Seven grand settlement to stupid Santangelo saga
One of the longest running and highest profile P2P lawsuits pursued by the good old Recording Industry Association Of America has reached its conclusion. With an out of court settlement of seven grand - a sum that will barely cover the trade body's lawyer's lunch expenses.
It's the Santangelo case. As much previously reported, the RIAA sued Patricia Santangelo in 2005 after discovering that unlicensed music had been uploaded to a file-sharing network via her computer. Although offered the customary four grand out-of-court settlement option, Santangelo, who struggled even turning on her family computer, let alone using it to access and share music files, defended herself in court, despite the cost of doing so (and on occasion without legal representation, because she couldn't afford it).
It seemed likely that it was Santangelo's two children, Michelle and Robert, who did the file sharing via the internet connection registered in their mother's name, though at one time a friend of the children was blamed. It was an interesting test case because the RIAA tried to say that Patricia should be held liable for the actions of her children on her internet connection - Michelle and Robert were both under 18 at the point the alleged file-sharing took place - but the courts didn't respond favourably to that viewpoint and eventually the RIAA was forced to dismiss its lawsuit. It was an embarrassing stand down for the RIAA who were trying to convince the world that its infringement claims against suspected file-sharers were incredibly straight forward, and that they - the content owners - should always have the benefit of the doubt.
Having dismissed the case against Patricia Santangelo, and presumably keen to win this one whatever the cost, the RIAA began proceedings against Michelle and Robert. The former failed to respond to the lawsuit against her, and so a judge found in the RIAA's favour by default and ordered her to pay $30K in damages. It was a short lived victory for the trade body in relation to the Santangelo saga though, because an appeal judge subsequently voided the decision, saying he was uneasy with this kind of case being ruled upon by a default judgement, preferring cases like this to be decided on their merits.
Robert Santangelo, meanwhile, defended the action launched against him. His defence claim was lengthy and not entirely convincing legally speaking (a lot of the defence claims used had been unsuccessful elsewhere), though it meant the whole costly and embarrassing Santangelo saga continued for the record company reps. Good news for their lawyers, less good for the labels.
Anyway, to now, and following a testimony by a friend of Robert's to the effect that the defendant used Kazaa on an "almost daily" basis to access illegal sources of music, and a deposition by Michelle in which she admitted to accessing music via P2P, a settlement has finally been reached. For seven grand.
OK, more than the original out-of-court settlement offered to Patricia back in 2005, but given the cost, both financial and in PR terms, of the endless legal battles since the original lawsuit was filed, the RIAA, nor the record companies they represent, are hardly the winners here. Especially as the family's attorney has told the Associated Press that the two children haven't even admitted wrongdoing as part of the settlement, choosing to pay up simply to draw a line and put the whole thing behind them.
There seems little doubt that many hundreds of unlicensed tracks were downloaded and possibly uploaded by the Santangelo children, and, despite claims used in Robert's defence, such action has generally been deemed illegal under US copyright law in various American courts. But that's not really the point. What the Santangelo case proves is that the policy of suing thousands of individual music fans for file-sharing was dumb. It was never going to work as a deterrent, and the damages that could be raised would never cover the costs of running the litigation.
Moreover it made the major record companies - in the US and elsewhere (even in the UK where lawsuits against fans were incredibly few and far between) - seem like a bunch of money grabbing litigious cunts who didn't deserve public or political support in their bid to find a business model and copyright system that works in the digital domain.
Even the judiciary, while normally ultimately ruling in the record labels' favour on issues of copyright law, often held the litigious record companies in contempt. As shown from my favourite quote to come out of the Santangelo case, delivered by a judge in response to an RIAA lawyer who argued that Patricia, at that point unable to afford a lawyer, should instead make a deal with the record companies via the call centre the trade body had set up to deal with its litigation campaign.
The judge hit back thus: "Not once you've filed an action in my court. You file an action in my court, your call centre is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the court. And if your people want things to be done through the call centre, tell them not to bring lawsuits".
The RIAA have, of course, now brought to an end their music-fan-litigation programme, though they are proceeding with outstanding cases, one of which - the previously reported and high profile Tennenbaum case - is sure to make them look even more like a bunch of money grabbing bastards in PR terms, however good their legal case may be.
So what can record label chiefs learn about the whole Santangelo saga now it's at an end?
Well, first, be suspicious when lawyers suggest litigation solutions to business problems. Second, don't pretend complex legal matters are simple, or that vague laws definitely go in your favour, you'll look stupid when the complexities come up in court. Third, where possible try and avoid suing web-illiterate mothers and teenage music fans.
And fourth, remember both business models and copyright systems need reforming from time to time. You'll be able to rework the former better if you're not wasting time and money suing your customers. And you'll have more success lobbying for changes in the latter if the world at large don't think you're a bunch of money grabbing bastards.
And fifth, when CMU tells you something you're doing is stupid take note. Scientific research has proven we're always right.
