|
''Elektra v. Santangelo'' (2005) was a case filed by Elektra Entertainment Group against Patricia Santangelo, a mother of five. In the suit it was alleged that she illegally shared six songs over KaZaA file-sharing network. The suit was eventually dismissed in 2007 with prejudice by a federal judge. The RIAA later sued two of Ms. Santangelo's children. A default judgment was entered against one of them, Michelle Santangelo. Ms. Santangelo's 16-year-old son Robert Santangelo has interposed counterclaims against the plaintiffs, including "failure to warn". ==Background== The suit against Patricia Santangelo was filed by Elektra Entertainment Group as one of approximately 13,000 lawsuits that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has brought against individual defendants in the U.S before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It alleged that Patricia (Patti) Santangelo, a single mother of five based in Wappingers Falls, New York, infringed the copyright of several companies by sharing six songs on the KaZaA file-sharing network. Elektra offered to settle the case for $7,500, but Mrs. Santangelo rejected the offer. She says that she didn't realize that her computer contained KaZaA software, and that the KaZaA account name listed in the suit had never been used by anyone in her family; the name was said to be "similar" to the screen name of a teenage friend of one of her children.〔http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/NEWS02/512230330/1018〕 One frequently cited criticism of the RIAA's lawsuits is that they use an assembly line approach to lawsuits, trying to get the same result in every case no matter the evidence, trying to carry out the lawsuits and settlements in the most efficient way, and acting as if lawsuits are a standard part of business. This case is somewhat notable because the judge, the Honorable Colleen McMahon,〔http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799〕 appears to agree with some of those criticisms in a dialog with Mike Maschio, an RIAA attorney: :THE COURT: "Well, I think it would be a really good idea for you to get a lawyer, because I would love to see a mom fighting one of these." :MR. MASCHIO: "I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions." :THE COURT: "I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you." :MR. MASCHIO: "No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this—and this is just to facilitate things—is to deal directly with the conference center." :THE COURT: "Not once you've filed an action in my court. ... You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything. ... You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. ... And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits." Mrs. Santangelo originally appeared in court without a lawyer. She was later represented by Ray Beckerman of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP.〔(Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, Entertainment | Civil Rights | Criminal Defense Attorneys )〕 For a brief period she appeared pro se again, and since then has been represented by Jordan Glass of Valhalla, New York. Her former lawyer Beckerman commented "I'm sure she's going to win. I don't see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything."〔(iWon )〕 During the proceedings for their Motion to Dismiss, after the oral argument of the motion, the RIAA's lawyers asked for a second oral argument. According to Ray Beckerman this was unusual:〔(RIAA in Santangelo Case: Umm...Can We Do Over?. Copyfight: the politics of IP )〕 :"I would say that asking for a second oral argument is unusual, because (a) in almost 31 years of working in litigation I’ve never heard of anyone doing it, and (b) the very asking for it is an admission that the first oral argument was lost." p2pnet.net, whose readers raised a total of more than $15,000 to help Mrs Santangelo with her legal expenses, ran an interview with her in 2005.〔("RIAA victim talks to p2pnet", p2pnet.net )〕 In it, she declared, "Don’t let your fear of these massive companies allow you to deny your belief in your own innocence. Paying these settlements is an admission of guilt. If you’re not guilty of violating the law, don’t pay." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Elektra v. Santangelo」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|