array... now, like I said, this setup is fast, but prone to failure... a fact that is easily argued and proven... so... joe user is sitting, downloading gigs of music and gets a letter in the mail saying he's being sued... wipe out the array, claim the array failed and that's that, any and all logs are gone and it would be quite difficult to prove that the array didn't fail on its own... just a thought.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death, 20 Dec 2006 @ 11:53am

Yea..
By the way, it's LOSE, and LOSING, not loose and loosing. For fuck sake people, learn to spell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
|333173|3|_||3, 20 Dec 2006 @ 6:49pm

The RAID-0 idea is neat, but would not work, since some data can still be recovered if the disk fails provided the file system is intact.

BEfore I believe CommieChina's post, I want a link to the propsed bill.

Admitting using Kazaa, which at that time not yet shown to be promoting copyright violation, does npot mean tha the kids admitted guilt. There is a good user friendly cartoon which is relevant, but I can't find it. IT is the one about getting the kid to confess by telling her that the forces of darkness would triumph if she did not.

Annonymous proxy?

Stenography? (This would use up a lot f hard drive space though)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vay Porloc, 21 Dec 2006 @ 12:38am

I wouldn't buy a god-dam music cd.
I wouldn't buy a god-dam music cd if my life depended on. Too bad half the world is asleep. I wonder when "water boarding" will be considered ok for downloading a crappy mp3 file. All you people who consider this stealing are out of your minds. When I was a kid we used to tape off the radio and make taped copies of friends records. Believe me this never hurt the recording industry, just look at their profits in the 80's. All I can say is I'm not buying another cd...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constance Reader, 21 Dec 2006 @ 8:30am

TO ANONYMOUS COWARD
I'm sorry, but there is no diplomatic way to put this that will make the point clearly enough: You've completely missed the point. Free file sharing IS the alternative. Free file sharing is HOW we boycott music sales -- it is a highly visible and effective gadfly whereas simply refusing to purchase music is invisible, futile and useless. In short -- you are portraying yourself as a dumbass. Please stop, you are only hurting yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CloudEnvy, 9 Jan 2007 @ 12:45pm

ANONYMOUS COWARD???
I dont agree with your most recent post. Yes America is all about freedom but have you noticed that most of the population in others countries is not free? Just because we're "free" dosn't mean you have to gloat. And PS America ain't all its cracked up to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-antishoto-, 18 Jan 2007 @ 11:02am

RIAA vs. the USA P2P users..?
It's one thing to share files with others that are capable of trading their own wares with numbers of music .avi files as an example. Fine, fair enough.

But, it's another when one doesn't know you have about over a grand of music where, even in television they've said it a long time ago in the past, once you pass that mark of over that thousand mark. Some people would question whether or not one were to buy all those songs they've downloaded from any outside source.

See, here's where the common sense of the RIAA goes to bits:

In one hand, Patti was downloading to share with everyone around her.

On the other hand, little did she know how many songs she was sharing. Although she fought them her self it was just a waste of time for RIAA reps to bring her mother into it since she lacked the knowledge of her daughter using Kazaa to download and share music.

Therefore, they dropped the case, but forced her to pay $750 per song, including the ones she already has, and it's about close to over another $25k that she needs to pay out of her own pockets.

About the beginning of this trial, NY1 fared a news report about her and then had a little 5 minute tech report, stating that should anyone share things it is advisable to:

"keep your numbers short- in this case with music files, less than a thousand. Just put them in another folder that isn't shared to be safe without detection. With movies, it should be at least less than 500 to prevent any outsider viewing your movies and report to the RIAA or MIAA for an outstanding collection of recent movies displayed in theatres."

Now, I'm not certain if anyone knows about it, but that's about ball park figures to keep it safe. Some people may not have any trouble if their figures were larger, but in my opinion, better to keep what you have and store it minus the dection without having a legal representative mail you from your ISP address a letter stating that you've been downloading "illegal" or "copyrighted" things.

Safety first, I always say.

I've been on track with the RIAA and MIAA issues since the late 90's. Rememeber their idiotic DMPCA act that they've issued on animesuki.com, then Boxtorrents, Kazaa, and numerous other servers/programs that helps us to get anything we could provided that our connection doesn't go flat?

www.isohunt.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 9 Mar 2007 @ 10:24am

I download music
Dear RIAA,
I download music. My IP address is 192.168.001.001 I confess. Come and get me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Triggs, 20 Apr 2007 @ 3:36am

Counter-sue for court costs from first case.
I respect her for going toe-to-toe with these jerks.
-
She should counter-sue the RIAA for the court costs from the first case. People need to begin playing as ruthlessly as the RIAA has been. It's only fair.
-
I also think musicians need to begin to speak up. Everytime the RIAA pipes up 'defending musicians', musicians ultimately are the ones that lose. I'm surprised more of them are not thoroughly sick of all the bad press that this horrid organization generates on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
witch- hunted., 16 May 2007 @ 7:22am

Computer Access hole blockage
This was in the Seattle P I yesterday. "...It's still a black science, and they like to keep it that way," he added.

According to court documents, investigators scan personal computers through an access point provided in most file-sharing programs. Although access can be blocked, many computer users don't know the hole exists.

When copyrighted works are found, investigators note the offender's Internet Protocol address -- an identification number assigned to a computer or router by an Internet service provider..." Anyone know where the 'access hole is and how it can be blocked???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fox, 12 Jul 2007 @ 1:48pm

Am I hallucinating, or is the RIAA looking a bit l
I've read reports of the RIAA owning about 90% of the entire US music industry; I've been to their site, and they said it themselves in big, bold, "friendly" letters. In my eyes, 90% is way too much ownership of an industry, regardless of the corporation, or more appropriately, profit-mongering lawsuit-addicted corporate machine.

In any case, I have seven words to say about all of this:
Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit Against the RIAA.

It should be a simple matter of strength in numbers. Aim high, go for the Supreme Court!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Frankfert, 18 Jul 2007 @ 7:24pm

Another One bites the dust
I feel sorry for the Mom. I know everyone hates how much every hates the RIAA but stealing is stealing. If her kid stole a car the person who stole the car would go after the parents. Why? A car is normally a lot of money. People who are get upset at the RIAA think that "How does trading or downloading one song really effect the grand scheme of things". It doesn't really effect the big stars but the little guys are really effected. I've always been a big music buff (Played guitar, Violin, and Clarinette) and I promised myself I will always pay for what I listen to now.
Codewarrior
Winnipeg PC repair

Winnipeg Technical Blog

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seattlite, 21 Jul 2007 @ 5:34pm

Too bad...
that the RIAA did not take the high road and set up a site that music lovers, who are not feeling so good about illegally obtaining the music they love, can send a modest fee for each track that they have on their computers. I would gladly pay .25 or .30 a track if I knew that the money would go directly to each artist. The RIAA has already taken their cut, it would be only fair that the artist should get a thank you in the way of a payment from the fans who love and admire them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
King Reekun, 23 Jul 2007 @ 8:04pm

Fuc you RIAA you dam hoares.
Musicians barely see a fucing dime if someone buys their CD thanks to the refarded RIAA. The labels take all of it that's why artists are dependant on concerts and the merchandising. Don't buy fucing Albums. Don't support these fat conts, go to a concert or something.

I hope you manipulative fat cows die in a fire or something.

I retract my statement. You pigs probably have a bug planted on this site or something.

Paranoid fools.

Go die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winnipeg Web Design, 27 Jul 2007 @ 1:48pm

Can't RIAA get a life???
Why can't they go after the real people that are selling illegal music instead of sweet hearts that don't deserve the legal issues!!! The only way the RIAA will back down is if more people stand up for people like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jz, 10 May 2008 @ 4:45pm

Can't the RIAA get a life??

They have a life by destroying others. The only reason they do what they do is for profit. The goodie goodie front they put up is nothing more than a scam to rob people blind. If you don't want trouble, the norm is to cough up 2 to 3 thousand dollars. They sues 25,000 people last year. Do the math. They are getting rich don't care if they ruin other people lives. And if you attack them they are so proud of them selves that they will try to ruin your life anyway. And if they are wrong, they just keep on going, like locusts. I wish someone could prove they are doing something wrong, because they are, and then punish the living day lights out of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JACKY, 6 Mar 2013 @ 1:05pm

Your home deserves the best protection from the weather and other factors; therefore, it deserves to get the best siding contractors Seattle for your siding needs
If you live in Seattle, hiring the best Seattle siding
contractors is important if you want to get the best siding services
ever.contact us at

(206) 745-4741 or check us at Siding Contractors
Seattle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]