Wednesday, December 24, 2008

RIAA moves for summary judgment in case against Patti Santangelo's kids, Elektra Entertainment v. Santangelo II

In Elektra Entertainment Group v. Santangelo II, the RIAA's case against 2 of Patti Santangelo's kids, the RIAA has moved for summary judgment.

(It appears that the memo of law was filed twice, one time with one set of exhibits, then again with another set of exhibits.)

The kids' opposition papers are due January 30th, the RIAA's reply papers are due February 13th, and the motion is scheduled to be argued on March 25th, at 10:00 A.M., at the federal courthouse, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in the courtroom of Judge Stephen C. Robinson. The argument is open to the public.

The defendants are represented by Jordan D. Glass, of Valhalla, New York.

Memorandum of Law and Exhibits Document No. 79
Memorandum of Law and Exhibits Document No. 80


Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player

5 comments:

Tom said...

not checked the listings exhibit of the 2 x 30 songs yet, but since Mr Moran claims that the kids have "infringed potentially hundreds" I speculate the greedy lawyers from SONY-BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Warner thought that 2 kids and each times 30 is a better bargain for them then only one set of "potentially by plaintiffs produced" records.

"It's not a trick, it's a Moron"

Can Mr. Moran be slapped hard for lying? Because first he claims that "the third party" MediaSentry detected Someone using the IP at the Time stated.
Some sentences later in the SOF it is the old well known wording of detecting an individual that was allegedly detected distributing more then 1ooo songs to millions of people. (I always wonder what kind of fat pipes the individuals in these cases have. I thought america was not so leading in fast internetconnections to the homes contrary to what the swedes have available for example!)
And last time I checked "individuum" is something latin and means 1(one) unique person. So who was it that the PartyGuys from MediaSentry allegedly detected? Seckler, Santangelo Kid I or Santangelo Kid II?
Must the Plaintiffs not make their mind up before they move for SJ? Can they cash x amount from each of them? Isn't it a case of conspiracy to infringe and all 3 acted in concert so it is not allowed to go only after some of them for (maybe 2 times) USD30000? For how many of the over 1000 songs has Seckler payed, less then 10 maybe even though he might have been the one that downloaded and distributed 1320 Songs of the 1322 of the allegedly downloaded and distributed songs?
What if Seckler is the guy that has this enourmous fat internet pipe in his basement since the Santangelos obviously are not the ones that had that "swedish style" distributing line to serve millions of people given what the Plaintiffs claim about who was Santangelo's ISP at the time at issue?

This Memo by Mr. Moron in support for the SJ motion is high quality bovine feces. Lets hope the judge gives it to him very well!

Anonymous said...

This man questions how two defendants can be guilty of the same act (i.e. downloading – which is isn't proven unless they declare, "Yes, Your Honor, I illegally downloaded that track" and still might not be illegal since these plaintiffs seek to sue the person who made the infringing track available, and Attempted Distribution (e.g. Making Available) which isn't even a cause of action under current copyright law). Did both defendants sit there and press each key together to make them each libel for each of the allegedly infringed music files?

This man is moved to point out that there is a genuine question of law here if any laws have actually been broken by these defendants doing what is alleged of them. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if no laws have been broken – except by the RIAA plaintiffs and their illegal investigator MediaSentry?

Perhaps that little twerp Matthew Seckler downloaded and made available every recording as issue and is now trying to implicate others in order to obscure his own posterior.

The whole purpose behind peer-to-peer networks is to share files with other users.

Boy is that a load of bovine excrement! This man advocates that someone really needs to point out that the RIAA speaking through these lawyers cannot be allowed to be the one to set the rules. They so very clearly don't know of what they speak.

Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense.

If that is true then how can there even be an Innocent Infringer defense, which clearly exists?

the evidence shows that Defendants distributed all Copyrighted Recordings that are the subject of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement.

Yet early plaintiffs state that MediaSentry only downloaded 5 full files, and that no downloads were ever shown to any other unauthorized person(s). That is certainly a new usage of "distributed" that this man is previously unfamiliar with.

Finally, Mr. Seckler saw that other users on the network were downloading files from the Santangelo computer.

First, is (he doesn't deserve the term "Mr.") Seckler testifying to exactly which files were downloaded when? Maybe he witnessed the MediaSentry downloads. If it was other downloads than the 40 files in question here then that should mean nothing. Lastly, I'd be suing Seckler for conflict of interest.

The rest of this plaintiff's filing is such garbage that it doesn't warrant further point-by-point refutation.
Here is the genuine issue that argues against summary judgment. The plaintiff's case relies entirely on a single witness, Matthew Seckler, who may have been [bribed, bought off, allowed to settle for a pittance in return for implicating others]. To not allow defendant's lawyer to cross-examine this witness in court to determine his veracity (was their a guardian at litem present when Seckler was spilling his guts?) and instead take his word at face value when there is such an obvious conflict of interest, would be the worst decision possible, and no justice at all.

{The Common Man Speaking}

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This man is also compelled to point out that if Seckler (sounds a lot like Suck-Up) witnessed other people downloading music from the computer in question that:

1: He was operating it that time and should be considered the guilty party.

2: He has no knowledge of whether any downloads he allegedly witnessed were legal, or illegal, downloads.

In point of fact, he can't really testify to much of anything accurately except that he, himself, is an infringer.

{The Common Man Speaking}

eZee.se said...

+1 to 'The Common Man'.