Court Ordered Extortion

[Gunslinger]

This is really sad.  I hope this woman wins her case.  

Woman Takes On Recording Industry Alone

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

 

WHITE PLAINS, New York — It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer, but the industry didn't see it that way.

The woman from Wappingers Falls, about 80 miles north of New York City, is among the more than 16,000 people who have been sued for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks.

"I assumed that when I explained to them who I was and that I wasn't a computer downloader, it would just go away," she said in an interview. "I didn't really understand what it all meant. But they just kept insisting on a financial settlement."

The industry is demanding thousands of dollars to settle the case, but Santangelo, unlike the 3,700 defendants who have already settled, says she will stand on principle and fight the lawsuit.

"It's a moral issue," she said. "I can't sign something that says I agree to stop doing something I never did."

If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children.

Santangelo, 43, has been described by a federal judge as "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her email."

Kazaa is a peer-to-peer software program used to share files.

The drain on her resources to fight the case — she's divorced, has five children aged 7 to 19 and works as a property manager for a real estate company — forced her this month to drop her lawyer and begin representing herself.

"There was just no way I could continue on with a lawyer," she said. "I'm out $24,000 and we haven't even gone to trial."

So on Thursday she was all alone at the defense table before federal Magistrate Judge Mark Fox in White Plains, looking a little nervous and replying simply, "Yes, sir" and "No, sir" to his questions about scheduling and exchange of evidence.

She did not look like someone who would have downloaded songs like Incubus' "Nowhere Fast," Godsmack's "Whatever" and Third Eye Blind's "Semi-Charmed Life," all of which were allegedly found on her computer.

Her former lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says Santangelo doesn't really need him.

"I'm sure she's going to win," he said. "I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don't know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there."

Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, the coalition of music companies that is pressing the lawsuits, would not comment specifically on Santangelo's case.

"Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and give legal online services a chance to flourish," she said. "The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store."

The David-and-Goliath nature of the case has attracted considerable attention in the Internet community. To those who defend the right to such "peer-to-peer" networks and criticize the RIAA's tactics, Santangelo is a hero.

Jon Newton, founder of an Internet site critical of the record companies, said by e-mail that with all the settlements, "The impression created is all these people have been successfully prosecuted for some as-yet undefined 'crime'. And yet not one of them has so far appeared in a court or before a judge. ... She's doing it alone. She's a courageous woman to be taking on the multibillion-dollar music industry."

Santangelo said her biggest issue is with Kazaa for allowing children to download music without parental permission.

"I should have gotten at least an e-mail or something notifying me," she said.

Telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Australia-based owner of Kazaa, Sharman Networks Ltd., were not returned.

Because some cases are settled just before a trial and because it would be months before Santangelo's got that far, it's impossible to predict whether she might be the first to go to trial over music downloading.

But she vows that she's in the fight to stay.

"People say to me, 'You're crazy. Why don't you just settle?' I could probably get out of the whole thing if I paid maybe $3,500 and signed their little document. But I won't do that."

Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004.

Months later, there was a phone call from the industry's "settlement center," demanding about $7,500 "to keep me from being named in a lawsuit," Santangelo said.

Santangelo and Beckerman were confident they would win a motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the record companies had enough of a case to go forward. She said the issue was whether "an Internet-illiterate parent" could be held liable for her children's downloads.

Santangelo says she's learned a lot about computers in the past year.

"I read some of these blogs and they say, 'Why didn't this woman have a firewall?'" she said. "Well, I have a firewall now. I have a ton of security now."
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,179853,00.html

[rpm]

Sure she says she never did it. She says her kids did'nt do it either. Every convict in prison says they are innocent as well.

As I recall, even if the crack pipe found underneath the seat of your car is owned by a friend of your kid and you've never smoked crack in your life, it's your butt that goes to jail.

[john9001]

lawyers have bills to pay, they need the work.

[Shamus]

Just one of the reasons that gutting the class action laws is not such a good idea.

Situations like this are exactly what they are designed for, but no evil trial lawyer is going to front hundreds of thousands for expenses up front knowing that his chances of getting class action status are almost nil.

Thats ok tho, its good for the bottom line.

shamus

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by rpm
Sure she says she never did it. She says her kids did'nt do it either. Every convict in prison says they are innocent as well.

As I recall, even if the crack pipe found underneath the seat of your car is owned by a friend of your kid and you've never smoked crack in your life, it's your butt that goes to jail.

Well that's an interesting perspective.  I still don't beleive that she committed any crime nor violated and RIAA copyrights.

[nirvana]

A "multibillion dollar industry" can get away with anything, even this.  

"People say to me, 'You're crazy. Why don't you just settle?' I could probably get out of the whole thing if I paid maybe $3,500 and signed their little document. But I won't do that."

  She smart for not signing that.  It shows there is resistance to their BS.  They figure if they can catch some sleepers who are afraid to fess up a few thousand to be excluded from being named in a lawsuit, they have succeded.  $3,500 is $3,500 and it's probably still a profit even with the private investigators.  This is the same kind of bull**** they pull with the Patriot Act and is probably one of the results of that piece of **** that so many people support.  Were there any suspicions regarding this woman that would lead the private investigators to check out her approval without warrant?  This is what happens when you let a government run rampant.  They will **** the citizens for everything they are worth and then do it some more.  It's disgusting and needs to be stopped.  I don't care whether she did it or not.  The point is these people spied on her without her knowing consent and without warrant.  They invaded her privacy.  


Patricia Santangelo

[SOB]

I don't see what the Patriot Act has to do with this.  Her computer was on a file sharing network, with files open to the share.  That's implied consent in my expert opinion (expert at using terms that I've heard on TV before).

As to the RIAA, they can take their frivilous lawsuits and cram 'em.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by nirvana
A "multibillion dollar industry" can get away with anything, even this.     She smart for not signing that.  It shows there is resistance to their BS.  They figure if they can catch some sleepers who are afraid to fess up a few thousand to be excluded from being named in a lawsuit, they have succeded.  $3,500 is $3,500 and it's probably still a profit even with the private investigators.  This is the same kind of bull**** they pull with the Patriot Act and is probably one of the results of that piece of **** that so many people support.  Were there any suspicions regarding this woman that would lead the private investigators to check out her approval without warrant?  This is what happens when you let a government run rampant.  They will **** the citizens for everything they are worth and then do it some more.  It's disgusting and needs to be stopped.  I don't care whether she did it or not.  The point is these people spied on her without her knowing consent and without warrant.  They invaded her privacy.  


Patricia Santangelo

It never gets old saying this:  Have you even read the patriot act?

[rpm]

If you think the RIAA is bad, just let an ASCAP or BMI rep walk into your store and hear a radio playing. Minimum royalties you have to pay are $500.

[nirvana]

As a matter of fact Gunslinger, I have.  The 700 some topics that it covers.  Have you, a person of voting age, bothered to look at it?  While the Patriot Act is supposed to be about terrorism, why not make it a broader spectrum and relate it to the whole U.S. and it's citizens?  I'm looking at sections 201-204 dealing with communications and more specifically section 202. dealing with computer fraud.  http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html  When you lose control that's when you have to have the "authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

And the United States Bill of Rights, drum roll........

Amendment 4 stating "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "  

Do you get what i'm saying?  I could have even left the Patriot Act out of it and stated a violation of 4th amendment rights.  Would you agree that 16,000 people's rights we're violated by a private investigator viewing their computer files without valid evidence.  Would you like to know that at anytime someone could be looking at your computer's files Gunslinger?  Would you pay $3,500 for doing something you never did, or would you fight it?

Even if the RIAA had a warrant, do you think they judge gave them THAT broad of a warrant that said the RIAA has the right to search ANYONE's computer?  Do you think it's messed up if they got that broad of a warrant?  Do you think the RIAA went to the judge and pulled 16,000 separate warrants, all the while showing evidence that each single person was "suspicious"?  Do you think all of that happened?  Because I seriously doubt it.

I seriously doubt that you will even take my 16 year old, leftist opinion seriously as well.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
It never gets old saying this:  Have you even read the patriot act?

I rather doubt that many have read all 342 pages.

Whats your point? that if everyone read it we would all agree that its a wonderfull law that is not subject to abuse?

shamus

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by nirvana
As a matter of fact Gunslinger, I have.  The 700 some topics that it covers.  Have you, a person of voting age, bothered to look at it?  While the Patriot Act is supposed to be about terrorism, why not make it a broader spectrum and relate it to the whole U.S. and it's citizens?  I'm looking at sections 201-204 dealing with communications and more specifically section 202. dealing with computer fraud.  http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html  When you lose control that's when you have to have the "authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

And the United States Bill of Rights, drum roll........

Amendment 4 stating "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "  

Do you get what i'm saying?  I could have even left the Patriot Act out of it and stated a violation of 4th amendment rights.  Would you agree that 16,000 people's rights we're violated by a private investigator viewing their computer files without valid evidence.  Would you like to know that at anytime someone could be looking at your computer's files Gunslinger?  Would you pay $3,500 for doing something you never did, or would you fight it?

Even if the RIAA had a warrant, do you think they judge gave them THAT broad of a warrant that said the RIAA has the right to search ANYONE's computer?  Do you think it's messed up if they got that broad of a warrant?  Do you think the RIAA went to the judge and pulled 16,000 separate warrants, all the while showing evidence that each single person was "suspicious"?  Do you think all of that happened?  Because I seriously doubt it.

I seriously doubt that you will even take my 16 year old, leftist opinion seriously as well.

It's not hard to see that somone is sharing music.  All you need is an IP and a program file.....not the patriot act.  

Secondly the RIAA is not law enforcment they cannot get warrents to search peoples computers.....even though they don't need to search computers to find out people are sharing music files.  They can sopena people to appear in court, but they can't get warrents.

I fail to see how the patriot act plays into all of this.  I really don't think you've read the act too much.  Specifically you mention section 202

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `and section 1341 (relating to mail fraud),' and inserting `section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse),'.

Now I may not be really good at reading all this legal mumbo jumbo but it looks to me as if they are making computer fraud and abuse a felony conviction.  So in essence if the RIAA was in fact violating your 4th amendment rights (again wich I don't understand because it was a private investigater that got her IP/Name not the govt....seeing as how this is a private matter I don't see how the PA is applicable)  Depending on what section 1341 says the under the patriot act the RIAA may have committed a felony.........that is if they snooped on this persons computer.....wich i'm assuming they didn't.  and that shamus is why I ask people if they've read the patriot act.

[Holden McGroin]

Santangelo, 43, has been described by a federal judge as "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her email."]  

This is probably against the law in and of itself.

Burn her.

[nirvana]

So private investigators have the right to infringe upon the Bill of Rights Gunslinger?  Just about time we say screw the constitution and let the citizens rot.  Answer my question though Gunslinger, would you like to know that at anytime someone could be looking at your computer's files?  You may not have anything bad or illegal on it, but doesn't it take you out of your comfort zone a little?

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by nirvana
So private investigators have the right to infringe upon the Bill of Rights Gunslinger?  Just about time we say screw the constitution and let the citizens rot.  Answer my question though Gunslinger, would you like to know that at anytime someone could be looking at your computer's files?  You may not have anything bad or illegal on it, but doesn't it take you out of your comfort zone a little?

Ok let me put it to you like this.  If a private investigator saw you selling boot leg CDs on the street and took pictures of you and he informed his client he did not violate the bill of rights.  If the RIAA broke into this woman's computer with out her consent then they could and probably would be charged with a crime.

When you have a sharing program open on your computer and you are sharing copyrighted music to other people it is not illegal for an investigator to attempt to dowload these files off your computer and find out the IP in wich the data is coming from.  Then his client files suit in federal court against a john doe or annonymous person.  Then he uses that suit to sopena your ISP to privide your name number and address.  From there they name you in the suit after the fact.  

This is not breaking into your computer.  THe worst the investigator could be doing is violating the TOS of the share program.