[Infowarrior] - Judge's decision leaves RIAA with lose-lose situation

[Richard Forno]

Judge's decision leaves RIAA with lose-lose situation in Elektra v.
Santangelo

By Eric Bangeman | Published: March 21, 2007 - 08:38PM CT

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070321-judges-decision-leaves-riaa-wi
th-lose-lose-situation-in-elektra-v-santangelo.html

The case of Elektra v. Santangelo has been one of the more closely followed
cases in the RIAA's crusade against suspected file sharers, due in no small
part to the aggressiveness of Patti Santangelo's defense. Ray Beckerman is
reporting that Judge Colleen McMahon has denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss
the case without prejudice, ruling that the case must either proceed to
trial or be dismissed with prejudice.

It's a noteworthy ruling because if the case is dismissed with prejudice,
Santangelo would be considered the prevailing party and would likely be
entitled to an award of attorneys' fees, as in Capitol v. Foster. In her
ruling, Judge McMahon concluded that "no conceivable interest of justice
would be served by permitting this case to be dismissed without prejudice
against defendant." Instead, the defendant should have a shot at vindication
via a trial or have the case dismissed with prejudice.

"This case is two years old," wrote Judge McMahon. "There has been extensive
fact discovery. After taking this discovery, either plaintiffs want to make
their case that Mrs. Santangelo is guilty of contributory copyright
infringement or they do not."

The choice is clear-cut for the RIAA: either proceed with a full-blown jury
trial in which they will have to convince a jury that the defendant is
guilty of secondary infringement‹making the same argument that the judge in
Capitol v. Foster didn't buy‹or agree to an order dismissing the action with
prejudice. (For a further discussion of secondary infringement, see earlier
Capitol v. Foster coverage.)

Patti Santangelo, a divorced mother of five, was sued in 2005 after
MediaSentry, the RIAA's investigative arm, found music in a shared folder
under an IP that Santangelo's ISP said was assigned to her account at that
time. Santangelo denied any knowledge of the alleged file-sharing, but the
RIAA pressed ahead with the case.

After a barrage of legal filings, the RIAA then sued two of her children
last November: Michelle, age 20, and Robert, age 16 (and 11 years old when
the infringement allegedly took place). The new lawsuit claimed that
Michelle had admitted to illicit downloading and that Robert's best friend
had implicated him. At the same time, the RIAA continued to press its case
that Patti Santangelo was guilty of secondary infringement. Robert has since
filed an answer to the RIAA's lawsuit, denying any wrongdoing and demanding
a trial by jury.

The ruling leaves the RIAA between a rock and a hard place, a position that
it may find itself in more frequently as such cases move through the court
system.