After the RIAA dismissed its file sharing suit against Patti Santangelo last year, it decided to go after her children. Both Michelle Santangelo, age 20, and Robert Santangelo, 16, were targeted by the RIAA after the record labels determined that they were responsible for whatever file-sharing went on in the Santangelo household.
Ms. Santangelo stood up to the RIAA and demanded they take her to trial to try to prove their claims. No RIAA file-sharing case has yet gone to trial. And her son is counter-suing the RIAA.
In its complaint against Robert Santangelo, the RIAA said that while he had testified under oath that he had not engaged in file sharing, his “former neighbor and best friend” told music industry investigators that he and Robert had downloaded a file-sharing program and used it “almost daily.”
There is no guarantee that this case will actually head to trial. If it does, it should make for quite the spectacle: the RIAA on one side, and a 16-year-old standing trial for allegedly downloading music when he was 11 years old on the other.
I’d chip in a few bucks towards the kid’s defense. It would be interesting to see how the RIAA claims hold up in a jury trial.
It is WAY too much to hope for that this will be resolved in any logical/common sense/rational/realistic fashion. I mean, I am pleased as punch that this kid is going after them (and charging them with, essentially, racketeering), but with the way things have been going the past 6 years there is nothing even CLOSE to a guarantee that he will achieve anything approaching success.
Let’s face it, in the USA in the 21st century, it’s the ‘jack-booted thugs’ who reign supreme. Reason is out the window, rational thought is a two word obscenity and the Corporate Overlords get whatever they want, when they want it.
As I’ve been saying since January 23rd, 2002…we are screwed.
I may be wrong… But as I understand it… These kids were collecting music… Not distributing… Am I right about that?
So really, if a punishment is to fit the crime, shouldn’t the punishment be that they have to delete the files?
Not that I think they were wrong in the first place, but if they were shown to be in court…
Seems like the RIAA is taking a page out of Nazi Germany. They’re trying to turn people against each other. How much do you wanna bet they have evidence the neighbor downloaded music and they’re letting him off the hook in exchange for his testimony. All because they don’t dare lose a trial…the slippery slope and all.
#4 – That’s an interesting comment. In the U.S., 2002 is about when the unceasingly open attacks (as opposed to anti-liberty measures disguised as part of a “drug war” for example) on basic U.S. freedoms began. Lately we’ve seen such triumphs of poor constitutional legal judgment as rescinding habeas corpus. What in particular have you noticed globally that tracks to that?
#3, in a situation as you suppose, that wouldn’t work. The neighbor would still be partly responsible even if his name isn’t on the complaint. The accuser can’t give immunity or absolve someone of responsibility at the expense of another in a civil suit. If he is involved, he may be named as a co-conspirator.
I do agree that the RIAA is using intimidation to make people fork over their cash.