Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Judge Denies RIAA Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice in Elektra v. Santangelo

Judge McMahon has denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss its case against Patti Santangelo without prejudice in Elektra v. Santangelo, saying Mrs. Santangelo "is entitled to have her legal status resolved one way or the other."

The judge rejected the RIAA's intimation that Ms. Santangelo had defrauded the Court, saying "Nothing in any papers filed by plaintiffs suggests IN THE SLIGHTEST that Mrs. Santangelo has ever perpetrated any fraud on this court." (capitals in the original).

The judge ruled that either (a) the RIAA must stipulate to discontinue with prejudice no later than April 1st, or (b) the parties must attend the April 13th status conference with a pretrial order in hand:

Order Filed march 21, 2007, Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica
Teknia Tech
Glorious Noise

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


Anonymous said...

I especially like the part where the judge notes that he will not extend the filing deadline for any reason :-)

It seems like the RIAA's attempts to file as many cases as possible and dismiss the losing ones without prejudice to avoid precedent is starting to fail. It is nice to see they can't game the system forever.

But I suppose they could still file one of their patented "Motion to Reconsider"...

Ryan said...

lol I swear I heard someone getting slapped when I read this. It'll be interesting to see what the RIAA decides to do. I would of course put a "if they are smart" comment about bailing while they can but well we all know that's a wasted if statement . :D

raybeckerman said...

if mr. gabriel files a motion to reconsider he should be reconsidering whether he chose the right profession when he went to law school.....

you heard that right ryan....

AMD FanBoi said...

"After reading the papers submitted by both sides, I conclude that no conceivable interest of justice would be served by permitting this case to be dismissed without prejudice against the defendant"

- - -

I submit that no conceivable interest of justice was ever served by permitting this case to persist this long in the first place! The fact that it persisted 10 minutes after the first papers were filed on nothing more than "information and belief", and no possible claim to grant relief on, was too long.

Alter_Fritz said...

secret message in this court document maybe?

see the typo in the header of the courtdocument?
If I do it, that would be explainable without any "secret message" intent. but when a judge does it that also used BOLD letters?!

"Plait" gives me a meaningful translation
"niff" gives my a translation too!

This must be an intentional secret message, no typo!!

just *kidding* of course! Judges surely will know that those well-known plaintiffs aren't smart enough to even notice those subliminal messages

Unknown said...

I'm betting the RIAA will settle out of court. They'll offer fees plus extra in exchange for the suit going away and silence.

The writing is on the wall though.

raybeckerman said...

michael, that's one very realistic possible scenario...

Igor said...

I'm thinking that the only way the defendant takes that type of settlement is if the RIAA agrees to dismiss against the other family member being sued (unless I'm thinking of the wrong case here). Otherwise, it might be in the defendant best interest not to accept a settlement like that. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

somebody need to pull a jimmy hoffa on the riaa and just make them 'go away'

Fatal_Flaw said...

Ray I trust her council will advise her of the serious impact this will have on the RIAA far and wide and how much pain and grief it will cause them like they have caused her if she refuses to settle out of court and goes the whole 9 yards dragging the RIAA with her? Ya know.. payback? Sorry, it's just I hope she knows how much this means to RIAA lawsuits everywhere, grasps the gravity of the situation, and since she's in this very unique position at the moment that she will use it to the fullest to send a message loud and clear.

p.s. - when I read this I was jumping up and down all over my house and screaming out the windows the glorious news lol.

Mark Brown said...

Here's a NEW link I thought you would like.

University of Nebaska has gone one step further: it's asking the RIAA to pay up for wasting its time with the silly demand to push students into paying up.

Slashdot source by way from TechDirt says

This is good.

Keep up the great work
Mark Brown

Anonymous said...

The implications of losing at trial are probably too big for them. They'll likely run away with their tails between their legs and hope the story dies. Luckily, blogs like this will make sure it doesn't.

Fatal_Flaw said...

markbnj, that link is an excellent read, thank you for posting it.

I like what one person said in the comments section to the actual story on techdirt about how the university should charge the RIAA $5,000 per student it looks up at their request. :D

But I'd like to take that suggestion one step further, Any student lookup, the college will charge the RIAA $50,000 dollars, 90% of which will be given to the student for his legal defense and maybe even tuition. Sounds like a plan and a win win lol.

StephenH said...

This is another blow to the RIAA! I beleive that the court said either you are going to have to drop this case and not sue Patti and leave Patti a clean record (i.e. Patti WINS her case and RIAA cannot sue her again for the same crime), or the RIAA will have to go to full out trial in front of a jury.

If they go to trial, I bet they will have to have to prove this evidence to a jury. A trial I bet would cost the RIAA a lot of money, and they may not be able to recoup it all from an individual if they win. Additionally, if the RIAA were to lose, it could set a precedent in that court.