Posted on 12/25/2005 3:39:47 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
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.
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."
Thanks.
I'm not sure this is even a valid term.
Music is an art form, not an "industry".
The RIAA members are not in the music business, they are in the metalized plastic disc distribution business.
All the uproar of the last five years has little or nothing to do with music. It's all about preserving the profit margin on those metalized plastic discs.
The problem is that the penalties are way disproportionate to what I (and I think most Americans) view as the severity of the crime.
It would be as if the fine for driving 47 in a 45 mph zome was $15,000.
You're probably different than most people who argue this. Most people who argue this simply want to take for free what they know they are suppose to pay for, just because they can do it without getting caught. But they don't want that to be called stealing.
I saw the mom in question this morning on Fox N Friends. Seems like a nice lady. She says she has spent about $21K defending herself in court. The original suit was for $7k. Certainly she doesn't know much about economics. But it's clear that if she has spent $21k... then the other side has spent at least that much on attorney's fees.
I've got a good friend from church who used to work for ATT. Her job for 8 hours a day was talking to people who were complaining about their cell phone bill. Everybody says "my kids made all the calls". "I didn't know they were doing it". "I've taken the phone from them now". "Do I really have to pay $5000 dollars in text message charges". What I'm saying is that this lady is not unique. She's more in the norm than most of us understand.
If you don't believe me that your computer will be hijacked without your intervention or knowledge, turn off your firewall and remove your hardware firewall (if you have them currently). If you are on broadband, you'd be pwnd in minutes.
As for doing a 'job as a parent' .. again.. what crap. The woman has no concept of trojan programs, email viruses, or image overflow viruses. Her computer could easily have been compromised. She claims to have no idea how the software got on the machine in the first place and that her kids are also computer illerate. That only leaves a friend installing something when the parent is not looking or a virus installed via typical means.
Your opinion is just that, yours. Unless you have background in the subject matter, (that being p2p networks, computer viruses and how machines can be hijacked without the users knowledge) please don't assume just because you utter some noise that people should 'respect' it. That implies some sort of special status attached to your flatulence that simply does not exist.
I don't think you do. I think your bottom line is that you think mp3's should be free to the whole world. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong and you would rule for the record companies... then I apologize. But I don't think I am.
But you don't know this. You've chosen to believe this and state it as fact. Sure that's what she says.....
Personally... I think she set the computer up and then took no part in monitoring what her kids did on it. That would be my guess.
Let me refresh you since you choose to continue to harass me today with the same lame crap that has NOTHING to do with the parents supervising children while they are on the net if they are doing something wrong.
YOU posted to me.
I am #166. You posted to me at #167. Lets get the facts straight. I didn't ask for special attention. I did not say anything about a virus, so your post is useless to mine. I posted to what the MOTHER admitted HERSELF.
****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.
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
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
----These are the statements I was commenting on. It proves there was no supervision and her children could not be trusted which is why I blame her for NOT doing her job as a parent.
Bottom line is you posted things about the tech end of it and it has NOTHING to do with my original post or what the mother even said. Now who is blathering. From now on READ the article in full and READ the persons post before attacking them with your rants. If you cannot comprehend someones post, and refuse to even see their point, I am sorry. It is not my problem and I am done trying to explain something as simple as my post to you.
And now for the generic post:
Thanks for sharing your opinion with the thread. Have a great day.
I watched her on Fox n Frinds this morning. She wasn't claiming what Stern is arguing. She was claiming ignorance of the law. "My kids didn't realize that swaping mp3's was illegal, but they do now". That's her argument.
The people here arguing all these other possibilities are just practicing for when they get caught.
The people here arguing all these other possibilities are just practicing for when they get caught
-----And I agree with you 100%. LMAO
I can believe that some behavior is inappropriate while at the same time rejecting draconian penalties and intrusive investigations intended to curb that behavior.
I thought that was pretty interesting.
But really... I don't think it's a situation where the population doesn't think it's a crime, or it's wrong. They think that they can do it and get away with it. Don't you think that's most people's bottom line when it comes to mp3's?
$24,000 later...No wonder lawyers have such a bad reputation
I love it!
Do any Freepers know if ones umbrella liability policy would cover this?
Yeah.. and she said this morning on Fox n Friends that the original suit was for $7k. She's obviously an economic wizard.
Right to privacy isn't an excuse to steal or a license to conceal it.
I don't know it for certain, but I'd bet that 'stealing' as a way of describing file sharing is something concocted by the RIAA during a brainstorming session, and then spread out with the help of the media. It makes no sense whatsoever, but the dopes and dupes and other independent thinkers in their own minds swallowed it hook line and sinker. Everytime, I hear it, I'm reminded of the power of propaganda and public lies repeated ad nauseam.
>You guys don't let me stop you. Just do whatever you think is right. Justify it however you want. Copyright law isn't really law's that are suppose to be followed.... right? It's not really stealing so it's okay... whatever. Do what makes you feel good because that's what's most important.
Excuse me...did you just have the audacity to accuse me of being a thief? Did you just suggest that I engage in illegal file-sharing?
I have never had file-sharing software on my computer. I do not do this. My posts are based on my opinion on the issue, which is not swayed by RIAA propaganda.
How DARE you.
I would respectfully ask you to back off.
This you base on...MORALITY?
You falsely accuse someone of illegal file-sharing, and then you have the gall to bring up MORALITY?
That just about takes the cake.
Combined with yr lack of response to the posts I wrote, well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The guy who dodges & draws ludicrous comparisons is the guy who points fingers at others & figures hey, they must do it, too. What other reason would there be for them to possibly disagree with me & the RIAA?
I mean, it's not like I've ever had any involvement in the music business.
Or is it?
Awfully judgmental of you.
Since you chose not to the first time, since you said that there is no difference between the looting of DVD players and illegal file-sharing...would you be so kind as to inform us as to how looting DVD players constitutes copyright infringement?
It's really very simple. If illegal file-sharing were indeed 'stealing,' as you claim, these proceedings would be criminal, not civil.
You don't get that, do you?
There appear to be plenty of things you don't get. I would suggest you re-examine yr "Morality" and don't accuse people of doing things they have never done. Heck, you might want to examine how moral it is to suggest that people are defending actions & behavior...that they're not defending.
But you would've known that if you'd actually read & comprehended my posts.
Perhaps a dictionary is in order.
"Also, even if you do have access to them, my understanding is you only have access to what your ISP is connected to. I tried getting on losts of newsgroups in the past, but they could not be found by my ISP's server."
Correct. You can only access the news groups that your ISP subscribes too. Or you can subscribe to one of the premium news services. Something like www.giganews.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.