Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on December 27, 2005, 05:46:38 PM
-
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
-
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.
-
lawyers have bills to pay, they need the work.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Gotcha, thanks for putting it in words I could understand. But still, they are always watching........
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean their not after you.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Gotcha, thanks for putting it in words I could understand. But still, they are always watching........
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean their not after you.
That's why I don't use any file sharing Peer to peer programs.
-
Now you just have to watch out for the pr0n. It's bad news though. once the RIAA see's people fighting back I think the lawsuits will slow down a bit. Consider the last wave, music artists started speaking up and the RIAA stpped back, but not aftergetting a few lawsuits out of it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
Thank you.
If she was'nt online (i.e. shut the internet access off) then she never would'a got caught.
btw- They say 80% of the traffic on the net is from filesharing.Remember that the next time you complain about lag(all you bit-torrentors out there).
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
[/b]
I'm curious what this means. Was a file sharing program open... or did they actually invade her privacy?
If the latter, which I would not be surprised, that is hacking. Illegal in all forms.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I'm curious what this means. Was a file sharing program open... or did they actually invade her privacy?
If the latter, which I would not be surprised, that is hacking. Illegal in all forms.
-SW
I highly doubt they hacked the computer. During discovery they'd have to devulge all evidence and how they procured it. Evidence obtained illegally is well illegal and inadmissable.
You never know but I think the author is mistaken in how that's worded.
-
How does ANY business find info about you and where you have been on the net and what you have done??? Think cookies, spyware, trojans, active-x etc. etc. ad naseum.
Nirvana,
Guns has already explained it but there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection from private spying on you. The CONSTITUTION limits or enables the FEDERAL GOVT. in whatever actions they do or contemplate. Much later after the constitution was written, court decisions interpreted the constitutional protections / limitations also apply to state and local government actions, not businesses or private individuals.
The protection from private sources of "spying" are the state and local laws and limited federal laws regarding interstate communications. In other words if a private investigator is "spying" on you it is not a constitutional issue, it may be a burglary issue but not a 4th ammendment issue.
-
It's up to the federal judge to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. Wulfe, I believe the author was 1) trying to confuse the reader or 2) was confused.
What I was saying about the 4th amendment is that in my mind "they" we're actually going into the defendent's computer (private) they would be violating privacy because they had no valid evidence to support the entry to the computer. I'm still split but I believe the RIAA are a bunch of tight arses that are trying to find a buck anywhere they can.
-
Guns, this would stop the RIAA why? No security = no hacking in the minds of computer illiterate, or even many computer literate, persons. If it was wide open, why would it be hacking? Any invasion of privacy into another person's computer is hacking to me, but not to many. I don't suspect she has the best in security.
I'm not inclined to believe the RIAA will not bend the truth a little.
-SW
-
Originally posted by nirvana
It's up to the federal judge to interpret the Constitution as they see fit. Wulfe, I believe the author was 1) trying to confuse the reader or 2) was confused.
What I was saying about the 4th amendment is that in my mind "they" we're actually going into the defendent's computer (private) they would be violating privacy because they had no valid evidence to support the entry to the computer. I'm still split but I believe the RIAA are a bunch of tight arses that are trying to find a buck anywhere they can.
I agree that RIAA is acting in a poor manner. It's one of the reasons I no longer buy music like I used to. I can't believe they are in any financial difficulty. They charge more than the CD is worth.
I was just pointing out that their "spying" is not a constitutional issue. They are not a govt. agency.
-
The constitution limits the government.
The first amendment does not give you the right to freely express your religion. It limits the government from taking that liberty away.
Limitations on private intrusion are statutory, not constitutional.
-
I'll have to look it up but invading one's computer would probably be covered on the digital rights act or something.
Scratch that, that's actualy a copyright protection act.
probably the wires and security laws. Invading one's computer is no different than entering one's home without permission.
But most of this is irrelevent. I'm no computer gure by any means but all the investigators would have to do is check server logs and IPs. It be alot more ethical and probabley more legal.
-
Guys...guys
If you put files in the "shared folder" to be downloaded by anyone it's no longer private. Now you are in the public domain. If I do a search for "Smoke on the water" a list of users comes up that have files available for download matching that name.
Then I can right click over any user name and select "see all files from this user".
Anything thats in their "shared folder" is displayed.
No invasion of privacy there.
Do what I do:
Keep a seperate "private" music folder.
Move all files to your private folder after download.
Leech only. (legal)
Never share. (not legal)
Regards
Sun
-
That's what I always thought, Sundowner. You can steal it but you can't spread it. I don't P2P anymore, too much spyware and other crap that I don't need.
Then again there were the good old Napster days....:(
And also regarding the Constitution, an employer can limit what his employees say just because? The Constitution is only valid against government abuses and not against regular citizens? (at least i'm trying to learn:rolleyes: )
-
With Emule, kazaa etc. you can't stop sharing in any way unless you get a hacked leech client which are btw banned in most 'legal' clients.
Even if you store your downloads in a separate folder, the client will share the files you d/l for the whole duration of your download. It shares the data from the temporary files folder so your unfinished downloads are being shared on the net 24/7.
Only way to really stop sharing is to get a leecher mod - and as I said they're often blocked so getting stuff might be hard. Never tried one so I cant say for sure.
And I strongly suggest everyone of you who read this to BOYCOTT the record industry.
I haven't bought _anything_ related to the recording industry in 2 years. Before the lawsuits, threats etc. I was a dedicated music listener who used thousands of dollars yearly to both audio equipment and recordings. Now if I want a music title, I can't buy it because I absolutely resent the idea that the money is going to these corporate criminals who force an outdated business model through by legislation.
It all begun with CD's. They promised, guaranteed, that the CD prices will drop to the vinyl levels once the mass production starts. What happened? Thiefs saw that people buy them anyway and continued to raise the price instead of droping it. Now when people are fed up paying overprice for music, they use the law to force them to continue. A legal business would have droped the price when demand goes down.. The recording industry puts a gun to your head instead.
BOYCOT THE A-HOLES! Every cent you put in their pockets goes straight to oppressing people through lawsuits and private spies.
-
Very well said Ripley.
-
Nirvana,
Short answer is yes, particularly if on the employers property and on the job.
While the "penalty" for "expressing" yourself likely won't get you any govt. sanction you can still be let go for what you say.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
That's what I always thought, Sundowner. You can steal it but you can't spread it. I don't P2P anymore, too much spyware and other crap that I don't need.
Then again there were the good old Napster days....:(
And also regarding the Constitution, an employer can limit what his employees say just because? The Constitution is only valid against government abuses and not against regular citizens? (at least i'm trying to learn:rolleyes: )
RE: the constitution. It's like this....an employer can limit just about anything he wants in reguards to his employees speech. The constitution limits the govt, and the laws that congress makes. This is in the most simplist terms but an employer cannot break said laws established by congress (or state/local) and those laws cannot violate the constitution. There's no law saying I have the right to privacy there's a right saying congress cannot infringe apon it. BUT, there's also laws saying everyone else cannot either (IE tresspassing)
Threre's other parts to this as well. Most times when you get hired by somone you have to follow some kind of employee code of conduct. In that code they put things like, your person and personal locker are subject to search with or without your consent. These are employers rules that you have to follow in order to keep your job. I hope I've explained it well.
-
Alright, i get it.
While they are still part of the recording industry one of the only labels I support is Alternative Tentacles. They are probably screwing me and everyone else over as much as buying a CD from Sony but, they seem to have a fighting chance. And lord knows Jello Biafra has to pay those a**holes from the Dead Kennedys. I won't buy anything Dead Kennedys if Manifesto Records released it because the execs are scum bags.
-
It's still illegal to download music in P2P services. It's just that it's so hard to track and catch that it is not worth prosecuting.
How will the RIAA figure out how two seperate people sent a file to each other when neither have any contact with the RIAA? They can't (easily).
But the RIAA will look in your Shared Folder and see all the files you are willingly sharing. That's where they get you.
-
Actually you're wrong lasersailor. All they need to do is to put their own labels on demand and the victims clients will send them the data - providing them with evidence.
The fact that they break copyright laws and privacy laws themselves while doing it has been little noted.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Actually you're wrong lasersailor. All they need to do is to put their own labels on demand and the victims clients will send them the data - providing them with evidence.
The fact that they break copyright laws and privacy laws themselves while doing it has been little noted.
Usually the share programs TOS as well.