RIAA v. Santangelo Default Judgment Vacated 56
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "It was reported last week that at the July 13th status conference in Elektra v. Santangelo II, the default judgment taken by the RIAA against Patti Santangelo's daughter, Michelle, was vacated by Judge Stephen C. Robinson. This has now been confirmed in papers filed by the RIAA's lawyers in which they indicated that the Judge vacated the default judgment because he prefers cases to be decided on their merits, rather than by default (pdf). The papers sought $513 in attorneys fees for (a) procuring the default judgment and (b) preparing judgment enforcement documents. Patti Santangelo is the first RIAA defendant known to have moved to dismiss the RIAA complaint. After two years of litigation, the RIAA dropped its case against Patti Santangelo, leaving open only the question of whether the RIAA will be ordered to pay her attorneys fees."
Gulp (Score:2, Funny)
There, I fixed it
TFAs (Score:2)
layer-ease (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously!What's a default judgment, why is it being vacated, and how does this impact the case against Santagelo?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:layer-ease (Score:4, Informative)
Re:layer-ease (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A default judgment [wikipedia.org] is kind of like a forfeit in sports. One side wins because the other side didn't show up.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
RIAA tactics (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL etc, etc. But as far as I remember, the RIAA tactics were:
The plaintiffs never had a chance to defend themselves. The judge apparently found these proceedings not entirely agreeable.
IANAL, but the legalese translation is: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
________________________________
*I Ordinarily Rent A Lawyer
Shoudn't really be any question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Shoudn't really be any question (Score:5, Insightful)
What it screws with is the poor. Poor cant afford $45.00 a month for legal insurance so they have to pay the big lawyers fees.
That is what they target, they target the poor. i have yet to see one middle class or rich person targeted by the RIAA because they know that those people have the means to fight back.
RIAA target the lower class, fake middle class, and the poor. Fake middle class are those that dont own anything but get credit up the wazoo to look like they are middle class, no they cant afford another $45.00 a month as they are already paying minimums to all their credit accounts... Yes there are lots of those out there sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing, I can't believe I've never looked into something like this. Could you recommend a good service or two? I looked around on the web a little, but I'm not sure I know how to evaluate who's a shyster and who's legit.
Re:Shoudn't really be any question (Score:4, Informative)
you have a premium you pay and a "copay" depending on the problem, you may have a max and then pay afterwards but most of the time it covers a bulk of the lawsuit. (after X $$$ they cover 80%)
or type in google
"legal insurance" to get a bigger list.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So I guess my point is, Look around at see what others say about it too. Get some recommendations and endorsements if you can that aren't linked to from their site. I dunno if what happened to me was because of something I did or w
As an attorney (Score:3, Informative)
When I was in general practice, I got pitched by these things all the time, and never found one that was worth *my* end of things. I'm not denying that one could be made, but every one I saw had unbelievably low rates for what I would be paid--to the point that it didn't cover my overhead costs!
OTOH, the $45/month is higher than the premiums I used to see, so maybe it can cover a bit more.
hawk, esq
Re: (Score:2)
$45 EVERY MONTH!? Holy shit! What a waste of money. Maybe a better system would be to control the lawyers so that people don't have to live in fear of this sort of crap. Talk about a fucked up country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err.. No, it isn't. At least, unrestrained capitalism (which is as based on fairytale notions as communism) is not better than the alternative forms of capitalism.
TWW
Re: (Score:2)
I pay my attorney $5000 a year for a retainer and haven't had to use him much at all. His $45 a month insurance lets you get lawyers specialized in both the area of law in question and the place where the suit or action is located. In the end, we are probably paying close to the same amount but he is more mobile then me.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mine was specifically for drivers license issues and you basically pre-paid a retainer in case you need a lawyer. What the op was describing seems more like insurance where you have a co-pay and it covers something like 80% or something. If I didn't already have an excellent lawyer and law firm behind me, I would look into the insurance thing a little more. If I could afford both, I prob
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But, the middle class earning $55k to $170k? That seems high. Earning $170k puts you around the 95th percentile for household income, squarely in the upper class. $55k is about the 60th percentile, and I'm sure you don't mean to say that 60% of the U.S. is poor.
Households in the middle quintile have incomes between $36,000 and $57,657. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that grouping the whole US ignores the cost of living in each area.
For comparison: In Houston, teachers make about $42K to start in most of the d
Re: (Score:2)
not really if you are middle class then you can easily afford legal insurance. that $45.00 a month I pay covers a lot of things with good lawyers all over the country.
Your insurance company isn't a charity. Insurance pays for nothing, it simply averages out the costs and adds an overhead.
In your case paying $45/month means that over an adult lifetime of say 50 years you've paid $27,000 in real terms. That's a lot of opportunity lost
Yes, it may have reduced your worst case outcome but on average you'
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we buy insurance is that so many of us have other-than-average things happen (example: Getting sued for tens of thousands of dollars for that 128 kpbs copy of "Fergielicious" you just had to have).
Re: (Score:2)
You could apply that logic to any type of insurance. Yeah, on average, you're better off having no insurance.
True. For smaller costs that can be absorbed by your own cash flow insurance is never a good idea unless you have good reason to believe the insurance company is underestimating your level of risk.
For rare, expensive events that can't be covered by your own resources you have decide whether you want a high risk life with a higher return or a low risk life with lower return. Most people are cons
Re:Shoudn't really be any question (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you guys ever considered that your legal system may be broken if normal people have to pay $500/year just in case someone sues them?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but the RIAA and those they represent (i.e. the major record labels) might find themselves the target of a class action SLAAP [wikipedia.org] in retaliation for abusing the legal system in this way. That should at least be enough to make them think twice.
HERE'S THE WIND UP!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean the lawyers favor.
Re: (Score:1)
You think the RIAA is really going to win millions here? Well that's a brave position to take on slashdot, at least...
$375/hour (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't it be "reasonable" that attorney's fees on both sides of the case be billable at the same cost/hour?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very confused about some subissues:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like medicine; a neurosurgeon can charge more for his or her time than a general practitioner can. In law certain cases require specialized knowledge and experience (well, unless you want to lose). Representing someone in a slip and fall case is different than managing a $2 billion class action securities case, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Gabriel contended that the $225/hour asked by the Defendant's lawyer in Capital v Foster was far too high. Especially since it was such a simple and straightforward case. Yet he bills nearly twice that amount to other Defendants. Shouldn't it be "reasonable" that attorney's fees on both sides of the case be billable at the same cost/hour?
I don't thing the fees have to be equal. But I don't think it's fair for someone being paid $375 per hour for trying to push his "marginal and untested" theories about copyright law down the throats of innocent people should be able to challenge the "reasonableness" of a defendant's lawyer's fees at $225 per hour. And I don't think you can call it "simple" to be dealing with novel theories of law.
Blurb is confusing people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA wastes more money (Score:1)
List of RIAA "Frequent Plaintiffs" (Score:2)
Arista
Atlantic
BMG
Capitol
Elektra
Fonovisa
Interscope
Lava
Loud
Maverick
Motown
Priority
SONY
UMG
Virgin
Warner