Talk:Elektra v. Santangelo

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Status[edit]

What is the status on this case?

NPOV?[edit]

It would be nice to make this more NPOV, but there's not much information to present on the RIAA's side yet. (see this Aug-05 interview and the reference to "junior attorneys"). --Interiot 20:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, we don't consider "MPAA and RIAA are evil bastards" NPOV? *g* — ceejayoz ^★ 00:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good presentation of the RIAA's point of view on this case in a CNN American Morning interview -- added some links and excerpts. Tried to be as fair as I could (all the excerpts are consistent with their contexts) but I'm kind of new at this: possibly the summary paragraph might be construed as too POV? In other words: maybe I'm just biased, but I can't figure out how to summarize the RIAA's position without making them look at least a little bit like the Spanish Inquisition ... maybe someone else can improve-or-remove the summary. -- dvgrn 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VfD/Merge[edit]

I suppose we're taking a bit of a risk creating this story before the lawsuit is over. If the parties end up settling, or the defendant loses, it will be a relative non-event, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was VfD or merged into a larger article.

Even if the defendant loses (possibly even "especially"?) it seems likely that this will set an important legal precedent. Given the amount of media coverage, even an out-of-court settlement is probably encyclopedic at this point (?) -- dvgrn 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's risky - this is the first case in the RIAA's litany of infringement suits where the defendant is opting to defend herself rather than settle, so whatever the result it will be significant. Mind you, given the result of Priority Records v. Chan I'm betting that this one is ultimately likely to be dismissed on similar grounds (i.e. on the basis that you can't sue a parent for the alleged infringing activity of their child), rather than the defendant being found not guilty, which would be a much more significant result. -- Hux 09:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

What does surreply mean? Even law.com doesn't know. [1]

Manifest Bias[edit]

The article reads like a piece of anti-RIAA propaganda. Even the attempts at showing "both sides" transcended a straw-man fallacy and included a rebuttal. While I am used to seeing bias in articles about politicians in Wikipedia, this is a simple court case. But then, the only ones actually interested in this sort of thing are the RIAA and those who are opposed to being blocked from freely downloading and distributing copyrighted material. The only voices raised in a public dialogue will be the RIAA or their foes.