Monday, April 27, 2009

Santangelo II case settled for $7000 payable in instalments -- Associated Press

According to this report by The Associated Press, the case against two of Patti Santangelo's children, Elektra Entertainment Group v. Santangelo II, has been settled for $7,000.00, payable in instalments.

Commentary & discussion: (4/28)

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


ScrewMaster said...

$7,000? All that for $7,000?

Alter_Fritz said...

Its not for the money, it's for the terrorising effect!

(Well, Not the exact words of the RIAA spokeswoman, but the meaning of her words are IMO the same!)

raybeckerman said...

Exactly, it's the anguish, the pain, the suffering that the RIAA was looking for. That's the real fun to them.

Anonymous said...

And they claim immunity from Noerr-Pennington when they have stated time and again that their interest is in publicity or 'sending a message'?

-The Quiet Lurker

derivative said...

They may feel they got more than $7000 and the publicity out of it.

Isn't Patti Santangelo trying to collect attorney fees? I get all these cases mixed up.

Remember how ALL the other settlements are secret? I have a feeling this one isn't secret because the RIAA thinks they can use it to show the judge in Santangelo I something like "see, we didn't really lose -- we really did have a case, and it's her fault she didn't rat out her kids to us, but we finally got blood out of them anyway, so she didn't really win, so we shouldn't have to pay her fees."

I really hope it doesn't go like this, but I seem to recall at least one other judge sympathetic to the RIAA blaming the victim for not turning into copyright cartel informers, and disallowing fees.

But Jordan Glass sure seem like he knows what he's doing, so I hope he's a few steps ahead of them here.

Anonymous said...

A disgrace! And the sad part is that more and more people are still using p2p networks. The fact that the p2p networks still exist should prove that they need to give up these lawsuits because people still are not paying attention. Besides for all the money spent in these frivolous lawsuits. Seems like it would have been more benefical for them to figure out a way to capitalize on that market than to sue its own customers than to waste money on lawsuits. With the state of our current economy, the record companies have shot themselves in the foot with this one. However, I do believe the scales of justice will have the final say so on this one. Just because you control your industry and you have boatloads of money at your disposal does not give you the right to trample on the rights of your own consumers. The RIAA should take a hint from that nice fat lawsuit the cosmetics industry was forced to comply with. My mother's favorite saying is: "What done in the dark, shall eventually be brought to light." And my favorite: Chickens wills always come home to roost. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but they will come...And probably when you least expect it."

And while we're on Noerr-Pennington.. I'm no lawyer, but Ray, does Noerr Pennington give the RIAA a license to conduct themselves the way they have been behaving in these cases? Seriously?