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."

17 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Upon learning of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Upon learning of this by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    2. Re:Upon learning of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, this is Slashdot - stop being knowledgeable.

    3. 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.

  2. 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!
  3. Woohoo! by priestx · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    "To be is to do." -Socrates
    "To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
    "Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
  4. The signifigance of this case is overblown. by bhuga · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. 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
    2. Re:The signifigance of this case is overblown. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  5. A Stillborn Meme... by mutube · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    My work here is done.

    --
    Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
  6. That word doesn't mean what ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:This really means nothing by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  8. RIAA safe artist list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  9. 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.
  10. Re:Hey. by daeg · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  11. Re:Hey. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm right here.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  12. Re:A question for any lawyers out there... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.