The most loved organization in the world, the RIAA, has won a case against a New York family for illegally downloading music. The case was originally filed against Patricia Santangelo, 46, a mother of five, who resides in Wappingers Falls, N.Y but was later dropped and re-filled against her two sons.Rather than taking the settlement agreement the two sons and mother decided to fight the RIAA and nearly $15,000 was raised by online sympathizers to help fight the industry. The result, nearly 4 years later, is that the family will have to pay $7000.00 for songs downloaded that included "‘MMMBop' by Hanson and ‘Beat It' by Michael Jackson.
"We are pleased to have reached an agreement with the Santangelos," Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the R.I.A.A., said in an e-mailed statement. Asked how much had been spent to win the $7,000 settlement, and whether it was a victory, she said, "We don't break out costs per case, and it's not a question of it being ‘worth it' or a ‘victory.' "
The family decided to agree to the $7000 amount because the two sons are now in college and they need to control their costs as lawyer fees probably exceeded the 15,000 in donations.
+1
Score another one for "justice". :/
In a sense, these people (the RIAA) are actually "terrorists".
In a sense, these people (the RIAA) are actually "terrorists".
Actually that's two words
But what you're really looking for is the term "Pyrric Victory"
But what you're really looking for is the term "Pyrric Victory"
Ho, I love it. Good word. But you forgot the "H" (Pyrrhic victory)
If the family had been able to afford to stick it out, they'd have seen the RIAA drop the case eventually, as they've done in all others where the defendants didn't settle.
The RIAA has no desire to risk setting the precedent of actually losing one of these cases, which then forces them to stop these letters (essentially an ad campaign of FUD designed to scare consumers) and opens them up to class action suits in return.
Corporate extortion of private citizens is just another legacy from the Bush years we're going have address some day.
This is the most ridiculous comment I've ever read.
First, this corporate extortion, as you rightly defined it, was started by DirecTV in the 90s, which was the Clinton years. But then Clinton had nothing to do with that. Just as much as Bush had nothing to do with the RIAA acting as terrorists. You can argue that he didn't stop it, but he had some more important things then that on his plate.
And if you think it should be adress by the government some day, well, it won't be anytime soon. Obama just filled his Justice Department with a dozen or so of ex-RIAA and/or ex-MPAA lawyers.
If you want to stop these people, you have to stand up to them. Some have and won. See this case: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16724
If the family had been able to afford to stick it out, they'd have seen the RIAA drop the case eventually, as they've done in all others where the defendants didn't settle.
The RIAA has no desire to risk setting the precedent of actually losing one of these cases, which then forces them to stop these letters (essentially an ad campaign of FUD designed to scare consumers) and opens them up to class action suits in return.
Corporate extortion of private citizens is just another legacy from the Bush years we're going have address some day.
yes bit the cost of rising lawyer fee's would have ment the win was a loss for the family better to pay the 7000 and be done with it than spend 250,000 in defence and become homeless and destitute
How long until people actually pay for the music they download? There are plenty of options now, absolutely no valid reason to steal.
yup like .10 cents or less for a song. I love options
@RichardK, digital distribution of music is just the modern equivalent of radio. The sooner the RIAA companies learn how to join in, rather than scream against the future, the better chance they'll have of remaining in business.
At this point, however, they've generated so much ill will amongst artists AND consumers, I think the racketeering distribution dinosaurs are going to be little more than content libraries for legacy acts within a few short years.
BS. Clinton was still prez in 2000. The RIAA didn't need help from the White House to start this. You need to shake your head a little bit. That might just disloge that bias.
Yeah, plenty of options, all of which seem to think a dollar per song is fair.
I'd like to buy a car for $1000 but it just does not work that way. Using your logic, this justifies me in stealing it.
Problem is your logic is as broken as his logic.
When you download a song YOU DO NOT STEAL ANYTHING. It's called copyright infringement. It's illegal but it's not stealing.
I can understand why they do it the way the economy is, but if you get caught, be prepaired to pay high fines.
I can understand why they do it the way the economy is, but if you get caught, be prepaired to pay high fines.
If all music was available to buy no matter what region you live in then the would be no excuse.
My wife was trying to buy a CD by an Italian singer, it is not available on-line to buy as a CD or download from any UK trading web sites, and the Italian web sites also blocked the purchase, and would not ship to the UK.
In the end I had to download it from a dubious source!!, but I hasten to add when we were next in Italian we did buy a legitimate CD.
It shouldn't be this hard to purchase music.
I mean, if I kill someone, can I justify it because I did not like him? No, I'd expect to be convicted and sent to prison.
I feel zero sympathy for music pirates and anyone with half a brain should also feel that way. Cause and effect is an elementary skill they teach you in school and when the big bad RIAA comes after people, there are lots of people wondering why.
A real theft in any shop would probably result in a few months of probation or a few hundred in compensation. $7k isn't as ridiculous as some of the lawsuits go, but there are others whose settlement costs go way way higher.
Copyright infringement is wrong, and punishment is warranted. But the punishment must be fair and reasonable. Else, our thieves would still be having their hands chopped off. Maybe those who fully and unreservedly support the RIAA can consider this.
Last edited by Darrian on 29 Apr 2009 - 15:14
It's about time these companies adapt to modern times and actually take advantage of the p2p technological potential instead of fighting it.
Amazon and countless other stores offer song samples if you want to "try before you buy" so that argument is completely invalid.
If you kill someone, that person stops being there.
If you download music, does the music stop being there?
To keep with your kind of example, it is closer to cloning someone without their permission, but then you still have the difference of the cloned person not being inanimate.
Last edited by Darrian on 29 Apr 2009 - 15:53
Doesn't really apply to this case though. I'm sure MMMBop and Beat It are easy to purchase legally.
Out of curiosity, which Italian CD were you trying to buy?
Here is an example: A family has a wireless network. This wireless network is not secured (as a majority of WiFi routers are not). A malicious user in rage of the router hops on the network and begins file-sharing lots of files. That malicious person is using the family's network and IP. If that IP gets caught, is the malicious user going to get in trouble? No, the innocent family will. Should that family be responsible for thousands of dollars worth of damage for something they didn't do? If someone broke into my car, stole it, and ran someone over with it, should I be liable for that? NO! That's the problem: They have NO hard-core evidence that a person illegally transferred the music.
How they essentially "catch" file-sharers, is that they search for someone "sharing" a file (meaning that the file can be transferred to another user), and they begin a download to gather their IP. They then come up with some formula, which assumes that the file was shared many times, and that the per-download cost is somewhere in the hundreds of dollars per file. (Of course, the actual per-download cost per file is less than $1.) Here is the real kicker: What evidence do they have that the file was transferred to other users at all? They are making assumptions without any concrete evidence to support their claims, yet, they are being awarded lots of money for this. They essentially want to make it illegal to just offer your files for sharing, as it’s too hard (impossible, actually) to prove that you actually illegally transferred the file to many people.
The RIAA’s arguments are entirely speculative, and they are just complete BS. Why they are still being allowed to abuse the legal system is beyond me.
Does believing that statement allow you to sleep at night?
nice idea but very impractical there are already programes out that rip DRM from music making your idea not worth the effort and cost to impliment
Out of curiosity, which Italian CD were you trying to buy?
Biagio Antonacci - Il cielo ha una porta sola
The wife just absolutely loves him.
I now it doesn't apply in this case, was just using it as an example of why some music might be pirated.
In my opinion I would have sent them down for life for download such crap as MMMBop, lol
Yeah I thought so.
Yeah I thought so.
Seems trying to shut down TPB won't help muhahah
I seem to remember that report recently as well. I wonder what happened to that? Maybe that didn't count lawsuits that were already in progress (which it seems this one was).
How much does gasoline cost there again? Yeah, you guys sure know how to keep cartels and corporations in line!!
Doesn't the EU have more money than America? :p I thought you guys were a few trillion dollars in debt or something?
How hard is it for people to understand that illegal downloads are illegal? Finally, people are being forced to realize the consequences of their actions. I don't like the RIAA's tactics but it's also time for people to grow up and realize that their immature entitlement atittude will end up costing them real money if they download illegally.
This is a win-win situation for everyone.
How hard is it for people to understand that illegal downloads are illegal? Finally, people are being forced to realize the consequences of their actions. I don't like the RIAA's tactics but it's also time for people to grow up and realize that their immature entitlement atittude will end up costing them real money if they download illegally.
This is a win-win situation for everyone.
you must be as popular and loved as the RIAA
id buy music if the artist got all the money..but the RIAA does
i bought the radio head cd, and NIN's..just cause they dropped the RIAA
and i refuse to spend money on anything that benefits the RIAA
How hard is it for people to understand that illegal downloads are illegal? Finally, people are being forced to realize the consequences of their actions. I don't like the RIAA's tactics but it's also time for people to grow up and realize that their immature entitlement atittude will end up costing them real money if they download illegally.
This is a win-win situation for everyone.
you must be as popular and loved as the RIAA
id buy music if the artist got all the money..but the RIAA does
i bought the radio head cd, and NIN's..just cause they dropped the RIAA
and i refuse to spend money on anything that benefits the RIAA
im with cguy on this, with the ability to purchase only the songs you want rules out the "but the other 10 songs are crap" and recording companies provide many people with jobs, the singer gets a large cut, the recording comapny gets a cut, and the song writer gets a cut...it would be one thing if the singer produced, created, shipped, marketed and did all the things neccesary to recieve 100% payment...
is 1.29 cents max to much to pay for one song that you listen to many times?
Surely this is a joke. Artists rarely get more than a small percentage of profits.
The second issue deals with the penalties. Many of the RIAA's self-assessed damages seem unreasonably high. And is it surprising? Just as an insurance company doesn't let you assess how much money you'd need to repair your car after an accident, why are we allowing the RIAA to assess how much money they deserve from a damage? An unbiased third party should really be responsible for that.
The RIAA doesn't sue people for downloading music.
These people made these songs available for OTHER people to download.
The RIAA doesn't sue people for downloading music.
These people made these songs available for OTHER people to download.
you sure about that?
The RIAA doesn't sue people for downloading music.
These people made these songs available for OTHER people to download.
you sure about that?
People get in trouble for sharing files.
The default option in many programs is to share the file once it has been downloaded.
Read some of the reports. The RIAA puts $XXX amount on each copy of the song the user "uploaded".
They don't get in trouble for downloading it, they get in trouble for providing it to other people to download.
With a LOT of these cases (almost ALL of them), the user doesn't even make an attempt to share the file. It's just the default option in the program they are using.
There is nothing in these cases that mention the user is fined for downloading. Only the misleading story titles say they user is in trouble for downloading.
like the RIAA is under such an enormous attack.
They do everything for their artists, for art, for creativity
and for innovation, just in Brave-New-World style.
Really, people should be kept more in line.
The government should just allow the RIAA
to shoot people, and take their belongings.
Yes, guess it's time to start a petition.
and what clients the family used like lime wire bit torrent etc. if any?
and on a side note any one who think organizations like the RIAA are honorable and have Honorable intentions just have their head up their ARS they don't care about the artist only the $$$$$$ just look at how much an artist gets paid per record...
Just shows this world is full of thugs.
The RIAA/MPAA is the modern day mafia.
LOL 7k for downloading music..
well all people who are doing something ilegal dont expect to get away with it forever ok!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Words cannot express how hilarious that opening bit is.
because if im paying for a music download it would have to pretty much be CD Quality (i.e. a format like .flac) or at the very least those .mp3 files where the sound varies from around 128kbps to 320kbps (i.e. LAME + EAC encoded)
either way though the RIAA/MPAA will look like the bad guys to the general public due to the fact there 'big corporations picking on the little guy' sorta thing.
whether the RIAA is right or wrong... there pretty much the bad guy to the general public because they pretty much ruin your average joe's life over some petty music lol
7grand seems extreme! .... and the RIAA (as most big corps do) has the resources to win purely because they can just keep fighting you til you give up due lawyer fee's
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.