Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own

ASUADPi · #1 12-26-2005, 11:15 AM

Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer
Mon Dec 26, 3:26 AM ET

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 the 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."

I hope I'm not the only one who finds it morally wrong that record companies are illegally going onto your personal computer and searching through your personal files. Seems to me that that would be breaking some fundamental Constitutional right.

Go this mom for fighting back.

AchtungBaby80 · #2 12-26-2005, 01:15 PM

She's brave! I agree with you--it's a scary thought that someone may be peeping around at the files on my computer. Hmmmmm...that used to be called snooping.

Coramoor · #3 12-26-2005, 03:29 PM

I really wouldn't be opposed to buying music...if they didn't charge an arm and a leg for the cds. $20 for 15 songs. They are out of their minds.

Rudey · #4 12-26-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ASUADPi

I hope I'm not the only one who finds it morally wrong that record companies are illegally going onto your personal computer and searching through your personal files. Seems to me that that would be breaking some fundamental Constitutional right.

Go this mom for fighting back.

Please explain how this is illegal?

-Rudey

ASUADPi · #5 12-26-2005, 03:45 PM

Why wouldn't it be?

Cops have to have a warrant to search someone's house. They have to have probable cause. So why is it okay for a record company to start searching someone's personal computer (which is at their home), without a warrant or probable cause? Especially the warrant. Without the warrant, the search can be rendered illegal.

And it sounds like the record companies are hacking into your computer via elsewhere, so therefore they aren't getting a warrant (because they aren't physically showing up to your home, with the warrant in hand and confiscating your computer).

I get that they want to stop piracy. I don't blame them. But breaking the law and then sueing someone isn't cool.

Tom Earp · #6 12-26-2005, 04:53 PM

Is this against Posting Rules for Copy Writing articles?

Not mad at anyone, just want to get the facts straight!

Any Hot Mods out there who want to comment?

ASUADPi · #7 12-26-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Is this against Posting Rules for Copy Writing articles?

Not mad at anyone, just want to get the facts straight!

Any Hot Mods out there who want to comment?

I'm curious why you stated this?

I ask because there are at least 4 other threads on this forum that have articles posted to them and two of them you have responded to. (Televangelist's wife asked to leave plane, Kennedy falls for library hoax, Bin Laden neice in glamour shots, Abortion tour)

Rudey · #8 12-26-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ASUADPi
Why wouldn't it be?

Cops have to have a warrant to search someone's house. They have to have probable cause. So why is it okay for a record company to start searching someone's personal computer (which is at their home), without a warrant or probable cause? Especially the warrant. Without the warrant, the search can be rendered illegal.

And it sounds like the record companies are hacking into your computer via elsewhere, so therefore they aren't getting a warrant (because they aren't physically showing up to your home, with the warrant in hand and confiscating your computer).

I get that they want to stop piracy. I don't blame them. But breaking the law and then sueing someone isn't cool.

Why wouldn't it be? Because it isn't.

You really should rethink your claim.

-Rudey

ASUADPi · #9 12-26-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Why wouldn't it be? Because it isn't.

You really should rethink your claim.

-Rudey

Are you a lawyer? I know I'm not, all I know is that the constitution does allow some freedoms, that's why we have it.

But not being a lawyer I don't know the legalities about what they are doing. I just know my own personal feelings and basics about the laws.

Rudey · #10 12-26-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ASUADPi
Are you a lawyer? I know I'm not, all I know is that the constitution does allow some freedoms, that's why we have it.

But not being a lawyer I don't know the legalities about what they are doing. I just know my own personal feelings and basics about the laws.

No I'm not a lawyer, but I can read. And if you know you're not a lawyer, why ask me something so stupid?

But for you I will break this down. Sony isn't going to go into a courtroom and say "We broke into his computer and found what he is doing". There are ways to do it that aren't illegal. When you log into a file sharing network you open up your computer for people to look into it.

If you aren't a lawyer and don't know the law fine. But at the very least stop making these silly statements about rights, the constitution, and the law that aren't true.

-Rudey

BobbyTheDon · #11 12-26-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ASUADPi
Are you a lawyer? I know I'm not, all I know is that the constitution does allow some freedoms, that's why we have it.

But not being a lawyer I don't know the legalities about what they are doing. I just know my own personal feelings and basics about the laws.

In other words...

"I don't know the laws, but I know that's illegal!"

ASUADPi · #12 12-26-2005, 06:40 PM

Whatever...

I'm not going to argue with people.

I'm allowed to feel that what they did was illegal. You are allowed to feel that what they did was morally justifiable.

Rudey · #13 12-26-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ASUADPi
Whatever...

I'm not going to argue with people.

I'm allowed to feel that what they did was illegal. You are allowed to feel that what they did was morally justifiable.

No you are not allowed to feel that it is illegal.

Something being legal or illegal is a fact. There is no opinion or feelings about it. In this case it is legal.

I can feel that there is something wrong with you. The fact is that there probably is.

-Rudey

Kevin · #14 12-26-2005, 07:22 PM

Does anyone know whether the RIAA has ever been sued for trespass? It'd be an extension/expansion of the law, but I think that it could/should be applied here.

Rudey, it is actually illegal in many states, for example, California to access another's computer without their consent.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/computercrime.html

I wonder if there's a loophole built in for RIAA type organizations?

Rudey · #15 12-26-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Does anyone know whether the RIAA has ever been sued for trespass? It'd be an extension/expansion of the law, but I think that it could/should be applied here.

Rudey, it is actually illegal in many states, for example, California to access another's computer without their consent.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/computercrime.html

I wonder if there's a loophole built in for RIAA type organizations?

If you log into a network right now and allow me to scan your files, you have provided me with consent. The RIAA is not even pursuing those with illegal copies. It is pursuing those that have taken those copies and made them available to the public. If you provide me with your ID on a file sharing network right now I will tell you exactly what files you are sharing with the world.

If I slip you a trojan horse or exploit your system to gain access to it, you did not provide me with consent. If I even log onto your wifi signal without a password, you did not provide me with consent.

If people are so uncomfortable stealing music and then allowing others access to their computers, they should never have participated in the first place.

-Rudey