48 replies to this topic

[water]

from:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/tech/news/news-article.aspx?storyid=73435

[quote]
Recording Industry Wins Default Case of Illegal Music Downloads

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- The sins of the mother didn't end up causing the problem -- but the sins of the daughter sure did. Less than a month ago, the industry dropped a music piracy case against Patricia Santangelo.

She was one of many who were sued by the record labels for illegally downloading music. She argued that she knew nothing about downloading music and that it was her children who were responsible.

The industry ended up dropping the case against the mom, but has now won a default judgement against the woman's 20-year-old daughter. A federal judge in White Plains, New York entered a default judgement against the woman because she failed to respond to the claims by the labels.

Michelle Santangelo has been ordered to pay $750 for each of the 41 songs she's accused of illegally downloading. That comes out to nearly $31,000.



Created: 1/15/2007 2:13:50 PM
Updated: 1/15/2007 2:14:24 PM

[Conuck]

Thats just fucking outrageous.

[water]

I'm sure she will appeal and the charges will be brought down to something more reasonable.

But then again, didn't she break the law?

It's a real question.......

[Conuck]

Just because your gun was used in a murder doesn't mean you did it.

[water]

Quote

Just because your gun was used in a murder doesn't mean you did it.

I definitely agree, but the suit against the mother was dropped, and the daughter failed to respond.... It's troubling to be sure, and once again a reason not to allow your children unrestricted access to the internet.

[Conuck]

I think young children shouldn't have full internet access. I have a friend who lets his kid go everywhere on the net. 11yrs. old going on 21 sexually minded. He knows works I didn't learn at least for another 2 or 3 years. The innocence is gone.

[water]

Quote

I think young children shouldn't have full internet access. I have a friend who lets his kid go everywhere on the net. 11yrs. old going on 21 sexually minded. He knows works I didn't learn at least for another 2 or 3 years. The innocence is gone.

Yeah, our kids know that I'm emtitled to and will monitor their internet activity at any given moment. I'm pretty strict about where they go and what they do. (Mostly only gaming sites for their handheld games and watched closely).

But, they also know the dangers of the internet and they rarely challenge being watched.

[Conuck]

I was voted the strictest parent on the block when my kids were little. They are 39,40,41&42 now. They can do what they want now.

Edit: Good music tonight!

[Sparticus]

Quote

I was voted the strictest parent on the block when my kids were little. They are 39,40,41&42 now. They can do what they want now.

Edit: Good music tonight!

Had your kids in order, literaly. 

People are so greedy theese days. I can see $750 total but $750 each song? Come on!

[Conuck]

Yes I think that sucks also. I agree with Shugs post here on what it should cost.
http://www.testmy.ne...p?topic=17773.0

[water]

I'm having "Mr. Google" (my husband) research how they came to that dollar value for the fines per song.

Look! I'm really having him check!

[quote]
waterrtbh (9:01:04 PM): can you find out for me how the RIAA fine for illegal downloading was calculated at $750 per song?
Sies Atnevon (9:02:33 PM): ahh, yeah, I remember reading those numbers somewhere, lemme see if I can find it
Sies Atnevon (9:02:49 PM): long story short though, while I look that up: they're f*cking crazy
waterrtbh (9:03:08 PM): lmfao
waterrtbh (9:03:51 PM): well can you find me a real answer I can post other than the "RIAA has lost their marbles"?
Sies Atnevon (9:04:06 PM): yep, looking now
waterrtbh (9:04:16 PM): thanks!
(music just for coknuck )

[dlewis23]

this is just so stupid. everyone that downloads music might as well move to Canada its legal there.

[water]

OK: Mr. Google is definitely a geek ....

check these out:

http://recordingindu...tion-to_09.html

Quote

Judge Grants Marie Lindor's Motion to Amend Answer to Add Affirmative Defense of Unconstitutionality of Damages
In UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has granted Ms. Lindor's motion to add a defense based on the unconstitutionality of the $750-per-song damages sought by plaintiffs. He rejected the RIAA's arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality.


Judge Trager ruled:

[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12((6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."
November 9, 2006, Order Granting Leave to Amend Answer to Include Unconstitutionality Defense*
(Alternate link - 2006 WL 3335048)
Second Amended Answer, Filed November 9, 2006*

Pursuant to an earlier decision of Magistrate Judge Levy, plaintiffs are now required to produce "all relevant documents" to Ms. Lindor's attorney, and then to make a deposition witness available by telephone deposition, on the subject of the plaintiffs' wholesale sales price of downloads.
August 28, 2006, Order of Hon. Robert M. Levy*

Copies of the underlying motion papers upon which Judge Trager's decision was based are listed below:

Notice of Motion to Amend Answer*
Ty Rogers Affidavit*
Aram Sinnreich Affidavit*
Memorandum of Law*
RIAA Memorandum in Opposition*
Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion*
Reply Affidavit in Support of Defendant's Motion*

"Grossly Excessive Penalties in the Battle Against Illegal File-Sharing: The Troubling Effects of Aggregating Minimum Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement" By J. Cam Barker, 83 Texas L. Rev. 525 (2004)[Copyright Texas Law Review Association 2004][Reprinted with permission]* (One of law review articles referred to by Judge Trager in November 9th decision)

Link to Abstract of Article

and

http://www.afterdawn...rchive/8114.cfm

Quote

Lindor challenges RIAA '$750 per track' damages
10 November 2006 23:08 by Dela

The case, UMG v. Lindor, has just gotten more interesting. Marie Lindor is currently in a legal battle with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), accused of being a web pirate. Ms. Lindor is now challenging the RIAA to explain why it demands $750 per track in damages when they are available legally to the public for just 99c. Of course, the RIAA did fight to stop this amendment to the case.

The trade group claimed it was not up to Ms. Lindor to decide the damages and that her complaint was without merit, the motion was untimely and it would prejudice the RIAA. However, Judge Trager did not agree with the RIAA on those claims nor a claim that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality.

So now the RIAA needs to explain how it has come to the $750 per track figure. Lindor has already provided proof that possible damages to the RIAA amount to no more than 70c per track, which is the share record companies pick up from online retailers.

Here is a paste of the Judge's ruling from the Recording Industry vs. The People blog:


[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12((6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."
Source:
Recording Industry vs. The People

oh, and LOL. THIS:

Sies Atnevon (9:14:27 PM): basically, they're saying that the legal statute itself sets the fine for copyright infringement at $750 per violation, no matter what the violation is


SEE? GEEK!!!!

[water]

oh wait, I'm just as bad ... 

http://www.afterdawn...rchive/8222.cfm

Quote

Judge says making files available for download is distribution
11 December 2006 14:00 by Dela

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed thousands of lawsuits against file sharers in the United States claiming that the individuals infringed copyright by sharing music on P2P networks. The trade group has long stated that uploaders on P2P networks are acting as "distributors" but it wasn't until October that this claim was confirmed by a federal judge.

Judge Ann Aiken found that users of P2P software who make illegal files available for download (add to shared folders) are doing the equivalent of distributing the files which justifies a basis for a copyright infringement claim. This revelation came in the case, Elektra v. Perez. This case started like most others with information from MediaSentry resulting in a lawsuit against Dave Perez for illegally sharing music.

Perez denied the accusation of sharing files illegally and said even if he was responsible for the "perez@kazaa" account, simply having the files in a shared directory does not justify a claim of infringement. In this case, and some others, the defendant claimed that distribution does not occur until somebody actually downloads a shared file and that the RIAA should have to prove that distribution ever took place.

Judge Aiken ruled that the plaintiff needs to both demonstrate ownership of of the material and show that the defendant "violated at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.S.C. § 106", continuing to say that making songs available for download fulfills the second requirement.

yeah... call me Mrs. Google Pooh Bear

[JokeyMcScrotsack]

Quote

I'm sure she will appeal and the charges will be brought down to something more reasonable.

But then again, didn't she break the law?

It's a real question.......

Real question yes, sensible no. The wholesale price for one song is estimated 70-80 cents. The retail price is 99 cents which makes the 750 dollar fine about a 94,000% markup for punishment. If we are to allow the RIAA to sue for this outrageous of an amount you better hope you never accidentally tear up something worth about 500 bucks. Then you could pay millions for it. Makes sense to me.... no wait.. it doesn't.  Its ridiculous.

[p0ltergeist]

The RIAA mark things up? Never! The funniest thing is they had an antitrust lawsuit against them for illegally marking up CD's in the 80's and 90's. I literally spent thousands of dollars on CD's during the late 80's and early 90's... I got 5 bucks.

http://www.musiccdse...ish/default.htm

I wish they had been held to the same standard they are holding this girl to.

On the other hand, I agree with what you guys have said about supervision. I am as bad as the NSA when it comes to my kids internet usage. Luckily the worst thing I have found is myspace, and my daughter knows the rules on that quite well. Ultimately, what your child does is your responsibility until they are 18, and I don't think that girl was 18 when this brew-haha started.

As far as downloading music being 'stealing', I think there is some debate. I think trading between individuals could arguably be considered fair-usage under some circumstances.

[tommie gorman]

Personally this all a bunch of crap, as most know I believe.

Now if they were being resold. Then god damn well fine. But just sharing and personal use? This is crap. Now I wonder who designed the RIAA in the first place. He or she should be shot. Good damned thing they do not do this kind of shit over pot.  Now figure that one out. Folks will talk about pot. But song sharing or D/Ling for personal use?? Just don't get where these judges can not see the similarity. Or their ignorance.   

[granpa]

Quote

I was voted the strictest parent on the block when my kids were little. They are 39,40,41&42 now. They can do what they want now.

Edit: Good music tonight!

I hope you just didn't recently let them loose, that would be considered the strictest.   

[granpa]

Quote

Real question yes, sensible no. The wholesale price for one song is estimated 70-80 cents. The retail price is 99 cents which makes the 750 dollar fine about a 94,000% markup for punishment. If we are to allow the RIAA to sue for this outrageous of an amount you better hope you never accidentally tear up something worth about 500 bucks. Then you could pay millions for it. Makes sense to me.... no wait.. it doesn't.  Its ridiculous.

Who was watching the kids that supposedly grew up and make up the RIAA? Somebody forgot to explain the limits. 

[JokeyMcScrotsack]

Quote

Personally this all a bunch of crap, as most know I believe.

Now if they were being resold. Then god damn well fine. But just sharing and personal use? This is crap. Now I wonder who designed the RIAA in the first place. He or she should be shot. Good damned thing they do not do this kind of shit over pot.  Now figure that one out. Folks will talk about pot. But song sharing or D/Ling for personal use?? Just don't get where these judges can not see the similarity. Or their ignorance.   

If someone was selling them I would support a heftier punishent, but still not a 94,000% punishment.

Quote

Who was watching the kids that supposedly grew up and make up the RIAA? Somebody forgot to explain the limits. 

You are absolutely right, or your point is anyway. Parents are AWEFUL theses days, all worrying about themselves, getting babysitters so they can go party. It is AWEFUL and shameful the way parents in US raise their kids. Horrible. I am a damn good parent and still not half the parent my wife is. It is hard, HARD work to be a good parent. you have to be there 24/7 not 14/5.