Recording Industry vs The People: RIAA Drops Case Against Patti Santangelo

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

RIAA Drops Case Against Patti Santangelo

After more than a year and a half of litigation, the RIAA has sought to drop the case it brought against Patti Santangelo, Elektra v. Santangelo. Its motion papers ask that the dismissal be "without prejudice", which would mean that they could sue her again for the same thing:

Notice of Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice*
Delcaration of Richard L. Gabriel in support of RIAA's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice*
Memorandum of Law in support of RIAA's Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

This is the case that garnered so much national press attention last year. See, e.g.:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/12/patricia-santangelo-on-network.html
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/12/transcript-of-patricia-santangelo-and.html
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/08/links-to-articles-about-elektra-v.html

The case against Ms. Santangelo's 16-year old son and 20-year old daughter, who were 12 and 16 respectively when the alleged screenshot was taken, continues. We are following it under the heading Elektra v. Santangelo II.

Commentary & discussion:

(English language:)
p2pnet
p2pnet
TechDirt
digg
Associated Press
Digital Music News
Slyck
Digital Music Weblog
Reductive
Crunch Gear
BroadbandReports.com
Blogger News Network
MP3 Newswire
boing boing

(Other languages:)
Gulli

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:

CodeWarrior said...: I can only agree 100 percent with Alter_fritz.

AMEN!
~Code; December 19, 2006 at 5:52:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: That's why they're trying to get it dismissed "without prejudice", in an attempt to avoid liability for attorneys fees.; December 19, 2006 at 5:54:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: alter_fritz, I would prefer for you to take out the "gunowning" part. Lawlessness is their game, not mine.; December 19, 2006 at 5:55:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear alter_fritz

I'm sorry to have deleted your posts as you are an insightful reader and a welcome contributor.

But there is nothing Mr. Gabriel would like better than to see remarks like those two which you posted today.

So don't help him out like that.; December 19, 2006 at 9:46:00 PM EST
BasicTek said...: "On April 1 1,2004, defendant was found distributing the 1,322 sound recordings found on Exhibit B"

I thought it was established that the defendant was NOT the one found distributing. How can they make this statement?

"Nonetheless, plaintiffs were initially willing to settle this case for an amount well below their actual damages"

Here we go with the fake damages numbers again. How can they make statements like this to a judge. Isn't that purgery or something? Downloads do not = lost sales, billions are not being lost to P2P, in fact P2P is likely increasing sales since P2P users are usually found to buy much more music than non P2P users.

"Rather than taking responsibility for her actions and those of her family, however, defendant chose to take her case to the mass media."

So this makes the assumption that A) the family is guilty and B) Patti knew all along. By blaming her family they now contradict the earlier quote where they blamed her the defendant.

"Ultimately, the depositions of defendant, her oldest children, and her former neighbor, which depositions took place between April and June 2006, proved plaintiffs to have been right all along."

For the plaintiffs to be right all along would mean that Patti was guilty (which is obviously not true or they wouldn't be dropping her case). How can they lie like this?

"Moreover, both defendant and Michelle Santangelo testified that defendant had instructed Michelle Santangelo not to create a list of people who had used defendant's computer, even though Michelle Santangelo had offered to do so and even though plaintiffs had specifically requested this information, because, upon information and belief, defendant did not believe that it was appropriate for plaintiffs to take legal action against teenagers who violate plaintiffs' rights."

Big question... Is it legal for a billion dollar corporation to sue innocent people and force their children to make a list of their friends (other children) for the RIAA to target in other lawsuits? Is that what our judicial system is about?; December 20, 2006 at 7:16:00 AM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear basictek,

All good points.

Hopefully Jordan Glass will give them hell in his opposition papers.; December 20, 2006 at 8:00:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: Quote from the pdf:
Show on NBC that same day, defendant falsely stated, "And the recording industry has no problem suing a 12-year old".

RIAA says that it is not true that they sue children. Then they sue children.; December 20, 2006 at 3:32:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: Deluce
what Patti might have meant back then with that "no Proplem to sue little kids" is that RIAA have NO moral scruples/problems to do that.

RIAA Richard is looking at the "Problem" from the legal POV.
Of course they have problems to sue children!

You might want to take a look for example at this older case where [i think it was RIAA-Krichbaum] failed to do what the judge ordered the RIAA to do with respect to this "guardian ad ..."-thingy.; December 20, 2006 at 4:18:00 PM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: P.S. Me wonders how this will handled now since Bobby was around 12-13 at the time the RIAA accuses him to have commited copyrightinfringements and he is NOW at the time of suing him still a minor?
Must not the judge in "Santangelo II" make sure now he has this guradian thingy?; December 20, 2006 at 4:26:00 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