Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music News

RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo 190

Posted by Zonk from the christmas-presents dept.
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"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo More

RIAA Drops Suit Against Santangelo

Comments Filter:

  • Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vengeance_au ( 318990 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:20PM (#17330792) Journal
    Now that she's off, the kida are a cinch - she just has to sit them down and have a stern talking-to [slashdot.org].

    I mean, thats the new industry standard, isn't it?

    • Re:Now that she's off, the kids are a cinch (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CthulhuDreamer ( 844223 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @07:07PM (#17331332)
      And Bronfman would be the first person I would call in to give testimony in a jury trial. He had evidence that his kids were pirating music, yet he failed to have the RIAA take them trial. I'm sure the jury would love to hear why his kids went free over something he's suing other kids for.
      • Indeed. Its a shame the moderation on my initial comment is "funny" rather than "insightful"..... but based on this reality (rather than an alternate, nicer reality), I was going for funny.

  • I'll ask it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoundGuyNoise ( 864550 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:20PM (#17330796) Homepage
    Won't somebody think about the children?!?!?

    Seriously, who will think of them? If they are the parent's responsibility, and the charges against the parent are dismissed, what will protect them against the blood-thirsty lawyers?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by macdaddy357 ( 582412 )
      Ripping off children has been the recording industry's MO from day one. That is why teen pop is such noise. They will stop listening to such junk when they grow up, so rob them now!

  • Dismissed vs. Dropped (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Akardam ( 186995 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:20PM (#17330798)
    IANAL, and therefore I may be showing my naievity, but I was under the impression that only a judge could dismiss a case, but that the plaintiff could drop the case. Makes it sound like the RIAA was playing judge and jury... though of course that might not be far from the truth...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by denebian devil ( 944045 )
      "Dropping" a case is not a legal term. Plaintiffs can agree to dismiss a defendant, dismiss or discontinue an entire case, etc. It's their case, they instituted it, and they can end it.
      • > It's their case, they instituted it, and they can end it.

        Only the judge can end it. It's easier to get into court than to get out.


      • denebian devil said "It's their case, they instituted it, and they can end it."

        Please stop making misleading statements. Once an answer has been served, it is no longer up to the plaintiff whether it can drop the case, and it is no longer up to the plaintiff whether any dismissal is "without prejudice" or "with prejudice". Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and (2).

        Please stop spreading misinformation.

    • Re:Dismissed vs. Dropped (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <{ray} {at} {beckermanlegal.com}> on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:58PM (#17331238) Homepage Journal
      You are exactly right. The author and Slashdot are incorrect. Only the court can dismiss.

      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.
  • IANAL, so is it possible for the RIAA to continue the suit against the kids, get some sort of settlement, and then re-sue the mom for the same thing? Or what about jumping back and forth between suing the mom, dismissing the case without prejudice, suing the kids, dismissing that case without prejudice and starting the sequence all over again?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GodInHell ( 258915 ) *

      IANAL, so is it possible for the RIAA to continue the suit against the kids, get some sort of settlement, and then re-sue the mom for the same thing? Or what about jumping back and forth between suing the mom, dismissing the case without prejudice, suing the kids, dismissing that case without prejudice and starting the sequence all over again?

      While I'm not certain (law student, limited experience) I believe your answer is: Yes they could do that - and the court would eventually get pissed, dismiss with prejudice, and it would be dead.

      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

  • FightGoliath (Score:5, Informative)

    by VE3OGG ( 1034632 ) <`VE3OGG' `at' `rac.ca'> on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:26PM (#17330876)
    As the submitter, I would also like to point out that FightGoliath [p2pnet.net] is the legal defense fund for Patti Santangelo, and appears to still be taking donations.

  • kazoo? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bananaendian ( 928499 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:26PM (#17330878) Homepage Journal
    well I did't know what kazoo [wikipedia.org] was either.

  • Article Text (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:28PM (#17330902) Homepage Journal

    Music industry backs off in piracy suit against NY mom
    Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 8:36 AM ET
    The Associated Press
     
    The recording industry is giving up its lawsuit against Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of five who became the best-known defendant in the industry's battle against online music piracy.
     
    However, two of her children are still being sued.
     
    Patti Santangelo was an 'internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo.'-Judge Colleen McMahon
     
    The five companies suing Santangelo, of Wappingers Falls, filed a motion Tuesday in U.S. federal court in White Plains asking Judge Colleen McMahon to dismiss the case. Their lead counsel, Richard Gabriel, wrote in court papers that the record companies still believe they could win damages against Santangelo but their preference was to "pursue [the] defendant's children."
     
    Santangelo's lawyer, Jordan Glass, said the dismissal bid "shows defendants can stand up to powerful plaintiffs." He noted, however, that the companies were seeking a dismissal "without prejudice," meaning they could bring the action again, "so I'm not sure what that's worth."
     
    The companies, co-ordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America, have sued more than 18,000 people, including many minors, accusing them of pirating music through file-sharing computer networks, most of which have been forced out of business. Typically, the industry tracked downloads to a computer address and learned the name of the computer owner from the internet service provider.
     
    When Santangelo, 42, was sued last year, she said she had never downloaded music and was unaware of her children doing it. If children download, she said, file-sharing programs like Kazaa should be blamed, not the parents. The judge called her an "internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo."
     
    Santangelo refused to settle with the record companies, pleaded her case in newspapers and on national TV and became a heroine to defenders of internet freedom, who helped raise money for her defence.
     
    Last month, the record companies filed lawsuits against Santangelo's 20-year-old daughter, Michelle, and 16-year-old son, Robert, saying they had downloaded and distributed more than 1,000 recordings.
     
    The companies said that the daughter had acknowledged downloading songs on the family computer -- which Glass denied -- and that the son had been implicated in statements from his best friend.
     
    The suit against the children seeks unspecified damages.
    The Canadian Press, 2006

    • Re:Article Text (Score:5, Funny)

      by arniebuteft ( 1032530 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .tfetub.> on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:45PM (#17331088)
      ...and that the son had been implicated in statements from his best friend

      f*cking snitches... "I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

    • She'd better get attorney's fees, etc., or the system is seriously broken.

      No plaintiff be allowed to simply drop a case with no penalty.

    • When Santangelo, 42, was sued last year, she said she had never downloaded music and was unaware of her children doing it. If children download, she said, file-sharing programs like Kazaa should be blamed, not the parents. The judge called her an "internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo."

      Now that's good parenting for you. Let the kids lose on the Internet and expect the Internet to police their behaviour. Presumably if her kids steal a car, she'll be blaming Amazon for selling her the copy of GTA that she gave the kids for Christmas.

      I find it bizarre that parents would allow their children on to the Internet without educating themselves sufficiently enough to police their behaviour. It's not like there's a shortage of books or scare stories to inspire them.

  • Without forethought (Score:3, Informative)

    by milo_a_wagner ( 1002274 ) <milo@yiannopoulos.net> on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:30PM (#17330916) Homepage
    The RIAA cannot dismiss a case, with or without prejudice. The court does that.

  • Not that different. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:33PM (#17330950) Homepage
    The mob also gave reprieves to families to show the public they were not cold hearted killers.

    None of the behavior of the RIAA is any different from Organized crime.

    • The mob also gave reprieves to families to show the public they were not cold hearted killers.
      I don't think the mob considered/s it a mercy to leave the mom but kill the kids. Quite the opposite really.

      -GiH

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      WTF is wrong with you people? +5 Interesting? The Mob fucking murders people.

      Maybe, just MAYBE, it is a little different?

      • RIAA is worse than mob, because protected by law (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21, 2006 @07:49PM (#17331784)
        The Mob fucking murders people.

        Maybe, just MAYBE, it is a little different?

        It's not hugely different at all.

        The mob first tries to suck you dry if you made the mistake of crossing their business path, and then if that's not enough they kill you to preserve the atmosphere of fright. They have no qualms at all what effect their actions have on people and their families, as long as it preserves that fright.

        The RIAA is devoted entirely to sucking people dry, and they have no compunction whatsoever what that does to people's livelihoods or families or reputations. They do so even when you haven't crossed their business path, because they invent a totally fictitious one of their own: the ridiculous and totally non-existent "loss" that they claim to incur when people share music.

        The RIAA don't kill, but they might as well do so. After your life and reputation and credit rating is shattered in court and your livelihood is demolished by utterly incredible invented damages and lawyer fees, there's very little left worth living for, you're a total wreck. Yet, what did you do to deserve this? You did a GOOD thing, you shared what you enjoy with others. And for that the RIAA mobsters destroyed your life.

        And as for your point about not killing ... the RIAA don't need to kill, because the necessary fright is created by the law that they helped create: if you don't comply, men with guns will turn up at your doorstep. That's actually a lot more frightening than the mob, since the mob isn't protected by the law and you could seek protection. You can't seek protection against the RIAA and their minions.

        So, don't come to us with crap about the RIAA being nice people. They're utter scum, like their paymasters. If those lawyers had a shred of professional decency, they'd tell the studios to get stuffed and hire some hitmen to do their dirty work instead.
        • Mod parent up! I wish I had mod points left...

        • Bullshit, man. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Skadet ( 528657 ) on Friday December 22, 2006 @05:59AM (#17335248) Homepage
          What a lame argument you're making. It's no different from, and as valid as, this one:
          "Man, I just got laid off, despite my fantastic track record and measurable performance. You know why?

          "My old company is devoted entirely to sucking people dry, and they have no compunction whatsoever what that does to people's livelihoods or families or reputations. They do so even when you haven't crossed their business path, because they invent a totally fictitious one of their own: the ridiculous and totally non-existent "loss" that they claim to incur when people don't do the things they would do in the company's perfect world.

          "My old company doesn't kill, but they might as well do so. After my life and reputation and credit rating are shattered in court and my livelihood is demolished by utterly incredible invented damages and lawyer fees, there's very little left worth living for, I'm a total wreck. Yet, what did I do to deserve this? I did a GOOD thing, I worked hard. And for that the company mobsters destroyed my life.
          Phrased that way, it doesn't sound so noble, does it? It sounds like the life of an everyday Joe. The RIAA isn't bad in some special way. They're bad the way all large, privately funded, unchecked business are: they don't give two shits about anything except themselves, right now.

          I'm not passing judgment that it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing". It is what it is, and it generally seems to work. I'm just pointing out the the RIAA isn't some dear-god-who-could-have-seen-the-serpent-coming sort of organization. This is an agency we all built together, the unavoidable product of our economy. If I remember correctly, Eli Whitney either broke even or *lost* money on the cotton gin because farmers stole his intellectual property (plans to make a cotton gin) and refused to buy Whitney's gin. In fact, the arguments were nearly the same as they are about file sharing: Whitney's gin damages the cotton! (purchased music comes with DRM!). It's cheaper to make my own! (It's cheaper to download my own!). Could you really tell me that if Whitney had an agency like the RIAA for farm equipment, he wouldn't have enlisted their services?

          • You agree then: the RIAA evil exists (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Your point seems to be that it's common for businesses to be evil, so we shouldn't think of the RIAA as being particularly bad, as they just reflect the common evil.

            Well sorry, but not everyone is in terminal moral shutdown like you are. Some of us actually care when evildoers driven by pure greed seek to destroy the lives of millions. If nobody did anything to combat bad things just because "they're a product of our community" then the world would rapidly spiral downwards into universal evil.

            There are ma
        • And as for your point about not killing ... the RIAA don't need to kill, because the necessary fright is created by the law that they helped create: if you don't comply, men with guns will turn up at your doorstep. That's actually a lot more frightening than the mob, since the mob isn't protected by the law and you could seek protection. You can't seek protection against the RIAA and their minions.

          Actually, you can get away from the RIAA. Two possibilities come to mind:
          - 95% of the people in this world

        • You did a GOOD thing, you shared what you enjoy with others.

          Damn right.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fotbr ( 855184 )
            Maybe.

            Then again, the RIAA has a history of going after people who haven't actually shared anything.

            So there's no guarantee the target of their litigation has actually done ANYTHING, much less the "good thing" of sharing.
      • Boss Tweed's first order of business to protestors was a hefty increase in tax duties.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )
      None of the behavior of the RIAA is any different from Organized crime.

      Except that the RIAA doesn't kill anyone, which is actually kind of a big difference.

  • Wasting judicial resources (Score:4, Interesting)

    by baffled ( 1034554 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:35PM (#17330980)
    There should be a law against entities wasting the time and resources of the courts, such as this persistent RIAA filing suits against people before they even bother to gather the facts. This is a waste of the taxpayers' public institutions and personnel.

    • Re:Wasting judicial resources (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mojodamm ( 1021501 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:56PM (#17331208)
      I thought there was... From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civi l_Procedure [wikipedia.org] "Rule 11 requires all papers to be signed by the attorney. It also provides for sanctions against the attorney or client for harassment, frivolous arguments, or a lack of factual investigation. The purpose of sanctions is deterrent, not punitive. Courts have broad discretion about the exact nature of the sanction which can include: consent to in personam jurisdiction, fines, dismissal of claims, or dismissal of the entire case. The current version of Rule 11 is much more lenient than its 1980s version. Supporters of tort reform in Congress regularly call for legislation to make Rule 11 stricter."
      • Who do you think Rule 11 is going to help: the high-powered RIAA attorneys paid $600/hr or the podunk attorney (no offense) that the average mom can afford?

  • Kids aren't out of it yet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mandelbr0t ( 1015855 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:36PM (#17330994) Journal
    It's interesting that the RIAA made two cases here. The kids appear to be in some serious trouble. Of course, 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. Apparently the original defense was to convince a judge of the mother's illeteracy and blame everything on her inability to know what was going on. The 20-year-old daughter is certainly old enough to be sued on her own (kinda surprised about the 16-year-old son, though).

    I really would hate to see something happen to the children. They're just another one of the RIAA's "making an example" cases, and it's really not a good example. This sort of legal bullying simply polarizes people into the submissive "Please don't sue me, I'll do anything you want" group, and those that are willing to escalate their grey-area file sharing into actual criminal activity.

    Why can't they make an example of one of the "real problems"? You know, the pirates that are making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. I'd like to see those rich criminals go to jail too, and I'd bet that most people on P2P networks would too.
    IMO, winning a high-profile case like that would be a terrific example to casual users as well. It'd be like putting drug dealers in jail instead of drug users. You still send the same message "Drugs are bad", but the person who gets punished actually contributes significantly to the problems caused by drugs.

    Oh wait. There are no pirates making hundreds of millions of dollars off pirated music and movies. That must be because there are legitimate people making hundreds of millions of dollars off legitimate music and movies. To me, the "real problem" is clearly stated in the last two sentences. Persecute criminals, not their victims or groupies.

    mandelbr0t

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      Uh, in case you didn't know, the RIAA is also going after AllofMP3 and other "piracy" rings, alongside dead people, unconnected grandmothers, illiterate mothers, and little children.

      So they happen to be equal opportunity litgants.
      • AllofMP3 isn't a "piracy ring" per se. They just happen to be abusing a 'loophole' in Russian law & the Russians have finally gotten around to doing something about it.

        The RIAA <i>knows</i> their product isn't worth what it sells for at retail, ditto for the MPAA. Otherwise, why would they & their ilk be lowering prices in countries where piracy is rampant?

        The reasoning goes "hey, if we lower prices, maybe we'll make it up with volume." Now normally, that's the punchline to a joke, but w
    • So it's like this. Suppose there are some kids, from your neighborhood. They're always on your damn lawn. No one of them is doing anything significantly malicious, but taken as a whole, they're starting to wear a path and beat it down. Unfortunately, the only thing you own is a tank. No, you don't have a house, you just live in the tank, parked on the lawn. Now, as it stands, you've got two choices: Let the kids trample the lawn to a muddy mess, or shoot them, with the tank. Unfortunately, every time you ex

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cdrguru ( 88047 )
        You also need to allow the RIAA and others to combat "crimes" of a lessor magnitude before they are faced with an adult that belives nothing can touch them so it is OK to hack into web sites and deface them. Or to redistribute movies and music in bulk.

        What has instead happened is the RIAA cannot contact the mother and say "Your kid is getting out of control with this file sharing stuff." without bringing a lawsuit. The threshold for filing the lawsuit is high enough that they need lots and lots of evidenc

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by FLEB ( 312391 )
          True. It is prohibitively expensive to bring proof, and that cost has to be passed on to the sued, while people who aren't worth it are having no problems at all. It's too bad nobody came to a "piano roll" decision and made some manner of compulsory licensing scheme. It would take freedom away from creators, but it would probably "sane down" the system to some extent.
      • Litigation costs make it unlikely that RIAA would move down to any scheme that resulted in smaller payouts. They'd go broke suing.

        -GiH

    • 1997 NET Act (Score:2, Informative)

      by MacDork ( 560499 )

      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.

  • Generation Blues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:45PM (#17331098) Homepage Journal
    This whole thing is stupid six ways from Sunday. Of course the mother is responsible for her children's lawbreaking behavior, even if she doesn't know how they do it, or how the law works. If she didn't know "glock from Spock", would she not be responsible if her kids smuggled plastic guns onto a transatlantic flight?

    But they didn't smuggle guns. Maybe they did redistribute some files. In which case they might be liable for negligible damages. And the stupid copyright law should be changed, even if just for the survival of a music biz that obviously can't figure out how to make money from the "remix culture" that is where all the cool kids are. All the RIAA knows how to do is rip off musicians and resell the same crapola in new crapola-wrap, protected by politicians they bribe.

    Will the legacy of the RIAA finally be to not only kill Rock & Roll, but to put actual chains on kids by making their parents totally irresponsible?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by belgar ( 254293 )
      Sorry Doc, but I submit that you're incorrect (IANAL, btw). Parents are not automatically liable for the actions of their children -- the reasonable test applies under tort or contract law. If the parent made a reasonable effort to supervise their activities or actions. In this case, I'd suggest that, given her inexperience with computers, it could be easily explained as her reasonably assuming that their actions were not a breach of copyright. And, the case of plastic guns on a transatlantic flight is comp

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cdrguru ( 88047 )
        I would offer that the Internet account holder is responsible for the traffic on that account, period.

        If the IP address assigned at a particular date and time is to a particular account holder, then whatever happens during that session is the responsibility of the account holder. How else would you have it? Would it seem reasonable to just say "Oh, I didn't do it, must have been one of the kids." and that is the end of the matter?

        Of course, the Internet has been known as a consequences-free zone for a lon

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by theckhd ( 953212 )
          Ah, but what happens when a wardriver breaks into your (secured, unsecured, whatever) wireless LAN and bittorrents up a storm. Or decides to try and hack into a secure government database? Should it be the account holder's responsibility if the actions were unknown to and/or unapproved by the account holder?

      • I'm not talking about law. IANAL, and I'm not even a parent. It's clear to me that parents are responsible for their kids actions, until those kids are responsible for them themselves. That's mainly about 16-18, depending on the kind of action and the individual kid. The law might have to err on the side of caution in making a single age standard for everyone, or switch to some kind of analytical test (though testing for copyright responsibility seems totally impractical).

        Someone is responsible for every ac

  • Despicable Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tavor ( 845700 ) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @06:57PM (#17331212)
    Essentially, what the RIAA has done, is to drain the target of resources before going in for the kill. With how they have drained Patty's coffers fighting her, she is now broke while they go after her kids. This is similar to how some viruses attack the human body.

    Anyone have a truckload of coal to spare? I know someone who needs it wrapped, individually, and dumped on their front door.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 )
      Anyone have a truckload of coal to spare? I know someone who needs it wrapped, individually, and dumped on their front door.

      Why not just throw it through their window...aiming for their tree of course. If any glass happens to get in the way, well, nobody is perfect. And if you happen to be throwing red hot coals well, tis the Season!

  • Are they essentially judgement proof anyway?

    Does it somehow flow up to the parent anyway (even tho she had no control or knowledge?

    Say Riaa wins $50,000 from each of the boys. What's the likely outcome?

    I ask because I was hit by a broke hispanic guy from behind- got a $25,000 judgement and never saw a dime of it. He had so few assets that there was nothing to collect the judgement on (tho he probably earned 30 to 40k per year.
  • The RIAA alleges that Santangelo's children downloaded and subsequently distributed more than 1,000 songs. The damages they seek are presently unknown"

    ...the minimum they'd get is $750*1000+ = $750,000+. Bankrupcy court next up.
  • The article contains a link to an old Slashdot article which has an incorrect link to the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's appearance before Judge McMahon. Here's the correct link to the transcript: http://info.riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/tra nscript050506.txt [riaalawsuits.us]

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This part makes me giggle:

      THE COURT:...So let's set another conference date for July 8th at,
      say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then.
      And if you get an attorney, you need to put the attorney in
      touch with Mr. Maschio, and maybe you will get this thing
      resolved.
      MS. SANTANGELO: Mr. Maschio's --
      THE COURT: He will give you his business card.
      MS. SANTANGELO: There is more than one group here.
      MR. MASCHIO: I'll give her my card, b

  • Hmmph on the RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Divebus ( 860563 )

    If the RIAA actually represented ARTISTS instead of their own 600 pound gorilla bureaucracy, I'd side with the RIAA over a lot of this music stealing. Unfortunately, the RIAA is a Trade Association (translation: lobbiest group) with "record labels" as supporting members and the "record labels" use ARTISTS as slave labor. Being enslaved is only profitable for relatively few artists because most of them get a monthly statement from the "record label" showing they owe money. Not a single ounce (dollar) of of w

  • RIAA isn't dropping the case (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) * on Thursday December 21, 2006 @07:39PM (#17331668) Homepage

    The article's incorrect. The RIAA isn't dropping the case. They can't, the defendant's already answered their complaint and once defendant's incurred costs plaintiff can't just wash their hands of the case. What they're doing is asking the judge to dismiss their case without prejudice (ie. they can refile the same case in the future). Given the judge's comments to this point I suspect he's going to be disinclined to do that, he'll give them a choice of having it dismissed with prejudice (can't refile) or not dismissing it at all.

  • > ...the RIAA has also dismissed the case 'without prejudice...

    They have done no such thing. They have submitted a motion _requesting_ that the _judge_ dismiss their claims without prejudice. The defense will reply, undoubtedly asking that the claims be dismissed _with_ prejudice (meaning that they can never be filed again) and probably also that the RIAA be ordered to pay the legal expenses of the defense.
  • This is the same RIAA that just filed a suit to try to nullify a 1981 contract that gives the songwriters a substantial percentage of the income from their songs. Apparently they feel that with all the additional money coming in from things like ring tones and such, the artists who actually create the content are making too much money and the RIAA's corporate members don't get to keep enough.
  • Welcome to the land of freedom and opportunity, where might is right, where truth and fairness are something you can buy, if you are rich enough, and where opportunity means that you have a right to take and keep whatever catches your fancy, as long as you can pay enough for your lawyer.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close