Wednesday, August 29, 2007

RIAA Opposes Michelle and Bobby Santangelo Motion to Add Kazaa and AOL as third party defendants

The RIAA has filed papers in Elektra v. Santangelo II, in opposition to the defendants' motion to add Kazaa and AOL as third party defendants.

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Leave to File 3rd Party Complaint*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net





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:

AMD FanBoi said...

The World, According to the RIAA: When WE sue KaZaA for enabling filesharing, or the neighborhood boy who admitted he loading the filesharing software on the Defendant's computer and used it, they're valid people to sue. But when YOU claim that they're all part of this filesharing mess and should all be part of THIS CASE, you're totally wrong and none of them belong here at all — nor does AOL.

I'm just surprised that the RIAA can settle their claims against KaZaA, against the neighbor and (former) best friend as well, and then come back for a THIRD bite at this apple.

As for the level of damages being sought being higher than what Plaintiffs are asking, HA! Plaintiffs want $750/song + all legal fees. That's pretty high, for this "simple copyright case". And since I've yet to see just where they only ask for the minimum statutory amount, they might decide to ask for a while lot more.

It would appear to me that these other Defendants are truly INDISPENSIBLE parts of this instant case, and that the RIAA is simply taking the cowardly tact of claiming that proper litigation of this case is simply too much work for them, poor dears.

You know, if it's too much trouble to do right, then it's too much trouble to do at all. Just dismiss now and pay the Defendants for their legal bills – ALL of their legal bills!

And shut-up about how all this prejudices you. My God, you must have a key on your keyboard set to enter that whole word on a single key press, given how often you use it. The only place prejudice belongs here is in Dismissal WITH PREJUDICE.

Mathew said...

$750 per song? Why not just make the "defendant" pay $20 for the CD? At $750 per song (of which 2 might be good), an average "pirate copy" of a CD will set you back some $9,000.

They already make significant percentages in profit compared to cost of production, and as such, trying to force 450x the retail-price of the CD as supposed damages is ludicrous.

To me, that suggests that the labels thinks that everyone buying the CD at $20 is underpaying them by $8,980 a piece.

I saw another article on Slashdot on August 1 about the RIAA showing screenshots in court of the files shared on someones computer - what I would like to know is, if those screenshots are on that persons computer, that suggests to me that they were obtained illegally (Trojan)? As such, I too would be counter-sueing them.

At least I live in a (relatively) sane country when it comes to copyright laws :)