Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA Now Sues Patti Santangelo's Children, Says AP

Thursday, November 02, 2006

RIAA Now Sues Patti Santangelo's Children, Says AP

Associated Press reports that the RIAA has now sued two of Patti Santangelo's children:

New York Times
Washington Post

Additional coverage:

The Journal News (Timothy O'Connor)

We have not yet confirmed that the case has actually been filed. When we do, we will post here the applicable documents. We are initiating coverage of this case as "Elektra v. Santangelo II".

Commentary & discussion:
p2pnet.net (questioning whether RIAA leaked the story to the press before filing any lawsuit)
p2pnet.net
Digital Music Weblog
Ars Technica

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

9 comments:

twoticketstoparadise said...: I think the copyright laws are unconstitutional, and an argument can be easily made that a person does not have a right to license or control property, or what happens to it, once it is sold. (Or even if it is not sold, but received form somone who is not the creator.)

Secondarily, the right of free speech is protected in the right to create songs, poems, etc., as expressive of culture and political opinion. If the State does not have a right to control free speech, then why would a private individual or compay be given this right?

The livlihood of artists does not and should not merit special protections and privileges by the government. If all men are equal, then the labor required to screw the door on my car should be re-compensated everytime I open and close it. It is preposperous to claim that invention or creation would cease without these special protections. And, these special protection are in effect a government-issued monopoly, forcing the consumer to not only endure the monopolistic price but also pay taxes to protect the monopoly. This situation is very akin to the trading monopoly on tea that the Crown wanted to apply to the colonies. It also serves the large consolidated business and puts smaller businesses at a disadvantage.

Lastly, the arrangement between the recording industry and the artists is itself unfair, and the recording industry is itself attempting to form a monopoly by acting as a gate-keeper to the content on the public airwaves. Thus the FCC is well within its right, in the best interest of literacy, communication and democracy, to alter the selling of licensing of the public utility airwaves and opening them up more directly to the artist and creative community without costs. It is the costs of licensing that is driving the need and desire for profits from the content creators and advertisers.

Nobody is being served by this arrangement, which is immediately clear in the fact that the alleged formula of supply and demand is not working. The Napster experience proves that there is far more demand than what people can afford to pay. There is also no shortage of content. What we have is too much power concentrated because of the need for profit in the act of communicating. This silences a diversity of opinion rather than encouraging it.

As lawyers, I know you are defending victims of bad laws and how they apply to individuals. But why not spend some time challenging the bad laws themselves in court while you are there?

Peace,
Steve Consilvio
www.behappyandfree.com; November 2, 2006 at 12:31:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: I have no indpendent confirmation that the case has actually been filed. When I get copies of the filed documents, I will post them in the same post.; November 2, 2006 at 2:22:00 PM EST
CodeWarrior said...: Simple statement.
True and to the point.
RIAA (and their toadies and lackeys) = BASTARDS !

~Code; November 2, 2006 at 6:50:00 PM EST
Legit Freebies Guy said...: Keep up the good work and fight for stupid cases like this!; November 2, 2006 at 6:59:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: Codewarrior, regarding your statement; maybe it is time to update litigious bastards so that google will produce more correct results when searching for litigious bastards?; November 2, 2006 at 7:01:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: google thinks the same as Code:

define:bastards = Bastards can refer to a group of people who have done something displeasing to the general public.; November 2, 2006 at 7:04:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: Ray, guess what!
My opinion is that this was just a sharade initiated by Smelling pool of broadcasting corporations L. Gabriel because he likes to state to judges how full of inaccurate informations your blog is.
Now you are reporting about a case against children and if it turns out there is no case so far then he could claim this inaccurate thingy at least one time validly (sort of ) :-P

P.S: Even if that's not the case at least your second p2pnet.net link is a bit "snafu".
Correct would be: http://p2pnet.net/story/10312; November 3, 2006 at 6:07:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear Alter_Fritz. I never said there was a lawsuit. I said the Associated Press reported that there was a lawsuit. I said that I could not independently confirm that any suit had been filed.

You're right, though, that it might have been a trap they set for me. Only I didn't take the bait.; November 3, 2006 at 11:24:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: Ray, of course the body of our posting is factual correct (as they are always since I saw the first one from you)
BUT...

...
have you forgotten?
"RIAA-Richard" seems to be not the most skilled reader at least when it comes to non-physical text in a small fontsize on a computermonitor.
Remember the thing with the 60+ screenshots of your blog? Seems to me he could understand it only after printing it out and then choosed not to claim that they are proof for inaccurate blogging.

I guess when it comes to more complex text then a fox news headline, he is lost ;-)
Now see your headline again: RIAA Now Sues Patti Santangelo's Children ;-); November 4, 2006 at 8:20:00 AM EST

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove