Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo

Posted by Zonk on from the christmas-presents dept.

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"

8 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch by Vengeance_au · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. I'll ask it... by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 5, Funny
    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?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  3. FightGoliath by VE3OGG · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Article Text by arniebuteft · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...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!"

  5. Re:Wasting judicial resources by mojodamm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --
    I'd rather be an ignorant moron than an anonymous coward.
  6. Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  7. RIAA is worse than mob, because protected by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.