p2pnet - rss feed: Kazaa deal paid for RIAA victim?
p2pnet.net News:- We’ve long been wondering who’d be the first RIAA victim to forge a hard link between the Kazaa p2p application and the Big Four Organized Music cartel sue ‘em all lawsuits.
Now we know. It’s Chicago’s Charles Lee Mudd, Jr, representing David Greubel, the father of a young girl who, learning her dad was being sued for alleged file sharing, contacted Nettwerk Music artist MC Lars to say she identified with ‘Download This Song,’ a track from his then latest release.
Kazaa, defined as BadWare by the prestigious StopBadware.org, is owned by Australia’s Sharman Networks, a self-proclaimed supporter of the p2p community which for years had been simultaneously, and cynically, trying to persuade the entertainment cartels to accept it as a DRM and distribution partner.
It finally achieved that by paying a reported $115 million in so-called ’settlement’ fees and now, in a fascinating twist, Mudd says the $115 million constitutes recovery in full for “injuries allegedly caused by Defendant Greubel, among others”.
Greubel lives in Texas and is being sued by Big Four Organized Music cartel members Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal who are using their RIAA to claim he illegally distributed music online.
Lending an unusual dimension to the case, his defence is being paid for by Nettwerk Music, a Canadian label based in Vancouver, British Columbia, while another American family, the Santangelos, have also had some of their legal fees met by other Canadians, almost 1,000 readers of p2pnet.net, based on Vancouver Island, also in BC.
The RIAA started off by attacking Patti Santangelo, but has since re-focused on two of her children, Michelle and Bobby, a fate which could be similarly in store for Greubel’s daughter, Elisa, 15.
Kazaa, meanwhile, has featured prominently in many, if not most, of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cases and in December last year, Santangelo told p2pnet she had “very strong feelings” about how, “Kazaa could allow a child to obtain an account that could be potentially dangerous to the child and the parent without parental authorization or the authorization of the person who owned the computer.”
Now, “In Arista v. Greubel in Texas, the defendant has interposed a number of affirmative defenses,” says Recording Industry vs The People.
One alleges, “if defendant were liable, Kazaa would be jointly and severally liable along with him, and that the $115,000,000 settlement which the RIAA received from Kazaa constitutes recovery in full”.
Mudd had already asserted that the RIAA’s $750-per-song damages claim was unconstitutional and now, recovery should be limited to 4 times the value of each download, or $2.80 each, says the post.
In a similar claim, New York judge J. Trager recently ruled Brooklyn home health aide Marie Lindor could add to her defence her claim that $750-per-song damages demanded by the Big Four was unconstitutional.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
MC Lars - p2pnet talks to Nettwerk Music, February 14, 2006
achieved that - Kazaa owner’s DRM plan, August 4, 2006
The New York Times - Jailed Freelance Journalist Loses Request for Rehearing, November 17, 2006
another American family - Santangelo lawyer speaks out, November 11, 2006
told p2pnet - Patti Santangelo fights Goliath: II, December 17, 2005
Michelle and Bobby - RIAA goes after Santangelo kids, November 2, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People - Defendant Says Plaintiffs’ Receiving $115M From Kazaa Bars Duplicate Recovery from Defendant, November 17, 2006
already asserted - RIAA ‘predatory litigation tactics’, February 27, 2006
similar claim - Trouble looms for RIAA, November 10, 2006
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win ~ Mahatma Ghandi
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
November 18th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Interesting. The cartels will either have to fight this one for all they are worth or meet it yet again in the next round. And it may turn out that the winning of the Kazaa case might not have been in their very best interests.
I am sure their short term sights are set on eliminating the competition so that they can dominate on the internet just as they have the merchant world.
This would in effect make going after file sharers not worth it financially. The costs of court action alone being far more than they could hope to recoup in damages. Even if the victim had to pay the court costs, there would still be little advantage to go after the file sharers that didn’t do it for profit motive.
They have opened a can of worms with sue’em all. One that will sooner or later blow up in their faces. That they are already uncomfortable with the notorious branding of their legal actions is already coming to surface with the press conferences dealing with “Why are we being termed the bad guys?”
While the employees that might work at the **AAs may be good folks on a family setting, in the corporate world they are anything but. It was once said that corporations have all the advantages of being human without the benefit of a conscience. It is this lack of moral guidelines that are turning the mega-corporations into entities Joe Public is learning to hate. It is a short step from distaste to turning away from being a customer. Those same corporations would do well to remember it is the customer from which their financial well-bring springs from.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Dear all,
The Kazaa get out of jail free defense is a smokescreen. Even if a judge accepted the premise of that idea (which would be extremely unlikely) the defendant would have to deal with the actual legal issues of the fact that the induced Kazaa infringments were from many years ago due to the length of settling legal proceeding. The infringements in this new case are likely for a period after the infringements of the Kazaa case. New infringments that couldn’t have been induced by Kazaa.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
This is nothing more than a post from a record company troll. As Kazaa has shut down all infringements what infringements can they be talking about. You simply cannot have it both ways invoke the settlement but not the consequences of the settlement