Elektra v. Santangelo

Last updated

Elektra v. Santangelo
USDCSDNY.svg
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case nameElektra Entertainment Group Inc., et al v. Patricia Santangelo
DecidedNovember 28, 2005
Docket nos. 7:05-cv-02414
Citation78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1702
Court membership
Judge sitting Colleen McMahon

Elektra v. Santangelo, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1702 (S.D.N.Y. 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".

Contents

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. [1] 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. [2]

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, [3] 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. [4] 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." [5]

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: [6]

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. [7] 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.

RIAA Response

The RIAA contends that illegally shared files were found on a computer with an IP address connected to Ms. Santangelo, and that this is sufficient grounds for continuing to pursue the lawsuit. In a CNN American Morning interview, Miles O'Brien discussed the case with Ms. Santangelo and RIAA President Cary Sherman. [8] The following excerpts from a transcript of the interview summarize the RIAA's position: [9]

... We were disappointed that Ms. Santangelo didn't take advantage of an opportunity to get rid of this case quickly, as most people have when they find that somebody in their household or somebody using their computer was in the wrong.

And we tried to be very fair and reasonable about this and take these matters up on a case-by-case basis. But the important thing is to get the message out there that ... uploading or downloading music without authorization on the Internet is illegal.

[S]omebody has to assume responsibility for what's happening with kids. And I think parents need to have some kind of conversation with their kids about how to use the computer the right way and the wrong way.

[T]he reality is that an overwhelming number of people who have been sued tell us the same story, that they didn't know what was going on, they didn't know it was illegal, and so on and so forth.

In this case, if Ms. Santangelo did not do this, then she should tell us who did, and we would modify the complaint accordingly.

We had one grandfather who had those kids work off the amount that he paid to settle as a way of teaching them a lesson and making this a family event.

Case details

A motion to dismiss has been filed, stating that "the Courts have consistently required specific acts of copying, and the dates and times of those acts", and the complainant isn't providing those. The plaintiff's response[ citation needed ] is that the specific files were listed,[ citation needed ] and that specific times of violations aren't needed, because there is "an ongoing and continuous infringement". This is in conflict with Mrs. Santangelo's statements on the record that the computer's disk has been reformatted because of "a lot of major viruses", and that her ex-husband is now in possession of the computer.[ citation needed ] RIAA then made the unusual request to have a second oral argument session and to submit an additional surreply. [6] The motion to dismiss the case was denied on 28 November 2005. [10]

Then Elektra sought to dismiss the case "without prejudice" but the Court denied the motion, saying that the RIAA could either dismiss the case with prejudice or proceed to trial. On April 9, 2007, a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was entered. Three days later the case was dismissed by a federal judge with prejudice, which means that Santangelo was the prevailing party and therefore eligible to file a motion to recover attorneys' fees. [11]

Elektra proceeded to file suits against Santangelo's son and daughter (Robert and Michelle) based on evidence obtained during the original proceedings. According to legal documents Michelle Santagelo did not respond to this case and a default judgment of $30,750 was approved in favor of Elektra/RIAA.

Robert, however, has not settled. He is also represented by Jordan Glass and is raising 32 defenses including arguments that he didn't send copyrighted files to others, the recording companies originally promoted file sharing, the statute of limitations had passed, and that all of the music on his computer had been owned on CD by his sister. He is counter-suing the record companies for violating antitrust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts, and making extortionate threats. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law.

Kazaa Media Desktop. was a peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

<i>Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster</i>

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Foster, 5:04-cv-01569, is a notable case involving intellectual property and file sharing/distribution of music. The case involves the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filing a lawsuit against an Oklahoma woman, Deborah Foster, in November 2004. Proclaiming her innocence, she fought the allegations and eventually had the charges dismissed with prejudice in July 2006.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Orly Taitz</span> American political conspiracy theorist (born 1960)

Orly Taitz is an Israeli-American political conspiracy theorist and political candidate. A dentist, lawyer, and former real estate agent, Taitz was a figure in the "birther" movement, which promoted the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president of the United States. Taitz also promotes other conspiracy theories both related and unrelated to Obama. Taitz has initiated lawsuits on behalf of the "birther" movement; all were dismissed by the courts, and on one occasion Taitz was ordered to pay $20,000 as a sanction for misconduct in filing frivolous claims. Taitz has unsuccessfully run in statewide elections in California three times.

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) to require that federal courts grant a party leave to amend a pleading absent special circumstances such as bad faith or prejudice to the opposing party. It has been recognized by both other courts and secondary sources as a leading decision on the interpretation of Rule 15(a).

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Numerous lawsuits and ballot challenges, based on conspiracy theories related to Barack Obama's eligibility for the United States presidency, were filed following his first election in 2008 and over the course of his two terms as president. These actions sought to have Obama disqualified from running for, or being confirmed for, the Presidency of the United States, to declare his actions in office to be null and void, or to compel him to release additional documentation related to his U.S. citizenship.

<i>Saleh v. Bush</i>

Saleh v. Bush, 848 F.3d 880, was a class action lawsuit filed in 2013 against high-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration for their alleged involvement in premeditating and carrying out the Iraq War. In December 2014, the district court hearing the case ordered it dismissed with prejudice. The dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill Cosby sexual assault cases</span> Cases surrounding sexual assault allegations against American comedian

In late 2014, multiple allegations emerged that Bill Cosby, an American media personality, had sexually assaulted dozens of women throughout his career. Cosby was well known in the United States for his eccentric image, and gained a reputation as "America's Dad" for his portrayal of Cliff Huxtable on The Cosby Show (1984–1992). He received numerous awards and honorary degrees throughout his career, many of which have since been revoked. There had been previous allegations against Cosby, but they were dismissed and accusers were ignored or disbelieved.

<i>Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA</i> Lawsuit against the U.S. National Security Agency

Wikimedia Foundation, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and several other organizations against the National Security Agency (NSA), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), and other named individuals, alleging mass surveillance of Wikipedia users carried out by the NSA. The suit claims the surveillance system, which NSA calls "Upstream", breaches the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

<i>Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation</i> Civil lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)

Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation, et al. was a civil lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Russian Federation, WikiLeaks and other entities and individuals. The case, relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, was filed on April 20, 2018. The DNC's complaint accused the Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks. The American Civil Liberties Union, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and others filed friend-of-the-court briefs expressing concern over the lawsuit's implications for freedom of the press.

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a case in the United States Supreme Court dealing with matters of jurisdiction of various climate change lawsuits in the United States judicial system.

References

  1. ↑ Gil Kaufman (August 16, 2005). "Single Mother Of Five Takes On RIAA—News Story". MTV News. Archived from the original on January 2, 2006. Retrieved August 3, 2012.
  2. ↑ The Journal News
  3. ↑ "Judges of the United States Courts". Archived from the original on August 27, 2005. Retrieved September 2, 2005.
  4. ↑ "Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP | New York, New York". blhny.
  5. ↑ iWon
  6. 1 2 "RIAA in Santangelo Case: Umm...Can We Do Over?. Copyfight: the politics of IP". Archived from the original on September 12, 2005. Retrieved September 8, 2005.
  7. ↑ ""RIAA victim talks to p2pnet", p2pnet.net". Archived from the original on September 30, 2008. Retrieved August 16, 2008.
  8. ↑ "RIAA v. Computer Illiterate Mother of Five".
  9. ↑ "p2pnet.net - not the lamescream media » Blog Archive » How the RIAA gets its victims". Archived from the original on January 15, 2006. Retrieved January 14, 2006.
  10. ↑ Elektra v. Santangelo, 78U.S.P.Q.2d1702 ( S.D.N.Y. 2005).
  11. ↑ Bangeman, Eric (April 10, 2007). "Defendant prevails in another RIAA file-sharing case". Ars Technica.
  12. ↑ 1010 WINS - On-Air, Online, On Demand - *
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.