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."

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/ [blogspot.com]

Bhuga

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That word doesn't mean what ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

[jabuzz]

No it's copyright infringement not theft. That requires an intention to "permanently deprive", which given that the copyright holder still holds the copyright (the "property" that is owned) when an unauthorized copy is made, has not happened. The law in the U.K. is quite clear on the subject and I suspect that it will be in most other jurisdictions. Copyright infringement is not legally theft so don't refer to is as being so.

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 [copyright.gov]

 

[...]
  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.

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.

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 [riaaradar.com]

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.