RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo 190
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"
FightGoliath (Score:5, Informative)
Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
Without forethought (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A question... (Score:3, Informative)
What I think it is more likely that they will pursue the claim against her children, and then try to collect from her. Unless she is far more wealthy than she appears, bankruptcy probably follows from that.
-GiH
Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Kids aren't out of it yet (Score:3, Informative)
So they happen to be equal opportunity litgants.
Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped (Score:5, Informative)
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 [riaalawsuits.us], July 13th Order and Decision.
Re:Parents should... (Score:2, Informative)
If your twenty-year-old duaghter borrowed your car and used it as a get away car in a bank heist without your knowledge, should you be held responsible for the robbery? Perhaps my opinions differ from yours but I think the answer is an emphatic 'No'.
Re:The poor children, the poor mother (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52
Appearance before Judge McMahon (Score:4, Informative)
1997 NET Act (Score:2, Informative)
that's only because they have managed to convince some judges that seeding a file (or 1000) via P2P is on the same level as a full-blown for-profit piracy ring.
No, actually that was the 1997 NET Act [cybercrime.gov] which made sharing files with no profit motive a felony criminal offense. The RIAA didn't need to convince a judge, just pay off legislators.
Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped (Score:5, Informative)