Karaoke Forums

following is the transcripts from the latest court meeting on the only person to stand up against the RIAA and it's extortion tactics. Pay attention to how the judge sides with the defendant, even to go so far as mentioning a couple of possible defense
strategies against the suit, and how she admonishes the RIAA's attorney about their tactics and trying to push the defendant, and the court, around... I dunno if the RIAA wants to have anything decided in this judge's court.... I have simply edited out the numbering on the left side of the paper on the court transcript and cleaned up the dangling sentence clusters to make it somewhat easier to read... for those who would like the transcript in it's original print, send me an email and I can fire one off to ya... enjoy- tig

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------x
ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

v. 05 Civ. 2414(CM)

PATRICIA SANTANGELO,

Defendant.
----------------------------------x
White Plains, N.Y.
May 6, 2005
2:15 p.m.

Before:

THE HONORABLE COLLEEN McMAHON,

District Judge

APPEARANCES

COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL F. MASCHIO

PATRICIA SANTANGELO
Pro Se Defendant

THE DEPUTY CLERK: 05 Civil 2414, Elektra
Entertainment Group v. Patricia Santangelo.
MR. MASCHIO: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
And you must be Ms. Santangelo.
MS. SANTANGELO: Yes.
THE COURT: Hi. I'm Judge McMahon. Okay, Mr. Maschio, what is the problem here?
MR. MASCHIO: Well, your Honor, this is a claim for copyright infringement. Plaintiffs are the owners of registered copies of recordings. And a list of six of those recordings are annexed to the complaint as exhibit A. And annexed as Exhibit B is a list of musical compositions obtained from the defendant's computer as of 11-4-04, which was the date of capture. According to our records, there are three main computer users that have access to defendant's files. Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files. The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files. We have selected six songs, your Honor, from the
defendant's files. We listened to the songs and confirmed that they were the plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings, and we believe that we have established, as a result, that defendant has distributed and made available for distribution at least six songs, which is a violation of the plaintiffs' copyrights, and we seek damages and
costs.  Now, the history of the case is very brief. The action was commenced in February, late February. The complaint was filed in March. Your Honor issued an order on March 24th scheduling this conference. The defendant was served on April 25th, and her time to expire does not --
THE COURT: Her time to answer.
MR. MASCHIO: -- time to answer does not expire until May 15th. And she was advised of the conference, and, obviously, she's here as a result of that. I understand that, prior to the institution of this lawsuit, she had some discussions with the settlement center, but those were not consummated. And that's the status of the case at this point, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So, Mrs. Santangelo, hello.
MS. SANTANGELO: Hi.
THE COURT: Talk to me.
MS. SANTANGELO: I really don't know where to start. I wasn't sure, because I had just gotten served last week, that -- I haven't had a chance to -- they say here to get an attorney.
THE COURT: Well, it would be a good idea if you did.
MS. SANTANGELO: I really wasn't able to at this time. I have made phone calls to try to find an attorney.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. SANTANGELO: The reason why, when they called and they wanted to make a settlement, I no longer have that computer that the IP address was on, that they say the music was downloaded onto, because it had developed a major -- a lot of major viruses, apparently, and was wiped out and taken by my ex-husband. He was going to try to get it fixed. And I guess he has it down in North Carolina right now. So, at the time, I have nothing in front of me to say, okay, this is what happened. And I have five children, so I wasn't real sure how it had happened, to be honest.
THE COURT: I have some guesses.
MS. SANTANGELO: I realized when I looked at this that the downloads, I guess they call it Exhibit B, the screen name that this Kazaa was under doesn't belong to anyone in my family. And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with that my children had downloaded anything. Apparently, it belongs to a friend of my son, who is now 14.
THE COURT: I see.
MS. SANTANGELO: And I didn't know about it. And I really don't know where to go from here. And so I'm a little dumbfounded by the whole thing.
THE COURT: Yes, I know. I keep saying I live in -- although I've read the riot act to my own kids a hundred times --
MS. SANTANGELO: Oh, yeah, now I have.
THE COURT: -- I live in perpetual fear that something I don't know my kids are doing is going to come back and bite me in the butt. And the difference between you and me, Ms. Santangelo, if it happens to me, it will be in the headlines of the
New York Post.
MS. SANTANGELO: That's true.
THE COURT: Right. So, anyway, you have my sympathy. I mean, I can look at this list and I can look at you and I can see that you weren't the person who downloaded these pieces.
MS. SANTANGELO: Right.
THE COURT: Right. So, okay. And the download dates here are what?
MR. MASCHIO: They captured her files as of -- there is a November date, your Honor.
THE COURT: And the computer has been in North Carolina.
MS. SANTANGELO: Well, I moved, and I think that was the problem. I moved in -- June 30th of last year from [omitted by editor] to [omitted by editor]. At that time, I had cancelled my account with Optimum Online. So that was another reason I didn't really understand what was going on, because I didn't have an IP address anymore. So I guess that's why it took so long for them to find me.
THE COURT: Okay. 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.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay. I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.

Continued next post-

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't know if you have, for example, a friend who is a lawyer or anything.
MS. SANTANGELO: You know what my question is? What type of lawyer? Because I'm so confused. I spoke to one that -- one lawyer last week who said he didn't handle I guess civil cases or --
THE COURT: Yes. Or maybe he didn't handle copyright infringement cases. But this is a fairly simple and straightforward civil case. And I think pretty much any - I mean, I'm not allowed to recommend lawyers to people, but I think pretty much any general practice lawyer who does a little bit of this and a little bit of that could do a little bit of this.
MS. SANTANGELO: Right. I mean, my problem was I am -- I mean, there was one lawyer, and it's just that I just didn't have the money to give him up front at this time.
THE COURT: Right, right. This also is a problem. So, in any event, I'm going to put this over for 60 days to give you an opportunity.
MS. SANTANGELO: Thank you.
THE COURT: And I'm going to enter on the record what's called a general denial on your behalf --
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- which will relieve you for the moment of the need to file an answer. So he won't file a motion for a default judgment in a couple weeks, because I don't want a motion for a default motion in a couple weeks.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
MR. MASCHIO: It would be helpful to resolve this case if the defendant would put in, under oath, a denial in writing.
THE COURT: Fine. But I'm going to give her some time to find a lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
THE COURT: I'm going to give her 60 days to find a lawyer. And she's not in default. And she will not be in default if there is no answer, because, right now, there is a general denial on the record for her. Okay?
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. The other thing, your Honor, I don't know if you want to do this. I brought a consent scheduling order.
THE COURT: No. I don't want to set a scheduling order. In fact, I don't want anything to happen in this case for a while.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm in no hurry to see this case resolved. So far, Mrs. Santangelo has raised enough issues,including the use of a screen name or an account name -- not hers, but some other person's -- that suggests that she might have some really
interesting defenses to this. And there are defenses that maybe even ought to be litigated. The whole concept of a young person using the parent's computer access is bad enough, but if this name is not hers, she doesn't pay for this account.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her. So let's set another conference date for July 8th at, say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then. And if you get an attorney, you need to put the attorney in touch with Mr. Maschio, and maybe you will get this thing resolved.
MS. SANTANGELO: Mr. Maschio's --
THE COURT: He will give you his business card.
MS. SANTANGELO: There is more than one group here.
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 --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
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.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your
client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits. All right, so 10:00 on July 8. And as I say, if you hire an attorney, you have him get in touch with Mr. Maschio, and you will see if it can be resolved; and if not, then, when we come in
here, your lawyer will file a formal answer on your behalf and we'll set up a schedule.  If you can't find a lawyer, you will have to come back, and then I'll have to set a schedule, which will be about 60 days, and then a real quick trial. Okay?
MS. SANTANGELO: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

very nice.

BUT this is also an apparant case where the kids were doing something. This type of discussion would never happen if the person was KNOWINGLY doing P2P trading!

I'm all for pimp-slappin' the hell out of RIAA, and the frivolous lawsuits (and the way this fool was STILL trying to get her to declare herself guilty was insane) hopefully will taper down. ESPECIALLY if they get a judge like this one that flat out won't deal with that b.s.!!

you would have to be an ubertard to not know that using a P2P, or file seearch program as she called it, and NOT paying a damn dime for any of the material gained from it IS ILLEGAL... this isn't a well kept secret as they have been chasing their tails over this issues since the turn of the millenium... a big problem is that computers are such social and multi user designed machines that a PC with 3 or 4 users would be hard to pin on a single person... one of the things being argued in another circle is that the RIAA will have the lawsuits eventually tossed as they do not meet the minimal requirements to serve lawsuits to jjust an IP addy... problem is that everyone they have sued has refused to fight the suit all the way through the courts to the verdict because of the fear of a huge judgement against them... I feel that the RIAA is also fearing a complete trial as they are risking even more if the judgement is against them... lets hope Santangelo sees this through to the end...- tig

I would support her winning...

I don't see that the lawsuit is frivolous.  Petty, yes.  Ill-advised, almost certainly.  But not frivolous.

As for who should win, well, let's see what evidence is produced first.

_________________
Reward: nine yen in drawer.