Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over

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."

Comments

Upon learning of this

[Anonymous Coward]

She began singing "Ding dong, the witch is dead" which lead to the RIAA suing her again for a public performance of the song.

Re:Upon learning of this

[CRCulver]

BMI et al. would prosecute public performances, not the RIAA.

Re:Upon learning of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, this is Slashdot - stop being knowledgeable.

Re:Upon learning of this

[joe_adk]

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.

Re:Upon learning of this

[shark72]

"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."

BMI is a performance rights society. Like ASCAP, they are run by and for songwriters, composers, and publishers. They are not a record company, and were not "behind" the RIAA suit by any stretch. Thus, the GP's joke about BMI going after her for singing "Ding, Dong...": if you want to perform a songwriter's work, you pay the songwriter by licensing it through BMI/ASCAP; you don't pay the record company.

BMI/ASCAP and the RIAA look after different people. BMI/ASCAP represent the artists; the RIAA represents the record companies.

Nota bene that BMI/ASCAP are normally the "good guys" while the record labels are the "bad guys." But, this changes whenever people get wind of BMI/ASCAP shaking down a bar or restaurant owner who neglects to buy a performance license. It seems that we're okay with artists having rights; we just don't want artists to exercise those rights.

With hope

[RobertM1968]

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...

Woohoo!

[priestx]

i had a dream that the RIAA busted into the shower cause i was singing too loud

Hey.

[ScrewMaster]

Where's the NewYorkCountryLawyer when you need him.

Re:Hey.

[daeg]

If he's a lawyer, just put a $100 bill, a bottle of good scotch, and some crocodile tears and he'll come a' runnin'.

Just kidding, he's good people. You can catch plenty of ambulance chasers that way, though.

Re:Hey.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm right here.

The signifigance of this case is overblown.

[bhuga]

While this case is important, it has little to do with a standard RIAA case. She's probably going to get attorney's fees not because of the merits of her case in particular, but because the RIAA did not drop the lawsuit against her after it was made rather clear that her children were the more likely culprits, which the judge considered harassment (my words; read the motions/rulings). The motions for attorney's fees are quite clear on this.

That being said, there are some significantly more important cases going on for the likes of the everyday file sharer. In particular, Ray Beckerman finally managed to depose the RIAA's expert witness in UMG vs Lindor, and, while not absolutely crushing him, showed him to be a very poor witness on which to build an airtight case. The outcome of that case could have a huge impact on how these cases are done in the future. A disastrous result for UMG might well discourage further lawsuits. Before you get excited, though, that case is months from being solved.

In addition, there are some other cases going in which the defendants might get fees on their own merits, but they need some time to resolve. It's amazing, but these cases are the first ones that might actually go to a trial.

Beckerman's blog, which is great reading for those interested in this stuff, is http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Bhuga

Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown.

[RyanFenton]

Well, the danger for the RIAA is that this sets precedents not that stop them from pursuing their current path, but that it makes that path more statistically more expensive to follow. If they can expect to be successfully counter sued a given (even small)percentage of the time based on blind accusations, not only does that make their strategy more expensive in all likelyhood, it also spreads less fear.

It's like a despot who makes money by demanding it of his neighbors, otherwise he sends his slaves off to explode in their town centers. If his neighbors learn that it is possible to identify and send these slaves back home before they explode in some cases (but not always), then this despot's income and power mechanisms are potentially at risk. His neighbors may in fact be able to join together at this point and find more ways of stopping him. That, and the rich nobles (Sir Sony, Sir BMG, et al) who finance this horrible dictator may finally realize the problems of spending so much money on propping up such a horrible dictator just to maintain the value of their positions, as their own bombs start to blow up in their own faces.

Ryan Fenton

Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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

Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This will be cited by defendant's lawyers as yet another example of the RIAA pursuing a case it knew to be frivolous, and then withdrawing it before having to go to trial. I am not aware of a single case they have taken to trial.

A Stillborn Meme...

[mutube]

Patti Santangelo v. RIAA May Be Over ...in Space.

My work here is done.

It's copying. It's not theft.

[zymano]

The Riaa makes the rules so they set the standards.

How would you like it if you weren't allowed to take photographs or pay HUGE fines?

How about going to the library and copying a magazine artice with the xerox?

The Riaa still has the original copies.

I know I will lose this one with all the software people on slash.

But it's NOT theft in any conventional meaning and saying so is lying. Pure spin by the Riaa and software copyright holders.

That word doesn't mean what ...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=20 18&bold=stipulation||

A stipulation is an agreement between both sets of lawyers. The case is over except the part where the judge makes the RIAA pay all the legal fees.

Re:This really means nothing

[terrymr]

A stipulated motion to dismiss is one that both parties sign - it means the end of the case. If what was filed was a regular motion to dismiss that is a different matter.

Re:It's copying. It's not theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not theft, and there is a legal precedence that backs this up. Stop spouting idiotic bullshit.

United States Copyright Law:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501

 

[...]
  506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
[...]

Further, In Dowling v. United States (1985), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that copyright infringement does not "easily equate" to theft and unauthorized copies are not stolen property. Copyright infringement is not a property crime; in fact, copyright infringement is only rarely handled as a criminal matter.

Perhaps copying a single CD or DVD from a friend for personal use is immoral (debateable), but it's certainly not criminal. Equating it to stealing will not hold up in a court of law.

Re:This really means nothing

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The article says it was a stipulation to dismiss, not a motion to dismiss. If it was a stipulation to dismiss, the judge will sign it and the case against Patti Santangelo will be closed.

RIAA safe artist list

[Anonymous Coward]

The american music industry has terrorized and pirated artist's creativity/music for long enough. Cut off their funding :

http://www.riaaradar.com/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.a sp

Re:So, it is shameful, after all...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point attention to the words I emphasized above... Clear hear name of what? Is it, after all, a shameful act to infringe on somebody else's copyrights and to treat their creation in a way, they did not want it to be treated?

Huh? What has "shamefulness" got to do with it? She was being sued. The court looks set to clear her of having committed a tort. That's a big deal to most people.

Her children, very likely, have done it

Wow. I'll be judge, I'll be jury said cunning old Mi. Where the hell did you get this from? Did she "very likely do it" until she had a chance to make her case?

Re:So, it is shameful, after all...

[nevali]

It was very obvious from very early on that she hadn't infringed any of the copyrights they were talking about, and their 'expert' witness was the final nail in the coffin that was their case.

So, to answer your question, 'clear her name of being wrongfully accused of mass copyright infringement', which is a perfectly reasonable and proper thing for her to do.

The sympathy for the kids is largely based on the fact that the RIAA don't and haven't ever cared whether somebody is guilty of what they've been accused of. Pretty much everybody has downloaded /some/ music at one point in time, and the less savvy out there would likely get quite panicked about a legal-type letter from the RIAA offering them an (expensive) get-out. The RIAA casts the net wide with little regard to consequence and bargains on people rolling over and paying up, irrespective of what they should be. The RIAA _would_ get some sympathy if:

* They acted reasonably and properly
* They acted on behalf of the artists who got suckered into the retarded contracts they signed instead of the record companies themselves

The recording industry as it stands, with the aid of the RIAA, stinks to high heaven. Being sick to death of the RIAA's motives and methods, not to mention the wider industry's, the average Slashdotter's response is a simple 'Fuck'em'. They might win a civil suit, proving that somebody somewhere has infringed their copyrights, but they haven't yet--instead they rely on people not having the time, energy and money to fight them, which just makes a mockery of the legal processes put in place to protect the rights of those they claim to be representing.

(You'd find the same with SCO versus the world: even if SCO were by some miracle correct about any aspect of their case, no Slashdot reader would likely stand behind them because their tactics are so thoroughly lame).

Re:The fines

[McFadden]

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.

Re:It's copying. It's not theft.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's close enough to theft for practical purposes.

Well, aren't you just the lawyerly one -- "close enough for practical purposes", shit. Listen up, asshole, this is law, not woodshop.

Theft and copyright infringement are two distinct offenses. Only one is written in the charges. Which one do you think that would be?

If I slap you in the face (get your ass over here!!!), no one is going to go into court charging me wth attempted murder -- the charge will read "battery", no matter how loud you bleat to the contrary.

Grow fucking up and quit drinking the **AA Kool-Aid (tm).

Re:A question for any lawyers out there...

[cpt kangarooski]

No, not really. If you actually look at the etymology of the word 'pirate,' you'll find that authors have been using it in this context for at least a century before copyright law even existed, which was back in the golden age of the 'arr matey' sort of pirates. If they had had to coin an equivalent word today, with the same emotional impact, it would probably be 'terrorists.'

Since they've been doing it for about 400 years, there's little chance of getting anywhere with complaints now.

Re:It's copying. It's not theft.

[Mr2001]

When people make the "copyright enforcement is theft" argument they are not stating that it is theft from the torrent seeder, but the holder of the copyright. It still isn't theft, because no one, not the seeder nor the copyright holder, is deprived of the thing that you download. After you download a song, everyone involved still has everything they did before you downloaded it.

You're not analogous to the copyright holder; the car manufacturer is. When the day comes that people can BT each other's cars, the auto industry will be right properly fucked. Not really, they'll just have to change their business model from manufacturing to providing a service - just like musicians are going to have to do.

Re:It's copying. It's not theft.

[packeteer]

Anyone who has a basic understanding of logic and the english language can understand that copyright infringement and theft are 2 similar but different things. Obviously the original owner is not deprived of anything with the infringement but that is over simplifying it. Ecomonists would refer to the opportunity cost of infringement. Unrealized income is almost the same and having income stolen but once again, there is an important but slight difference.

The main reason that "infringement is the same as theft" arguement does not hold up very well is becuase you can't prove that there was an opportunity cost for the copyright holder. It is quite possible that the person who recieved the illegal copy was going to pay and now is not, but that is not always the case. Becuase it is very easy to acquire a lot of music for free many people's consumption of music goes up. People who might have owned only a dozen albums in the past may now own a few more. These people probably wouldn't have payed for the music or tried to get it unless it was free.

The RIAA is pushing too hard to convince people that every copied song is the same as theft, and the downloaders are trying to argue that every downloaded song probably wasn't money for them anyway. The truth is somewhere in the middle and sadly both sides end up wrong when they claim these extreme scenarios are 100% true.

Re:It's copying. It's not theft.

[Mr2001]

Unrealized income is almost the same and having income stolen but once again, there is an important but slight difference. [...] The RIAA is pushing too hard to convince people that every copied song is the same as theft, and the downloaders are trying to argue that every downloaded song probably wasn't money for them anyway. Not necessarily. In order for this to work as an argument against copying, you have to start with the premise that it's inherently wrong to prevent sales. But in fact, there are several other ways that potential future income can become "unrealized", and they aren't considered a problem.

For example, if you're a respected reviewer and you write a negative review of an album, it probably won't sell as many copies as if you had written a positive review. If your review influences 1000 people not to buy the album, that has exactly the same effect on sales as if you had shared the album online and 1000 people ended up getting it for free instead of buying it... in fact, it might have a worse effect, because in the latter case, all those people will still hear the album, and some might go on to buy a different one, a shirt, or a concert ticket.

So under the "opportunity cost" argument--I'm not sure if that term is being used correctly, but I'll go along with it--shouldn't reviewers be held responsible for everyone who fails to buy an album after reading their reviews?