Thursday, March 01, 2007

Patti Santangelo Opposes RIAA Motion to Dismiss "Without Prejudice"; Asks for Day in Court

In Elektra v. Santangelo, Patti Santangelo has filed papers opposing the RIAA's request to be permitted to withdraw the case "without prejudice", and has asked Judge McMahon to either dismiss the case "with prejudice", or let her have her day in court at a jury trial:

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, and in Favor of Cross Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice or for Jury Trial*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Table of Cases

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


Alter_Fritz said...

I would like to read also Exibit A from that Motion please. Seems to be important what Michelle has to say.

AMD FanBoi said...

It disgusts me that the judge and court system has to even consider this issue for an instant. The case should have been dismissed with prejudice the moment it was as clear to the judge as it seems to be to everyone else that the RIAA has no case, and that they sue people to coerce those people into doing the investigation work of uncovering who was actually running Kazaa on the computer.

And none of the even begins to compensate one for the months of agony and stress they've gone through after being sued. It is more of an argument over whether the defendant's lawyers are charging to much, or not. It's just plain sickening!!

StephenH said...

I think that the RIAA is trying to dismiss without anything wrong because they know Patti pursuing Defense too hard on them, in which she probably cost them too much money already, more than what they would have made via Settlement.

I personally hope they dismiss with prejudice. I think it would be an important lesson for the RIAA if it went to full out jury trial as well.

raybeckerman said...


It was submitted "in camera", which indicates there was something confidential in it.

raybeckerman said...


What are yout talking about when you refer to what the defendant's lawyers are charging?