Posted by anthonyberet on 09/05/05 20:15

George Hester wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3o08oiF3g93tU1@individual.net...
>
>>Loco Jones wrote:
>>
>>>Could this be the one to watch?
>>>
>>>
>
> http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1507708/20050816/index.jhtml?headlines=tru
>
>>>e&_requestid=334269
>>>(same as: http://tinyurl.com/bm4w5 )
>>>
>>>Yes, it's KaZaa in the spotlight again, but this could apply to any P2P
>>>application targeted:
>>> < quote >
>>>
>>> "As an exhibit in the complaint, they typed up a list of six songs that
>>>RIAA investigators downloaded from a shared account that was supposedly
>
> on
>
>>>my client's computer," Rogers said. "The complaint said those files were
>>>there for sharing, but they have no evidence that anyone did share them.
>>>For them to prove copyright infringement, they have to show that there
>
> was
>
>>>unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted file to the public. If they
>
> knew
>
>>>some 16-year-old who downloaded those songs from my client's drive, that
>>>would be copyright infringement, but if their own investigators did it,
>>>it's not distribution to the public. A copyright owner cannot infringe
>
> on
>
>>>their own copyright."
>>> < end quote >
>>>
>>>If this case ever makes it way *all* through the legal system, the
>
> results
>
>>>could be very interesting indeed.
>>>
>>
>>Here is a collection of court documents relating to this case:
>>http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/
>>
>>There are few interesting points - the RIAA submitted ordinary
>>screen-grabs of KaZaa as evidence. - Suggesting that they don't use bots.
>>Despite about 1100 tracks being shared, they are only claiming
>>infringement on one track from each record company (probably for economy
>>of court time).
>>The court hearing of May 6th 2005 seemed to hinge on the judge's
>>misunderstanding of Kazaa usernames and what they mean - she appeared to
>>be under the impression that this meant it was not the defendant's ISP
>>account.
>>Anyway, despite the news story, the defendent's lawyers have moved for
>>dismissal on the basis that the RIAA did not specify the times of the
>>infringements.
>>
>>I would ceratinly think that the fact that a wifi connection was used
>>would be significant. - I see no mention of the argument about no proof
>>that the tracks have been downloaded by anyone - perhaps this collection
>>is incomplete though.
>>
>>I agree it is one to watch.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Court: I suggest you get a lwayer.
>
> Defendent: What kind of lawyer.?
>
> Court: A lawyer that does a little bit of this and a little bit of that.
>
> Me: LOL:
>
> http://riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/transcript050506.txt
>
There is also an interview with the lawyer here:
http://p2pnet.net/story/6062

Full text below:

p2pnet: About how much will cost to mount and maintain Patricia
Santangelo's defense?

Beckerman: We have no idea what the total cost will be in the long run.
We do not expect it to be wildly expensive, because (i) we are charging
drastically reduced fees (e.g. my personal rate is half my standard
rate) and (ii) we expect the case to be dismissed, based upon the motion
to dismiss, which has been briefed, submitted, and argued, and is now
awaiting decision. If the motion is granted, there will be no pretrial
discovery, and no trial.

p2pnet: Where will the money to pay for it come from?

Beckerman: We expect Ms Santangelo's costs to be picked up by the RIAA,
since (a) the copyright statute permits the Court to shift the attorneys
fees to the losing party, (b) these cases were clearly frivolous and
brought in bad faith, and (c) it is a matter of public interest that the
RIAA be deterred from bringing more such meritless cases.

p2pnet: Record label financial, political and legal resources are
immense. Will you be able to fight to the end matched against this kind
of weight?

Beckerman: We will fight to the end. Anyone who knows me knows that I
don't take on something unless I am prepared to fight to the end. Also,
anyone who knows me knows that the one thing I can't stand is a bully.
The RIAA will give up long before we do, because sooner or later it will
dawn upon them that their attorneys are taking them for a ride.

p2pnet: You say on your site, "we and our firm have undertaken to
represent people in our area who have been sued by the Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA)". Are you representing anyone
other than Patricia Santangelo?

Beckerman: Yes we have other people we have represented, however only
one other matter is actually in litigation. We just entered that case a
week ago, and have nothing yet to report.

p2pnet: If there are other people near you who want to be represented,
will there a limit to their numbers?

Beckerman: As far as I am concerned there should be no limit to how many
people we can represent. If we have too many cases we can hire more lawyers.

p2pnet: Could you summarize your defense platform?

Beckerman: There is no such thing as a "defense platform", the way I
practice law. Although I am fully aware that there are important
societal issues at stake, I am an old fashioned "country lawyer"
(regardless of the fact that my office is in the most cosmopolitan of
places, Manhattan). I represent people. And I represent them one person
at a time. So I cannot represent people on a cookie cutter basis. My
style of practice is to make my client a partner in decision making. In
each case I do what is in the best interests of that particular client,
and what that particular client wants me to do (with certain exceptions,
such as professional courtesies, which is something a lawyer has to take
responsibility for on his own). I can say that in Elektra v Santangelo,
the basis for our motion to dismiss complaint was that the complaint
failed to allege any specific acts of infringement. In response
plaintiff disagreed, arguing that its vague complaint did satisfy the
pleading standards, since it alleged that a Kazaa account attached to
Ms. Santangelo's IP address had a "shared files folder". Our reply
papers reminded the Court that that alone would not make out a claim for
copyright infringement, and that the Courts have consistently required
specific acts of copying, and the dates and times of those acts. A fully
set of the motion papers is now online. In the unlikely event that our
motion is not granted, there are numerous other issues that would come
into play later on in the case.

p2pnet: On a scale of one to 10, where do you place your chances of winning?

Beckerman: I think our chances of winning the Santangelo case are a 10.
Our motion was based on black letter law. The plaintiff's 'opposition'
papers were weak, digressive, and nonsensical. I believe they will be
laughed out of court.

p2pnet: Have you yet heard from the RIAA? If so, from whom and what did
they say?

Beckerman: The only people I speak to, or can speak to, are their
attorneys. All the attorneys I have spoken to are junior attorneys, who
are doing what they are told, and who have not exercised and are not
authorized to exercise any decision-making authority. It will be an
interesting conversation when and if I get to talk to whoever has
managed to convince the gullible people in charge of the RIAA that their
terrorism is helping them.

p2pnet: Would you be prepared to collaborate with other lawyers/law
firms in the US to help other people in the same situation as Patricia
Santangelo?

Beckerman: Absolutely. I am thrilled to help the other lawyers and I
know they'll help me as well. That is why I have made the litigation
documents available online. So that any attorney who is representing
victims of the RIAA onslaught will have the benefit of knowing what we
did, and what the RIAA's lame arguments are.

p2pnet: The record label cartel is using its IFPI, BPI, and so on, to
attack people in other parts of the world. Would you share any knowledge
you may acquire through this case with law firms/victims outside of the US?

Beckerman: I don't know who those organizations are, that you mentioned,
but my documents are available online, so they are more than welcome to
use them.

p2pnet: You're a lawyer defending a client, but do you have any personal
feelings about file sharing and file sharers?

Beckerman: Personally, from what little I know of it, I don't think mere
file sharing is a copyright violation. If someone can share a
copyrighted cd without violating the copyright laws, why couldn't they
share a digital song without violating the copyright laws? But of
course, you asked for a personal opinion, and this is my personal
opinion. In the current climate, I certainly couldn't advise someone
legally whether it is or isn't a copyright violation, the law is
unsettled, and the RIAA is on the warpath. So until the issue has been
played out in the courts, we won't know the answer to that one.

[Back to original message]