p2pnet.net News:- “Assuming your case ends up in court, how far are you willing to go?” - p2pnet asked RIAA victim Patti Santangelo not much more than a year ago.

“I’m willing to take it as far as I have to to prevent other innocent people being dragged into frivolous lawsuits,” she said. “It’s wrong.”

Now she’s prevailed. The RIAA has dropped its case against her. But that doesn’t mean she can relax. Far from it. Because her place has been taken by Michell and Bobby, two of her five children, both of whom are represented by Jordan Glass, the one-man legal office who’s been acting for their mother pro bono.

When Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG first hauled her in front of the world media on spurious charges of illegally distributing copyrighted music online, a judge called her an ”Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo,” says The Associated Press.

RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) VP and counsel Jonathan Whitehead, had exactly the same charge levelled against him when he was presenting ‘evidence’ for the RIAA.

‘Kazaa’ is the p2p file sharing program originally developed by Skype creators Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom and later sold to Australia’s Sharman Networks.

It already has the distinction of being one of, if not the, first applications to introduce spyware to the Net, and now it can also claim to be the first entity to be sued in a class action springing directly from the Big 4’s sue ‘em all marketing campaign.

Santangelo, formerly a dedicated Big 4 customer, may be off the hook, but Michelle and Bobby remain as RIAA targets.

In a p2pnet comment post, Glass mentions the Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath campaign. Money donated there will now go towards disbursements in their case, and there’s a donation button at the bottom of this.

For now, here’s what Glass had to say about Patti’s victory in a comment post:

When I first met Patti she was facing the RIAA and federal court system alone. It appeared to many that common sense dictated it was going to be a straightforward win for her, but the reality proved much different. It was only because of the financial generosity of the p2pnet readers and other Internet community members, who recognized the import of what Patti was endeavoring to accomplish (for herself and all other defendants to follow), that her case has been dismissed (1).

From sites like FightGoliath, p2pnet, boingboing, tightpoker and many others (2), from collected pennies to the anonymous $1,000.00 donation (the largest single donation of which I am aware), from the occasional direct check made payable to Patti for this purpose to the unusual donation (like an anonymously delivered ream of paper) (3), we put together a defense that pressured this result.

Spinners will tell you that the RIAA always prefers to go after ‘the direct infringers,’ that this was an inevitable result. Not so. But you already know that. What you may not know is what happened once Patti won the first round of discovery objections: other defendants started pushing back against the RIAA. Not just by filing answers or refusing to cave in to the ham-fisted tactics of the ‘Settlement Center’, but by actually fighting their cases on the RIAA’s own terms, on its own turf. Defendants saw that they, too, could win, a little piece at a time. And others have picked up where Patti pointed the way, and now they have started an avalanche of additional actions against the aggressors.

I don’t know whether Patti was the first to be committed to go to trial, or the first to answer any discovery - with the RIAA bragging about having over 19,000 cases, who knows who was first about anything. What we all know is what we experienced: Patti stood up in front of the country and said, ‘this is wrong.’ From that platform, we used the same legal process being brought to bear against Patti to defend her. And from the moment the first of the plaintiffs’ discovery demands were dashed and their subsequent appeal denied - from that moment - the tide turned. The inertia built into momentum, and all of you took off as one.

Now Patti faces a new and even greater challenge. Patti’s children are being sued; Robert, who was 12-13 when the alleged actions took place, and Michelle, who was 15-16, are now 16 and 20, respectively. Because several favorable defendant decisions were not available when Patti first started with Ray Beckerman (4), Esq., Patti’s children are starting at a disadvantage, with the RIAA able to use tools it would no longer have readily at its disposal.

The defendants who have stood on the shoulders of the Patti’s work, as she stood on the shoulders of those who came before her, have directly benefitted from the contributions you have made to Patti’s case. New contributions to the case for Patti’s children will have an even greater impact, as you will see when her answer is filed and as this new case marches toward trial.

We have six times as much work to do this time, and we’re starting with no resources whatsoever.

You may have read what I asked you about the type of country in which you want to - or are willing - to live. Now it’s time to answer those questions.

It’s your country. Take it back.
Jordan D. Glass

Notes:
1. To be more accurate, the RIAA has filed a ‘Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.’ The phrase ‘Without Prejudice’ means that the RIAA is seeking the right to re-file the case at a later time.
2. Source: http://www.northcountrynotes.org/goliath/
3. The package came with a note: �Paper them to death, just like they�re doing to you.�
4. Ray Beckerman, Esq., probably deserves the title of �father of the defense movement� in this field, along with his partner, Ty Rogers, Esq. They run the website, �Recording Industry vs The People�. See: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com

And in another p2p net comment post, Rafael Venegas says this:

Good news, but I wonder, is it fair that some is sued, the suit is withdrawn and plaintiffs do not have to pay for real, including pro-bono, legal expenses?

Also is it fair the double exposure if the suit against Santangelo is refiled?

When a person is sued, their world is shaken up, money has to be raised and lawyers have to be hired. Is is fair that because of someone’s legal strategy Santangelo have to go through the grinder again?

Does anyone want to live in a country where such things happen?

Or should the Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals look over the court system rules, as it appears that no one else (effectively) does?

Stay tuned.

Cheers!
Jon

---

If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.

---

Also See:
frivolous lawsuits - RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, September 4, 2006
dropped its case - RIAA drops Santangelo p2p case, December 19, 2006
Michell and Bobby - Michelle Santangelo: I’m no thief, December 8, 2006
The Associated Press - Piracy Suit Being Dropped Against NY Mom, December 19, 2006
same charge - RIAA alters ’sloppy’ testimony, February 23, 2006
Skype creators - Venice p2p TV projec, December 18, 2006.
class action - Kazaa sued in class action, December 7, 2006

---

p2pnet newsfeeds for your site | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 20th, 2006 at 7:14 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 8268 times