RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo

VE3OGG writes "The RIAA, in an expected motion, has recently dismissed the case against Patti Santangelo, one of the most famous targets of the RIAA lawsuits. The mother of five was described by the judge presiding as an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.' While this is good news, the RIAA is still pursuing its case against two of Mrs. Santangelo's children. To make matters worse, the RIAA has also dismissed the case 'without prejudice', meaning that they could, in theory, take action against her again later on. The RIAA alleges that Santangelo's children downloaded and subsequently distributed more than 1,000 songs. The damages they seek are presently unknown"

Comments

FightGoliath

[VE3OGG]

As the submitter, I would also like to point out that FightGoliath is the legal defense fund for Patti Santangelo, and appears to still be taking donations.

Article Text

[Stanistani]

Music industry backs off in piracy suit against NY mom
Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 8:36 AM ET
The Associated Press
 
The recording industry is giving up its lawsuit against Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of five who became the best-known defendant in the industry's battle against online music piracy.
 
However, two of her children are still being sued.
 
Patti Santangelo was an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.'-Judge Colleen McMahon
 
The five companies suing Santangelo, of Wappingers Falls, filed a motion Tuesday in U.S. federal court in White Plains asking Judge Colleen McMahon to dismiss the case. Their lead counsel, Richard Gabriel, wrote in court papers that the record companies still believe they could win damages against Santangelo but their preference was to "pursue [the] defendant's children."
 
Santangelo's lawyer, Jordan Glass, said the dismissal bid "shows defendants can stand up to powerful plaintiffs." He noted, however, that the companies were seeking a dismissal "without prejudice," meaning they could bring the action again, "so I'm not sure what that's worth."
 
The companies, co-ordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America, have sued more than 18,000 people, including many minors, accusing them of pirating music through file-sharing computer networks, most of which have been forced out of business. Typically, the industry tracked downloads to a computer address and learned the name of the computer owner from the internet service provider.
 
When Santangelo, 42, was sued last year, she said she had never downloaded music and was unaware of her children doing it. If children download, she said, file-sharing programs like Kazaa should be blamed, not the parents. The judge called her an "internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo."
 
Santangelo refused to settle with the record companies, pleaded her case in newspapers and on national TV and became a heroine to defenders of internet freedom, who helped raise money for her defence.
 
Last month, the record companies filed lawsuits against Santangelo's 20-year-old daughter, Michelle, and 16-year-old son, Robert, saying they had downloaded and distributed more than 1,000 recordings.
 
The companies said that the daughter had acknowledged downloading songs on the family computer -- which Glass denied -- and that the son had been implicated in statements from his best friend.
 
The suit against the children seeks unspecified damages.
The Canadian Press, 2006

Without forethought

[milo_a_wagner]

The RIAA cannot dismiss a case, with or without prejudice. The court does that.

Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You are exactly right. The author and Slashdot are incorrect. Only the court can dismiss.

What actually happened is the RIAA has made a motion to dismiss without prejudice.

No doubt Ms. Santangelo's lawyer will be responding to the motion by pointing out to the judge that -- after over a year and a half of complex grueling litigation -- the dismissal should be "with prejudice", not "without prejudice". Assuming the judge agrees with Ms. Santangelo, which is highly likely, then Ms. Santangelo will be a "prevailing party" and eligible for an attorneys fees award. See Capitol v. Foster, July 13th Order and Decision.

Appearance before Judge McMahon

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The article contains a link to an old Slashdot article which has an incorrect link to the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's appearance before Judge McMahon. Here's the correct link to the transcript: http://info.riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/tra nscript050506.txt

Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This will not be rubber stamped. No one is going to question the dismissal, but the judge is very unlikely to allow a case which has been this heavily litigated to be dismissed "without prejudice".