In an unusual joint letter submitted by plaintiffs and defendants in Elektra v. Santangelo II, the case against two of Patti Santangelo's children, it was indicated that Michelle Santangelo will be making a motion to vacate the default judgment that had been entered against her.
July 9, 2007, Joint Letter of Plaintiffs and Defendant*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs
2 comments:
I especially like that part about the Bad Faith claims whereby Plaintiffs have asserted that infringing conduct continued long beyond their original discovery of (nothing more than) an IP address offering (not actually distributing to anybody but MediaSentry) alleged infringing content, based on a few downloads, and a number more file names.
To date they have offered NO evidence in any published case to indicate that this has ever been true, or that the discovered account, who ever was responsible for it, was online beyond the single snapshot they took. Yet they tell the courts it's continual and ongoing, and of immense damage to them. That LIE alone should have them sanctioned, and everyone should be demanding strict proof thereof!
I hope someone is arguing that Noerr-Pennington Doctrine (the Plaintiff's favorite defense against counterclaims to clear one's name) doesn't protect against sham suits. And that a case can be made, especially given how the RIAA has gone out of their way with press releases of each new round of suits, that they are defaming people not yet found guilty in the courts, and are filing these suits for creating fear, terror, and further press releases, rather than actually trying to collect alleged actual damages.
Now they're threatening the Defense lawyers too, after winning that one frivolous judgment in one other case. They're obviously ratcheting up the fear tactics here.
I note that they admit that Misuse of Copyright IS a valid defense under some circumstances, and they're trying as frantically as they possibly can to make that as narrow a set of circumstances as they can convince any judge to accept.
All told, this is such a convoluted series of motions and counter-motions, claims and counter-claims, it would seem sufficient to keep all the RIAA attorneys fully occupied with this case alone.
And with the only computer in question destroyed, leaving the question if the files "discovered" were ever on that family computer, as well as who might have been sitting in front of it if those files even were there, this is one heck of a mess.
I don't understand the implications of this, does this mean he wants to reopen the case? Was he not allowed to defend himself before the default judgment was entered? Why did it take six months for him to follow up on his counter claims?
Post a Comment