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

Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch

[Vengeance_au]

Now that she's off, the kida are a cinch - she just has to sit them down and have a stern talking-to.

I mean, thats the new industry standard, isn't it?

Re:Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch

[CthulhuDreamer]

And Bronfman would be the first person I would call in to give testimony in a jury trial. He had evidence that his kids were pirating music, yet he failed to have the RIAA take them trial. I'm sure the jury would love to hear why his kids went free over something he's suing other kids for.

I'll ask it...

[SoundGuyNoise]

Won't somebody think about the children?!?!?

Seriously, who will think of them? If they are the parent's responsibility, and the charges against the parent are dismissed, what will protect them against the blood-thirsty lawyers?

Dismissed vs. Dropped

[Akardam]

IANAL, and therefore I may be showing my naievity, but I was under the impression that only a judge could dismiss a case, but that the plaintiff could drop the case. Makes it sound like the RIAA was playing judge and jury... though of course that might not be far from the truth...

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.

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".

Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

denebian devil said: "Not to try to disagree with a Real Lawyer..."

Then don't try to disagree with a Real Lawyer.

There are thousands of different types of litigations, actions, and proceedings, and thousands of different procedural contexts. I'm talking about this one.

If you are aware of a federal court copyright case, which has been heavily litigated, has gone through and completed extensive pretrial discovery, and is on the ready trial calendar, in which a plaintiff submitted a 'voluntary dismissal order' which the judge rubber stamped, tell us about it. Otherwise, don't say things which other readers might be misled by were they to give you any credibility.

I notice that one naive soul has already modded your incorrect statement "Interesting".

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.

kazoo?

[bananaendian]

well I did't know what kazoo was either.

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

Re:Article Text

[arniebuteft]

...and that the son had been implicated in statements from his best friend

f*cking snitches... "I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

Without forethought

[milo_a_wagner]

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

Not that different.

[Lumpy]

The mob also gave reprieves to families to show the public they were not cold hearted killers.

None of the behavior of the RIAA is any different from Organized crime.

Wasting judicial resources

[baffled]

There should be a law against entities wasting the time and resources of the courts, such as this persistent RIAA filing suits against people before they even bother to gather the facts. This is a waste of the taxpayers' public institutions and personnel.

Re:Wasting judicial resources

[mojodamm]

I thought there was... From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civi l_Procedure "Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney. It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include: consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1980s version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter."

Kids aren't out of it yet

[mandelbr0t]

It's interesting that the RIAA made two cases here. The kids appear to be in some serious trouble. Of course, that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring. Apparently the original defense was to convince a judge of the mother's illeteracy and blame everything on her inability to know what was going on. The 20-year-old daughter is certainly old enough to be sued on her own (kinda surprised about the 16-year-old son, though).

I really would hate to see something happen to the children. They're just another one of the RIAA's "making an example" cases, and it's really not a good example. This sort of legal bullying simply polarizes people into the submissive "Please don't sue me, I'll do anything you want" group, and those that are willing to escalate their grey-area file sharing into actual criminal activity.

Why can't they make an example of one of the "real problems"? You know, the pirates that are making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. I'd like to see those rich criminals go to jail too, and I'd bet that most people on P2P networks would too.
IMO, winning a high-profile case like that would be a terrific example to casual users as well. It'd be like putting drug dealers in jail instead of drug users. You still send the same message "Drugs are bad", but the person who gets punished actually contributes significantly to the problems caused by drugs.

Oh wait. There are no pirates making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. That must be because there are legitimate people making hundreds of millions of dollars off legitimate music and movies. To me, the "real problem" is clearly stated in the last two sentences. Persecute criminals, not their victims or groupies.

mandelbr0t

Re:The poor children, the poor mother

[lymond01]

Does being a child mean that you get away with a heck lot just because of your age?
Yep

Even if you did know that what you were doing was wrong?
Can't prove they do or don't, so you say they're young and ignorant, which is generally the case.

Does something magically change when they turn 18?
Nope, but that's the age when they can't blame someone else for their ignorance. Mostly, it wises them up pretty quickly. Mostly.

What about the mother? How could she claim ignorance when it was her job to educate and take care of them?
Have kids. It'll enlighten you. Really. Whole different world all of a sudden. Your own entire childhood becomes clear.

Couldn't she take at least care of their Internet behavior? What about having 5 children? Come on, we live in 2006, not 1906, family planning is there, one is a mistake, after that it was her choice.
I assume this one is tongue-in-cheek. But seriously, some people want to take care of children. When your children are growing up and not needing you every day, you go out and have some other child who will make you feel important again.

Generation Blues

[Doc Ruby]

This whole thing is stupid six ways from Sunday. Of course the mother is responsible for her children's lawbreaking behavior, even if she doesn't know how they do it, or how the law works. If she didn't know "glock from Spock", would she not be responsible if her kids smuggled plastic guns onto a transatlantic flight?

But they didn't smuggle guns. Maybe they did redistribute some files. In which case they might be liable for negligible damages. And the stupid copyright law should be changed, even if just for the survival of a music biz that obviously can't figure out how to make money from the "remix culture" that is where all the cool kids are. All the RIAA knows how to do is rip off musicians and resell the same crapola in new crapola-wrap, protected by politicians they bribe.

Will the legacy of the RIAA finally be to not only kill Rock & Roll, but to put actual chains on kids by making their parents totally irresponsible?

Despicable Tactic

[Tavor]

Essentially, what the RIAA has done, is to drain the target of resources before going in for the kill. With how they have drained Patty's coffers fighting her, she is now broke while they go after her kids. This is similar to how some viruses attack the human body.

Anyone have a truckload of coal to spare? I know someone who needs it wrapped, individually, and dumped on their front door.

Re:Regarding "with prejudice"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Harin_Teb wrote: "Any time a plaintiff drops a suit (for the first time) it is dropped without prejudice."

Sorry, Harin, you're wrong about that. If they had sought to drop the case prior to the defendant's service of an answer, that would be correct. After service of an answer, it can only be "without prejudice" if the judge allows them to dismiss "without prejudice". It would be highly unusual and irregular for that to happen in a case which has already been so heavily litigated as this one.

The plaintiffs knew even before they'd brought the case that the defendant was not liable. There's no way the judge is just going to let them get away with what they did here.

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

RIAA isn't dropping the case

[Todd Knarr]

The article's incorrect. The RIAA isn't dropping the case. They can't, the defendant's already answered their complaint and once defendant's incurred costs plaintiff can't just wash their hands of the case. What they're doing is asking the judge to dismiss their case without prejudice (ie. they can refile the same case in the future). Given the judge's comments to this point I suspect he's going to be disinclined to do that, he'll give them a choice of having it dismissed with prejudice (can't refile) or not dismissing it at all.

RIAA is worse than mob, because protected by law

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mob fucking murders people.

Maybe, just MAYBE, it is a little different?

It's not hugely different at all.

The mob first tries to suck you dry if you made the mistake of crossing their business path, and then if that's not enough they kill you to preserve the atmosphere of fright. They have no qualms at all what effect their actions have on people and their families, as long as it preserves that fright.

The RIAA is devoted entirely to sucking people dry, and they have no compunction whatsoever what that does to people's livelihoods or families or reputations. They do so even when you haven't crossed their business path, because they invent a totally fictitious one of their own: the ridiculous and totally non-existent "loss" that they claim to incur when people share music.

The RIAA don't kill, but they might as well do so. After your life and reputation and credit rating is shattered in court and your livelihood is demolished by utterly incredible invented damages and lawyer fees, there's very little left worth living for, you're a total wreck. Yet, what did you do to deserve this? You did a GOOD thing, you shared what you enjoy with others. And for that the RIAA mobsters destroyed your life.

And as for your point about not killing ... the RIAA don't need to kill, because the necessary fright is created by the law that they helped create: if you don't comply, men with guns will turn up at your doorstep. That's actually a lot more frightening than the mob, since the mob isn't protected by the law and you could seek protection. You can't seek protection against the RIAA and their minions.

So, don't come to us with crap about the RIAA being nice people. They're utter scum, like their paymasters. If those lawyers had a shred of professional decency, they'd tell the studios to get stuffed and hire some hitmen to do their dirty work instead.

Bullshit, man.

[Skadet]

What a lame argument you're making. It's no different from, and as valid as, this one:

"Man, I just got laid off, despite my fantastic track record and measurable performance. You know why?

"My old company is devoted entirely to sucking people dry, and they have no compunction whatsoever what that does to people's livelihoods or families or reputations. They do so even when you haven't crossed their business path, because they invent a totally fictitious one of their own: the ridiculous and totally non-existent "loss" that they claim to incur when people don't do the things they would do in the company's perfect world.

"My old company doesn't kill, but they might as well do so. After my life and reputation and credit rating are shattered in court and my livelihood is demolished by utterly incredible invented damages and lawyer fees, there's very little left worth living for, I'm a total wreck. Yet, what did I do to deserve this? I did a GOOD thing, I worked hard. And for that the company mobsters destroyed my life.

Phrased that way, it doesn't sound so noble, does it? It sounds like the life of an everyday Joe. The RIAA isn't bad in some special way. They're bad the way all large, privately funded, unchecked business are: they don't give two shits about anything except themselves, right now.

I'm not passing judgment that it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing". It is what it is, and it generally seems to work. I'm just pointing out the the RIAA isn't some dear-god-who-could-have-seen-the-serpent-coming sort of organization. This is an agency we all built together, the unavoidable product of our economy. If I remember correctly, Eli Whitney either broke even or *lost* money on the cotton gin because farmers stole his intellectual property (plans to make a cotton gin) and refused to buy Whitney's gin. In fact, the arguments were nearly the same as they are about file sharing: Whitney's gin damages the cotton! (purchased music comes with DRM!). It's cheaper to make my own! (It's cheaper to download my own!). Could you really tell me that if Whitney had an agency like the RIAA for farm equipment, he wouldn't have enlisted their services?