Recording Industry vs The People: Discovery Schedule Set in Case Against Patti Santangelo's Children

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

11 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?; December 20, 2006 at 4:57:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: I think a guardian ad litem has to be appointed for Robert.; December 20, 2006 at 10:45:00 PM EST
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!; December 21, 2006 at 4:23:00 AM EST
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.

?; December 21, 2006 at 12:45:00 PM EST
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!; December 21, 2006 at 12:54:00 PM EST
raybeckerman 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); December 21, 2006 at 1:18:00 PM EST
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.; December 21, 2006 at 1:47:00 PM EST
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!); December 21, 2006 at 2:03:00 PM EST
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/; December 21, 2006 at 2:20:00 PM EST
raybeckerman 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.; December 21, 2006 at 2:46:00 PM EST
raybeckerman 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.; December 21, 2006 at 2:49:00 PM 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