When a sixteen year old tells you that the major record companies are "a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy" and that their anti-P2P lawsuits amount to "extortionate threats... to force defendants to pay", you have to conclude that either the US education system is a lot better than ours, or those aren't really the sixteen year old's words. It's the latter, obviously.
Those are just some of the many allegations being made by the sixteen year old son of Patti Santangelo, who herself has long been the bane of the Recording Industry Association Of America's legal operations. As much previously reported, the Santangelo family have been part of the most high profile RIAA initiated anti-P2P lawsuit since 2005. Initially, the mother of the family, Patti, was accused of illegally sharing music via her family PC. But, in a high profile defence, she demonstrated pretty convincingly that she, herself, certainly had never shared content in the way the RIAA alleged. After a long legal fight, the RIAA eventually dropped their case against Patti at the end of last year.
Instead they turned their attention to her two children, Robert and Michelle, who, they said, were actually the people who had used P2P software to illegally share copyright music via the family's internet connection. But the two children claimed innocence as well, arguing that various family friends made use of the PC so, even if file sharing had taken place via that computer, it was impossible to say for certain who had done it. Despite that defence, the RIAA proceeded with their action, claiming daughter Michelle had admitted to file sharing, and that a friend of Robert's had said they had both shared music via P2P.
The industry association scored something of a success earlier this month when Michelle failed to lodge a response to the legal action against her, and the RIAA won by default, with the defendant ordered to pay $30,750 in damages. But they have foolishly continued their action against Robert, even though suing school age teenagers always brings with it a whole new level of PR challenges for the already often despised major record companies (Michelle is now 20, and a less controversial defendant). And yesterday he made it very clear that he does intend to fight the lawsuit.
He and his lawyer, Jordan Glass, yesterday issued a lengthy statement which cites 32 separate defences, demands a jury trial, and countersues over allegations the record industry have damaged the teenager's reputation, cost him large legal fees and, if nothing else, distracted him from his home work. Aside from continuing to deny he shared any music files, the defence also argues that, anyway, his sister owned all the tracks allegedly downloaded on CD already, and that at the time of the alleged file sharing, about five years ago, the record industry was not doing enough to warn people of the illegality of file sharing. The defence also alleges that the RIAA have "engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States". It's a long document, which has been published here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11178
For their side, the Recording Industry Association Of America remain confident that they have a good case against the youngest Santangelo, claiming all of his defences have been argued, unsuccessfully, in previous P2P cases. In a statement responding to Santangelo's defence, they said yesterday: "The record industry has suffered enormously due to piracy. That includes thousands of layoffs. We must protect our rights. Nothing in a filing full of recycled charges that have gone nowhere in the past changes that fact."