Default Judgment Issued against the Santangelos

[SlyckTom]

Slyck reported last month that the music industry, represented by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), had dropped its case against Patti Santangelo. The music industry had opted to drop their suit against Patti in favor of seeking a default judgment against her children, Robert and Michelle.

It appears that today the music industry has received a <a href=http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/default-judgment-entered-against-patti.html target=_blank>pyrrhic victory</a>. In a default judgment rendered by Justice Stephen C. Robins in White Plains, New York, Michelle Santangelo has been ordered to pay significant financial damages to the music industry. A default judgment means Michelle's representation didn't respond to the complaint - an odd and currently inexplicable circumstance. According to Justice Robins, the plaintiffs (music industry) were granted $750 for each 41 sound recordings allegedly pirated.

“Plaintiffs seek the minimum statutory damages of $750 per infringed work…for each of the forty-one sound recordings listed in Exhibit A to the complaint. Accordingly, having been adjudged to be in default, Defendant Michelle Santangelo shall pay damages to Plaintiffs for infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyright in the sound recording listed…in the total principal sum of Thirty Thousand Seven hundred Fifty Dollars ($30,750.00).”

Ouch, thirty grand is nothing to sneeze at. But just when thirty thousand seemed like a tough price to pay, the judge granted the Plaintiffs an additional $490.00 for reasons undisclosed. Yet this doesn’t mean the RIAA vs. Santangelo saga is over just yet. Other than exposing an eclectic taste in music, the fight has yet to be removed from the Santangelo family.

The next likely move on part of the Santangelos will be to immediately vacate the judgment. While the music industry may have succeeded in this round, the war is far from over.

[xforce]

how can these judges be allowed to make any statements or judgements or actions when dealing with supposed "criminal behavior" when it involves technology and the interpritation of it and its uses against the current, when the judges themselves cant tell a computer from a banana?

[altpdend]

more details please why was the sumary granted did their lawyer not show up for a hearing or something? Since this was a defult judgment can it set a precedent in other cases of people fighting the riaa?

[SlyckTom]

I believe this was a summary judgment, which means the judge in the case bases his or her decision on the legal briefs submitted by both sides. There's no trial or arguments other than the information provided in each brief.

[curzlgt]

Thanks for that Tom.

$1500 for 2 hanson songs, now thats a tradgey.

So Mr Glass dropped the ball big time then? To bad he didn't have any help noticing this one.

[altpdend]

I believe this was a summary judgment, which means the judge in the case bases his or her decision on the legal briefs submitted by both sides. There's no trial or arguments other than the information provided in each brief.

well according to the riaa vs. the people it was a defult judgment if it was a summary judgment why would the judge most likley vacate it?

[SlyckTom]

Well I'm no lawyer I'm just throwing my two sense in. Let's wait till the legal eagles show up and give a more accurate answer.

[altpdend]

is it possibe to get a interview with the Santangelo's to get a better idea what is going on and what they plan to do next slyck tom thanks

[SlyckTom]

I'll definitely look into this deeper. I think its also important to look at the PDF file and note there's "Partial" scratched in before the "Default Judgment." Interesting...

[Captain America]

I was really praying for the win on this one for the Stangelo's. I thought their last idea was a good one (force the music industry to show the actual price). Freakin tort laws suck most of the time. What really gets me on these cases, is that the evidence isn't even good enough for a criminal trial.

I'll gladly take this opportunity to slam the RIAA pigs.

WTF you gonna do with the extra 30grand you pigs just got from a middle class family? Buy a talking toilet seat from Japan and then sue the toilet seat company for infringement? You A$$ wipes will loose to the digital age, just face the music already.

[RayBeckerman]

1. A default judgment means that the defendant didn't put in an answer to the complaint. I.e., no defense was put in at all.

2. The judgment was "partial" in the sense that it was only against one of the defendants, Michelle. The judgment was not against the other defendant, 16-year-old Robert. It would have been unlawful to enter judgment against a minor in the present procedural context, without any guardian ad litem having been appointed to protect the minor's interests.

3. Most likely Michelle will make a motion to vacate the judgment.

4. Most likely the motion will be granted, and the judgment vacated, as there is a strong public policy in favor of disputes being decided on their merits, rather than on default.

5. How it came about is rather mysterious to me, as it is clear from the court records that Michelle's lawyer and the RIAA's lawyer worked together cooperatively in preparing a joint schedule for pretrial discovery.

6. I wouldn't want to speculate on what happened here, but I can tell you that most lawyers would not take a default judgment in a case where the defendant is represented by counsel and the lawyers have worked together cooperatively on a joint pretrial discovery schedule.

[nik]

$750 a track how do they work that out ?
I wonder how much of that goes to the artists ?
not knowing how US law works, but I hope they can fight it .

[king8654]

Ouch, hopefully this is only the first in a long battle in which she comes up the winner

[IFeelFree]

The only real long-term solution here is for the older generation of judges and lawmakers to retire, since they don't really understand technology. When we get younger, more tech-savvy judges and lawmakers, we might start to see some reasonable laws and decisions regarding technology issues.

[IneptVagrant]

$750 a track how do they work that out ?

The plantiff has a choice to sue for the accually loses + any profit made by the defendent. Or for statutory damages where the mininum is 750$ per infridgement. See TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > § 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits.

The idea being that accual loses + profit, may not be a suffient deterent to copyright infridgement, but some greater amount may be. In cases of involving digital music, we're talking a few dollars verses thounsands.

[MrFredPFL]

The only real long-term solution here is for the older generation of judges and lawmakers to retire, since they don't really understand technology. When we get younger, more tech-savvy judges and lawmakers, we might start to see some reasonable laws and decisions regarding technology issues.

what a bigoted statement. by this reasoning, no judge could ever fairly decide a medical malpractice case, because they're not a doctor or a surgeon. how can a judge decide any case about any subject they don't have specialized expertise in? easily - by listening to the testimony from both sides, each of which provides "expert witnesses". it's not the job of a judge to be an expert in every specialized field of knowledge on the planet. it's the job of a judge to understand the law, as it is written, and use common sense to interpret the testimony and evidence provided. age is not an issue unless a particular judge is suffering from senile dementia. there will ALWAYS be subjects that judges are not experts in themselves - and no new generation will ever change that. i know plenty of young people who don't know shit about technology either.

[deadman]

I smell a payoff. We 'publicly' announce we won. Privately we let you off the hook if you sign confidentiality agreement. Either that or the fund internet users etc raised to help her defence was used to pay most of the fine and to get it off her back. Maybe she just gave up (I would not blame her).

[notbob]

$750 a track how do they work that out ?
I wonder how much of that goes to the artists ?
not knowing how US law works, but I hope they can fight it .

it's in copyright statute, and is unrelated to the "value" of a recording, it's supposed to be punitive. it goes to the rights holder, which may or may not be the "artist", more likely, it is the conglomerate that owns the rights (record label). "artists" probably won't see a penny

the lawyers in the defense continue to rearrange deck chairs as the titanic sinks

[nik]

thanks to all that answered my questions as you guessed US law is not my thing

[masukie]

What RIAA and the bought corrupt lawyer try is ms. Santangelo and her children capitulate. It is all about to give up. The question is what's next / who's next?

[sirry_iriot]

Since the fundamental legal principle of "deep pockets" was apparently violated here, the objective was obviously publicity. Deadman has a point.

[Druidor]

So the kids have lost there court case.

Lets see the RIAA buggers get the money from the kids piggy banks shall we.

Doesnt $750 sound a bit steep to anyone per song.

Tell em to go jiggy & say they will pay the going rate for the specific music. sure they can get em at the russian MP3 site cheap lol & say here you go enough nickels & dimes for a cup of coffee.

[FireBox]

A $490 kickback? That's quite lame. Then again, it's the ones who embezzle a few cents from a million heres and theres that make it rather than the ones who grab one huge chunk.