Slashdot Mirror
Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
Runaround Suits
I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
I think it's important to point out from the transcript that the mother blames Kazaa for this happening.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
*Cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
She got a lawyer, who filed a motion for dismisal, the RIAA responded with some pretty stupid comments, and we're waiting to see whether the judge dismisses the case or not.
Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer
Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for herI checked out their website and found this gem
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Here you go.
Actually, it almost looks like it is. The music industry guys seem to have dropped the ball big time with this one.
A little digging turns up a load of links to the various litigation documents, courtesy of defence lawyer Ray Beckerman's blog. If you read the defence's revised reply memorandum of law, they make a convincing (to me as a non-lawyer) argument for what appear to be two open-and-shut claims, which basically mean the plaintiffs have failed to make a case for the defendant to answer. If the court accepts that argument, presumably any of the the other stuff doesn't matter, because the music industry didn't file it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Interestingly, just before the conclusion, that defence memorandum reads
That sounds to me like not only are they trying to get this initial case dismissed, but also they're trying to block any attempt to bring any directly related case in future. I don't know how the appeal rules work if the court finds for the defence in this case, but given the defence's argument and the judge's apparent contempt for actions that don't give the defendant a fair chance to defend herself, it sounds as though this one's going to stop as dead as any music industry case ever can.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
All her actions after that point are also actionable on your part. But, it sounds like you don't care to, since you're now in good circumstances. Luck be with you!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Meanwhile, there is a Comprehensive collection of links on this case (Elektra v. Santangelo). Tells you much more than in the summary link, including her lawyer's rebuttals of the RIAA's claims.
See her lawyer's site, which has their responses. It looks like the evidence is so thin it will be thrown out.