Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over

Posted by Zonk on from the keep-the-faith-kids dept.

newtley writes "Odds are that Patti Santangelo, the RIAA case defendant and New York mother who has made a determined stand against the Big 4, may have won her battle to clear her name. She and her lawyer, Jordan Glass, have signed and submitted a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice the case lodged against her by the RIAA. US federal district court judge Colleen McMahon's language had earlier seemed to indicate it was time to end the farce, and the court had the power to entertain a motion for legal fees. Unfortunately, her two children are still 'in the line of fire' in the court room."

4 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. With hope by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With hope, this will be the beginning of a trend, especially if this case can be used as precedent against the RIAA on other cases. The RIAA will hopefully realize that it is time to stop bringing frivilous lawsuits with shoddy evidence against the public. One can hope anyway...

    --
    StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
  2. Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They knew they had no case against her. They always knew it. Their game is not law, it's extortion.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Re:The fines by McFadden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How could you sue someone that exaggerated amount? The legal system has been blinded by the Riaa.
    Unless I'm very much mistaken, you can sue someone for whatever amount you want. It's then up to you to *prove* that you deserve what you're asking for. This has nothing to do with any blindness on the part of the legal system. In many cases, the litigant may ask for a disproportionate level of restitution in order to scare the defendant into settling early and minimize the risk of severe financial damage. I'd say it's a fairly common tactic.
  4. Re:Upon learning of this by joe_adk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BMI et al. is behind the first case. These cases wont go away until we start identifying them with the parent company, and not the RIAA. They already laughed off being named "Worst Company In America 2007." Being hated and feared is heir plan. This way the record companies can hide behind their little monster and not get the bad publicity. I wish slashdot and other sites would stop posting about the RIAA and start posting about the parent companies. This article should be "Patti Santangelo v. Elektra Entertainment Group, Virgin Records America, UMG Recordings, BMG Music and Sony BMG Music Entertainment May Be Over."

    I guess we could shorten the company names for readability.