Single mother of five to fight the RIAA by refusing to settle

I just posted the article Single mother of five to fight the RIAA by refusing to settle.

 To date,  the RIAA has filed over 13,000 federal lawsuits against users suspected of  illegally sharing out copyrighted music.  Now, a 42-year-old divorced  mother of five who is one of...
Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

“The lawyers representing the music industry offered her a chance to settle for $7,500, later reducing this to $3,500, convinced that she did make copyrighted music available online.” If the RIAA lawyers are convinced she didnt do it and she does have a wireless network then she shouldnt be responsable for it. I mean if she conviced there lawyers then there must be something worth fighing good luck to her and hope she wins her case.

Also, if I was her attorney, (and she had a wireless internet connection and she was not the guilty party), on her behalf I would sue the wireless network provider for it’s liability. An argument could be made that they facilitated the law breaking by not restricting the range of their networks. Will the RIAA sue Starbucks because Starbucks customers may have downloaded music over their wireless networks? What liability do companies have that allow customers to use their networks and the customer violates the law? Any? It’s the same argument that PSP providers have used. And in law since a corporation has the same standing as a person, could you claim that there was not Equal Protection under the law for individuals if RIAA only goes after individuals and not the facilitators (corporations that provide wireless networks). That is, they (RIAA) were discriminatory in their lawsuits, in not sueing corporations and only individuals. Could a case be made that they were practicing discrimination. Discrimination is against Federal law. Or is that another kind of discrimination not covered by law?
[edited by Videopla on 17.08.2005 02:16]

Obviously, from the two previous reactions to this story, the story itself is misunderstood. The lawyers are convince she DID do it. She thinks it was someone using her own wireless home network. I have an unsecured home wireless network. I keep it unsecured because I have several things connecting to it and it is too difficult to keep everything connected if it needs passwords and such. But I have frequently found others using my network. Some of my neighbors connect if my signal is stronger than theirs. I have even connected using their network. It happens automatically, you just tell windows to connect using whatever connection it finds with the strongest signal. If I was connected to their network and downloaded songs, it would look to the RIAA like it was them downloading as the songs were going to their IP address.

Obviously you didn’t read it either. The assumption that she has a wireless network is not made in the article, only by the person who posted the article on this site. There are a lot of allegations about the RIAA’s method’s that aren’t based along the wireless stealer theory. There have been allegations about their methods of determining who. IP addresses change which makes it difficult to determine who had the IP address unless accurate records are kept. Videopla, I think in this case the wireless network provider would be her. She would have setup the wireless router in her house. Technically she may be violating her ISP’s rules by broadcasting their service. She may also be reliable since she created this opening. (that would be a really dumb ruling and hurt a lot of legitimate stuff though) Unfortunately in this world Starbucks would likely be held responsible if they couldn’t identify the real culprit. They have to get money from someone.

This is the exact same extortion tactic that DirecTV used when suing people who bought standard smart card programmers. They claimed that anyone who bought the devices was guilty of pirating their signal, and then offered a settlement that was slightly less expensive than fighting them in court. I guarantee this case will never see a trial. They will do the same as DirecTV and either offer a lowball (sometimes $0) settlement, or they will drop the case just before trial.

Ahahahah, the law, on your side, ahahahhaahhaahha… good luck… disguising IP, spoofing, WTF does the RIAA know, money, nothign else.

Choices, choices, choices, go for broke girl!!!

riaa, they are the axis of evil…don’t you think mr president of usa?