Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Motion for leave to bring third-party action against AOL, Kazaa, and boy who installed Kazaa denied in Elektra v. Santangelo II

In Elektra v. Santangelo II, the White Plains, New York, case against two of Patti Santangelo's children, the Magistrate Judge has denied the defendants' motion for permission to bring a third-party action against AOL, Kazaa, and the boy who installed Kazaa on their computer.

February 15, 2008, Order and Decision of Hon. Mark D. Fox Denying Motion for Leave to Implead*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation






Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property






4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm unable to get the actual link to work for me, but based on your summary, it seems that we don't want to punish the actually guilty parties here. The people who wrote the software (KaZaA) and were successfully sued once for it already, AOL, who may have contributed to preventing warning messages the RIAA insists it sent, and the "Neighbor and (former) Best Friend" who actually loaded the software and used it. Heaven forbid that those people be called for account here.

WTF is this judge thinking?

-Dodge Magnum

Ray Beckerman said...

Sorry about the bad link.

I've fixed it, I hope.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the link works now.

This decision is absolutely wrong.

As I recall, Seckler was the one that was responsible for the infringement, and already settled with the RIAA. At a minimum, a third party action against Seckler is appropriate here.

Regards,
Art (too lazy to log in)

Alter_Fritz said...

Me sorry is, but i must disagree with you Art and DM.

While i agree with both your arguments made "Heaven forbid that those people be called for account here." and "As I recall, Seckler was the one that was responsible for the infringement, and already settled with the RIAA." it seems from my understanding of what the judge wrote about the grounds and reasons why and when a "3rd party action in an action" is OK,
That the judge is right

"Thus, this cause of action involves the independent contractual relationship that
AOL had with Defendants’ mother, and any alleged breach of that contract, or the duties arising
thereunder, may still be litigated regardless of whether Plaintiffs prevail on their claim of
copyright infringement."

Sounds perfectly logic to me.

"[...]as it involves the relationship between Sharman and users of its Kazaa software, the duties that Sharman might owe to those users, and the theft suffered by those users, as well as the physical damage caused to Defendants’ mother’s computer by the program."
Sorry guys, that's logic too.

"[...]as it
pertains to dealings between Defendants and Seckler – e.g., if, when, and how he installed Kazaa
onto their mother’s computer; whether Defendants themselves were aware of the installation and
gave him permission to do it – as well as the physical damage caused to their mother’s computer
by installation of the program."

And once again perfectly logic.

We might feel that his decision is somehow not just, but with my IANAL knowledge about your laws I must believe that his citation when a "Rule 14" is apropriate is correct and so is IMO his decision.

Sure, those 3 other parties played a big part in what is happening to Michelle and her Brother no doubt about that!
But saying it is possible to "shift blame" for the (alleged) actions of Michelle and Brother to them in a Rule 14 Action is from a pure logical(!)point like the case when a Robber is trying to bring in the gun manufacturer as 3rd party action blaming him for providing him with the means to do the bank job.

I'm sorry to say it, since I feal like DM too, but holding then accountable seems to be only able in a seperate action and not in this instant case given the wording of the law if the judge's analysis of the law that i don't know is correct of course!