RIAA settles for $7,000 - GoFuckYourself.com

Barefootsies · 04-29-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

One of the longest-running battles in the recording industry's war against file-sharing appears to have finally come to an end. Michelle (age 22) and Robert (age 18) Santangelo have settled a lawsuit filed against them by the RIAA in November 2006 for P2P use that occurred when Michelle was 15 and Robert 11. The siblings will pay the RIAA a total of $7,000 in installments due by November of this year?a paltry sum given that the RIAA started its settlement offers in the $3,000-4,000 range and often raised the cost if the defendant contested the charges in court.

The RIAA had originally sued their mother, Patricia, in February 2005. Having no knowledge of how to download music, she denied the allegations and soon found herself preparing for trial?despite the fact that the judge presiding over the case called her "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her e-mail." Like the thousands of others who were targeted by the RIAA, she could have made the problem go away with a check for $4,000. Instead, she spent over $24,000 defending herself against the charges before running out of money and firing her lawyer (a fundraising campaign raised an additional $15,000 for her defense).

During discovery, Patricia Santangelo's hard drive was turned over to RIAA forensic investigators who found KaZaA installed and set to share music. Her defense was that a friend of her children installed the program on the family PC. The RIAA was eventually convinced that Patricia was not responsible for the P2P action and dismissed the lawsuit against her in April 2006.

After filing suit against Robert and Michelle, the RIAA was able to obtain a default judgment for $30,750 against Michelle, who never responded to the original lawsuit. That judgment was later overturned. As the case made its slow way through the courts, a friend of Robert's testified under oath that Robert had downloaded KaZaA and used it "almost daily;" Michelle eventually copped to P2P use in a deposition.

Under the terms of the settlement, the two have to make six payments of $583.33 by October after paying half of the settlement up front. Family attorney Jordan Glass told the AP that Robert and Michelle did not admit to any wrongdoing; instead, they settled the lawsuit in order to control costs and move on. "Sometimes you reduce the damages so much it's time to call it quits," Glass said.

The RIAA is also glad the case is over. "We're pleased to have settled our case with the Santangelos," director of communications Cara Duckworth told Ars. But for the RIAA, $7,000 won't even begin to cover the hundreds (thousands?) of billable hours it incurred over four years of litigation (and it may have been able to win had the case gone to trial). But the group has never claimed that the years-long legal campaign was about the money?it was always about sending a message and deterring copyright infringement.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...s-for-7000.ars

borked · 04-29-2009, 12:19 PM

Scapegoats are cheap these days

gideongallery · 04-29-2009, 02:12 PM

i can't wait until the lenz vs universal case finally get finished
then all the clueless but innocent people who have been railroaded by the RIAA can counter sue them for all of the legal expenses.

Nice to see the RIAA get stuck with the 24k bill that mother had to front.

mineistaken · 04-29-2009, 02:27 PM

not that much imho

Due · 04-29-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i can't wait until the lenz vs universal case finally get finished
then all the clueless but innocent people who have been railroaded by the RIAA can counter sue them for all of the legal expenses.

Nice to see the RIAA get stuck with the 24k bill that mother had to front.

HAHAHA stupid RIAA, it would be a lot cheaper and more effective for them to setup an online forum with a silly name where everybody can go and complain

How foolish to think that copyright holders think they have rights to control the interweb.

gideongallery · 05-02-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Due

HAHAHA stupid RIAA, it would be a lot cheaper and more effective for them to setup an online forum with a silly name where everybody can go and complain

How foolish to think that copyright holders think they have rights to control the interweb.

Quote:

The RIAA had originally sued their mother, Patricia, in February 2005. Having no knowledge of how to download music, she denied the allegations and soon found herself preparing for trial?despite the fact that the judge presiding over the case called her "an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her e-mail." Like the thousands of others who were targeted by the RIAA, she could have made the problem go away with a check for $4,000. Instead, she spent over $24,000 defending herself against the charges before running out of money and firing her lawyer (a fundraising campaign raised an additional $15,000 for her defense).

nothing against protecting your content, however they should have dropped the case as soon as the judge called her "an interne-illiterate parent, who does not know kazza from kazoo"

That what she should have a right to counter sue for.

There are tons of examples like this the RIAA has sued dead people, and printers.

This shoot first, ask question later attitude has to be stopped, make sure the person is guilty before you force them to spend thousands defending themselves.

seeandsee · 05-02-2009, 07:17 AM

fuckersssssss

Due · 05-02-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

nothing against protecting your content, however they should have dropped the case as soon as the judge called her "an interne-illiterate parent, who does not know kazza from kazoo"

That what she should have a right to counter sue for.

There are tons of examples like this the RIAA has sued dead people, and printers.

This shoot first, ask question later attitude has to be stopped, make sure the person is guilty before you force them to spend thousands defending themselves.

Can you truly say the printer was innocent ? After all, it was used to print copyrighted material and it's not like it doesn't know what the heck it's doing

On a serious note, wasn't she guilty ? As far as I understand her computer had been sharing these files, her kids might have set it up but they are still her responsibility.

I can't see what's wrong with suing someone guilty until their money runs out

Dirty Dane · 05-02-2009, 08:31 AM

The amount vs. RIAA is not really the issue here, is it? Its about sending a message, as they say. Hope she learned it.

SmokeyTheBear · 05-02-2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

nothing against protecting your content, however they should have dropped the case as soon as the judge called her "an interne-illiterate parent, who does not know kazza from kazoo"

because of course ignorance of the law is an excuse right

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

This shoot first, ask question later attitude has to be stopped, make sure the person is guilty before you force them to spend thousands defending themselves.

lol BREAKING NEWS , lawsuits only for the guilty.

Thats the whole point of the courts silly rabbit.

This whole "steal copyright material first , cry when you get caught later" attitude has to be stopped. Make sure the content is your before you take it.

GatorB · 05-02-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

i can't wait until the lenz vs universal case finally get finished
then all the clueless but innocent people who have been railroaded by the RIAA can counter sue them for all of the legal expenses.

Nice to see the RIAA get stuck with the 24k bill that mother had to front.

If you think all these people are innocent you're fucked in the head. It would have been cheaper for her just to buy the damned songs in the first place. I mean seriously 99 cents. How fucking cheap can people get?

clueless? I pretty sure MOTS people that download crap form the internet know EXACTLY what they are doing is wrong. You have to be some serious kind of stupid to actually assume that downloading a song or movie or TV show for FREE ( especially form a site with say PIRATE in it's name )is perfectly legal when every other legal form of that same song/movies/tv show has a cost.

gideongallery · 05-11-2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

because of course ignorance of the law is an excuse right

no because she didn't even have the skill to use kazza in the first place, it was not her act of infringement that is the issue.

Quote:

lol BREAKING NEWS , lawsuits only for the guilty.

Thats the whole point of the courts silly rabbit.

This whole "steal copyright material first , cry when you get caught later" attitude has to be stopped. Make sure the content is your before you take it.

and when lenz vs universal is finally finished the legal expense of getting it wrong will be the RIAA paying all the legal expenses of all the people who were not really guilty.

So for example when the RIAA sued a printer (spoofed by a hacker) or a dead guy (wireless hacked by hacker) the RIAA not the innocent family members should have to foot the bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

If you think all these people are innocent you're fucked in the head. It would have been cheaper for her just to buy the damned songs in the first place. I mean seriously 99 cents. How fucking cheap can people get?

clueless? I pretty sure MOTS people that download crap form the internet know EXACTLY what they are doing is wrong. You have to be some serious kind of stupid to actually assume that downloading a song or movie or TV show for FREE ( especially form a site with say PIRATE in it's name )is perfectly legal when every other legal form of that same song/movies/tv show has a cost.

your so right

how can anyone believe using the DVD recorder to make a backup of your music, or ripping a cd to your ipod is perfectly legal when it has a cost on itunes.

Because the courts established that it is fair use that why.

Of course that is totally irrelevent to this case because the mother was not guilty her kids were, her legal cost were unjustly applied to her and should be given back in full by the RIAA.

and in the case of the printer and the dead guy, the owner was not guilty of any infringement a hacker hijacking their internet was.

04-29-2009, 12:19 PM	#2
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	Scapegoats are cheap these days __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

04-29-2009, 02:12 PM	#3
gideongallery Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7,082	i can't wait until the lenz vs universal case finally get finished then all the clueless but innocent people who have been railroaded by the RIAA can counter sue them for all of the legal expenses. Nice to see the RIAA get stuck with the 24k bill that mother had to front. __________________ “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

05-02-2009, 07:17 AM	#7
seeandsee Check SIG! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Europe (Skype: gojkoas) Posts: 50,945	fuckersssssss __________________ BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year Contact here

04-29-2009, 02:27 PM	#4
mineistaken See signature :) Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: ICQ 363 097 773 Posts: 29,656	not that much imho

05-02-2009, 08:31 AM	#9
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	The amount vs. RIAA is not really the issue here, is it? Its about sending a message, as they say. Hope she learned it.