Mom Fights It Alone Against RIAA

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051227-5848.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051227-5848.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The RIAA is a little busybody when it comes to lawsuits, threatening 16,000 Internet users with them in the last two years alone. Yet this battery of legal assaults have mostly amounted to threats aimed at extracting settlement money and public displays of power. None of them have proceeded to trial yet, save one: the case of Patricia Santangelo. This divorced mother of five living in Wappingers Falls, New York, has earned the distinction of being the first "swapper" to head into court because she has refused to accede to the RIAA's demands. Put simple, Santangelo wants her day in court, because as far as she is concerned, she's not guilty."</i><br /><br />At the heart of the matter is Santangelo's claim to be computer-illiterate. She believes that the files ended up on her computer because of a friend of one of her kids, not because of something she did, and doesn't want to admit guilt or pay any fees. She insists that she has no idea how they got on her computer, and I am sure that her story is one that hits home with tons of other parents, who worry about the same thing happening to them. I clearly understand her point and to some extent I am surprised that the RIAA is not backing down. I know many of you are parents, do you worry about similar issues. And what measure do you take to protect yourselves?

[OSUKid7]

I'm glad you're covering this story here on DMT. Piracy is something I have very strong opinions about - make that against. My viewpoint is very different than most others in my age range, and I think I have these views because of the way I was raised.

I fully believe this woman's case, that she herself did not download the copyrighted music. Unfortunately, that's all too common, and more evidence of the digital divide. I'm not saying my parents watch everything I do online (no one else in my family really knows that much about technology...which makes it even stranger that I fell into this career...:?), but my parents knew enough to raise me well and teach me ethics. Many of my friends pirate music and software online. I don't, simply because I have a moral outrage about stealing.

So while I believe Santangelo, she has no case, and as much as I disagree with some of the other things the RIAA has done in the last few years, this woman apparently downloaded copyrighted music over her Internet connection, which obviously violates her ISP's TOS and breaks the law. I don't expect everyone to be as knowledgeable about technology as us here, but this woman should have known enough to read her ISP contract and know to monitor the use of her computers -- at the very least, she should have discussed this with her children.

No other crime lets the defendant use stupidity to walk free. While I find it strange that the RIAA is still perusing this case, they had no way of knowing it wasn't her when they filed the lawsuit, and giving up now would make a huge statement that it's okay to pirate music. As bad as it sounds, way to go, RIAA. :way to go:

[bluemax]

Ok, so the woman's dim and probably shouldn't have a computer in her home. I don't believe the RIAA gestapo has the right to attack and intimidate the number of people they have been.

They should be going after the source not the end. If the suppliers weren't offering it there would be no one taking it.

Bill B

[OSUKid7]

They should be going after the source not the end. If the suppliers weren't offering it there would be no one taking it.
That brings up another good point. I'm no lawyer, but is it really illegal to offer copyrighted materials to others? I can see why this would be the easiest way to control the problem, and I also know that the biggest uploaders are often the bigest downloaders (of pirated music). But isn't it the act of downloading copyrighted music that's really illegal?

[ericok]

You're innocent until proven guilty. So she owns a computer connected to the internet. If she owned a gun and someone in her family used it to hold up a bank would she be guilty? If she owned a phone and someone in her family used it for criminal purposes, would she be guilty? If you went to an internet cafe and downloaded music would the internet cafe owner be guilty? The computer is just a glorified communication device. The bottom line is that the RIAA doesn't really know WHO downloaded what. They know who owns the computer and go after them because of their ability to initmidate a settlement. I hope she makes her case that she didn't download anything and that the RIAA has to prove who did - then go after them. By the way, no RIAA downloading case has ever gone to court - all have resulted in settlements.