What’s going on? Santangelo case
p2pnet.net News:- Neither 16-year-old Bobby Santangelo nor his lawyers plan to take the latest Big 4 Organized Music cartel attack lying down.
Santangelo, the son of Patti Santangelo, the New York mother who took on the Big 4’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and won, and brother of Michelle, who’s been ordered to pay $30,750 in a default judgment, has filed a long and detailed answer to claims by Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) that they’re being “devastated” by file sharers, allegations rebutted by Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Bare Naked Ladies and BTO’s Randy Bachman, among many others.
Now, posts Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman on digital music news, there’s only thing:
-last time I looked you couldn’t validly sue a minor without the Court’s appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect the minor’s interests (see Priority Records v. Chan and Priority Records v. Chan II, where the RIAA petitioned for appointment of a guardian ad litem to enable it to sue a 14-year-old child, and the Court dismissed the RIAA’s case for failure to develop a plan for the guardian ad litem’s fees to be paid by the RIAA); and
-last time I looked, it would be the guardian ad litem, not the child, that would have the ultimate responsibility of deciding on what legal strategy to follow, including such niceties as
(a) whether to hire a lawyer,
(b) what lawyer or lawyers to hire,
(c) whether to make a motion to dismiss, and if so what arguments to make,
(d) whether to serve an answer, and if so what to admit, what to deny, and what affirmative defenses to assert,
(e) if serving an answer, whether to demand a jury trial or to have the case tried by a judge,
(f) if serving an answer, whether to interpose counterclaims, crossclaims, or third party claims, and if so, against whom, and based on what theories,
(g) what pretrial discovery to seek,
(h) whether and if so when to move for summary judgment,
(i) whether to seek a settlement and if so on what terms, and using what strategy,
(j) whether to assert privileges, including the Fifth Amendment,
(k) all of the other types of decisions that need to be made in litigating these cases.
“Personally,” he adds, “I am not so sure that both the RIAA’s suit against Robert, and the answer and counterclaims that have been filed in that suit, aren’t all nullities, since they were all undertaken prior to the Court’s having appointed a guardian ad litem.”
Followers of the Big 4’s bizarre campaign to sue its own customers into buying ‘product’ will recall that an RIAA sue ‘em all case came completely unglued when they tried to pillory Brittany Chan in much the same way they’re victimizing Bobby Santangeo, who was only 12 when he first came to their attention, almost the same age as Brittany when she showed up on the RIAA’s radar.
She was 13 and the idea then was to have a guardian ad litem appointed and if a copyright infringement case such as the Chan’s, “were fully litigated, in the manner in which the RIAA litigates cases, I’d expect the guardian ad litem’s fees to be in the tens of thousands of dollars, and the fees of his or her counsel, and expert witnesses, to possibly reach or even exceed $100,000,” said Beckerman at the time, going on:
“Since the likely recovery in the case is zero, it being unlikely that the teenaged defendant has any nonexempt assets with which to satisfy a judgment, it’s not clear why the RIAA is proceeding to ask for appointment of a guardian ad litem,” he said.
However, the RIAA was demanding that an order be made to compel Brittany’s parents to pay for the guardianship and that, as another intimidation tactic, may have been reason enough.
And it fits in nicely with a post by Chan’s lawyer, John Hermann, who described the RIAA’s efforts as an extortion campaign.
Meanwhile, the RIAA demand for a guardian ad litem for Brittany fell flat on its face and ultimately, the case against her was dismissed.
Also See:
long and detailed answer – Robert Santangelo bites back, January 1, 2007
digital music news – RIAA v. Bobby Santangelo; What is going on here?, February 3, 2007
at the time – RIAA fails in Chan case, March 22, 2006
extortion campaign – RIAA: a defense lawyer’s view, October 5, 2005
flat on its face – RIAA Chan case dismissed, April 21, 2006
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
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.
February 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I do not understand why Beckerman did this. He is supposed to be on the side of RIAA victims is he not?