Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Discovery Schedule Set in Case Against Patti Santangelo's Children

A discovery schedule has been agreed to by the parties in Elektra v. Santangelo II, the case against Patti Santangelo's children:

Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan*
Addendum to Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

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

12 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray, at the alledged time of the alledged wrongdoings (copyrightinfringement, NOT stealing!) both defendants were minors, one is still a minor.
what about an appointment of a guardian ad litem at least for Robert?

Ray Beckerman said...

I think a guardian ad litem has to be appointed for Robert.

Alter_Fritz said...

OK, and because the RIAA claims that the boy next door to Robert made some comments regarding them; I guess Robert was a normal child back then and he played only with boys in the same age-range. So maybe some concerned guardian ad litem should investigate if the "RIAA-childinterogation specialist"-Krichbaum had talks with that neighborboy prior to his "confession".
Maybe that minor needs a guardian too, if RIAA plans to introduce him as "fact witness" against Robert since Media-Sentry guys are oviously not very usefull witnesses according to doctoral and professoral experts that even worked for the FTC!

Patti said...

The former neighbor is two years older than Robert, which would make him 18 years old now.

Alter_Fritz said...

ray, me confused now:
in Santangelo I there is this sheet of paper stating: "Exhbit A Patricia Santangelo " and then 6 lines of non copyrighted latin letters and arabic numbers.
But in Santangelo II there are 35 more lines with letters and numbers below the 6 initial one already present in the Mother case.

?

Alter_Fritz said...

oh and just in case Exibit B that is not electronicly files looks like Exibit B from "MotherCase", I hope Santangelo's Lawyer has seen the lines where it is ovious that media sentry has again done what the dutch experts explained with regards to insuffcient computer hygene and multple IP/usernames showing in the screenshots!

Ray Beckerman said...

alter_fritz said...
"ray, me confused now:
in Santangelo I there is this sheet of paper stating: "Exhbit A Patricia Santangelo " and then 6 lines of non copyrighted latin letters and arabic numbers.
But in Santangelo II there are 35 more lines with letters and numbers below the 6 initial one already present in the Mother case."


I don't think you're confused at all.

I think (a) the 6 songs listed in exhibit A in Santangelo I are the 6 song files they downloaded, and (b) in Santangelo II they added a bunch of additional songs in order to try and punish the Santangelo family for fighting back.

But they don't have the song files.

And I don't think they should be able to go forward on those songs. (See my position in UMG v. Lindor preclusion motion)

Anonymous said...

How does Media-sentry get paid ?

Do they only have to provide a snapshot image ?

Has anyone analyzed the snapshot images for signs of editing, such as from using Photoshop ?

I crop and paste images all the time when representing screen shots for instruction manuals. Color photos may be a little tough, but a Kazaa screen using Windows colors ! This would be a no-brainer.

Alter_Fritz said...

sorry for writing like a moron, take for example the missing h in one instance and the missing i in the other and make both Exhibit :-)

Maybe it is better i just copy and paste, from others, that way i will not produce so much spelling errors

Prof. Dr. Ir. H.J. Sips and Dr. Ir. J.A. Pouwelse wrote :[in another case ]no computer hygiene precautions where taken. The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias cleary contains multi-peer downloading contamination.
RIAA likes to paint IP adresses and usernames in front of technology illiterate Judges as equal as DNA traces in a crime scene. If DNA gets contaminated by sneezing in the sample it gets thrown out as evidence I assume, but when MediaSentry and RIAA contaminate the so called Santangelo "evidence" as you can see in the Mother Screenshots of over 1000 files they can get away with it? I hope not.

But maybe the RIAA will use it's chance to get away with just a black eye when they fail to come up with a plan how they make sure Roberts guardian ad litem gets payed in the first place. (Yes "Rich", that was a hint for you guys!)

Alter_Fritz said...

otech

The RIAA must not photoshop images!
I alledge what they call "trade secrets" and "highly propritary" of MediaSentry is the software they are using to generate these screenshots. MediaSentry has written the RIAA this nice little programm that generate these lists automaticly after entering username, IPaddress and name of Label artist!
Similar like the one created by some activists in Sweden/Denmark to prove that this is not "evidence". They used DCC++ in their version of the MediaSentry software instead of KaZaA because swedish technology illiterate judges believed a screenshot like that is evidence if I remember correctly.

http://www.piratbyran.org/bevismaskinen/

Ray Beckerman said...


otech said..." How does Media-sentry get paid ?"


Interesting you should ask that. That's exactly what I'm trying to find out in UMG v. Lindor, and the RIAA is trying to prevent me from finding out.

Thing is, it's well settled law that I'm entitled to find out what the other side's witnesses get paid.

Ray Beckerman said...


Alter_Fritz said..."
Prof. Dr. Ir. H.J. Sips and Dr. Ir. J.A. Pouwelse wrote :[in another case ]no computer hygiene precautions where taken. The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias cleary contains multi-peer downloading contamination."
RIAA likes to paint IP adresses and usernames in front of technology illiterate Judges as equal as DNA traces in a crime scene. If DNA gets contaminated by sneezing in the sample it gets thrown out as evidence I assume, but when MediaSentry and RIAA contaminate the so called Santangelo "evidence" as you can see in the Mother Screenshots of over 1000 files they can get away with it? I hope not."


Well in the Netherlands and Canada they weren't able to get away with it.

Hopefully the US courts will catch on to what you already know.