It alleged that Patricia (Patti) Santangelo, a single mother of five based in Wappingers Falls, New York, infringed the copyright of several companies by sharing six songs on the KaZaA file-sharing network.

This case is somewhat notable because the judge, the Honorable Colleen McMahon,[3] appears to agree with some of those criticisms in a dialog with Mike Maschio, an RIAA attorney: THE COURT: Well, I think it would be a really good idea for you to get a lawyer, because I would love to see a mom fighting one of these.

According to Ray Beckerman this was unusual:[6] I would say that asking for a second oral argument is unusual, because (a) in almost 31 years of working in litigation I’ve never heard of anyone doing it, and (b) the very asking for it is an admission that the first oral argument was lost.p2pnet.net, whose readers raised a total of more than $15,000 to help Mrs Santangelo with her legal expenses, ran an interview with her in 2005.

If you’re not guilty of violating the law, don’t pay.The RIAA contends that illegally shared files were found on a computer with an IP address connected to Ms. Santangelo, and that this is sufficient grounds for continuing to pursue the lawsuit.

In a CNN American Morning interview, Miles O'Brien discussed the case with Ms. Santangelo and RIAA President Cary Sherman.

[8] The following excerpts from a transcript of the interview summarize the RIAA's position:[9] ... We were disappointed that Ms. Santangelo didn't take advantage of an opportunity to get rid of this case quickly, as most people have when they find that somebody in their household or somebody using their computer was in the wrong.

We had one grandfather who had those kids work off the amount that he paid to settle as a way of teaching them a lesson and making this a family event.A motion to dismiss has been filed, stating that "the Courts have consistently required specific acts of copying, and the dates and times of those acts", and the complainant isn't providing those.

[citation needed] RIAA then made the unusual request to have a second oral argument session and to submit an additional surreply.

Three days later the case was dismissed by a federal judge with prejudice, which means that Santangelo was the prevailing party and therefore eligible to file a motion to recover attorneys' fees.

He is also represented by Jordan Glass and is raising 32 defenses including arguments that he didn't send copyrighted files to others, the recording companies originally promoted file sharing, the statute of limitations had passed, and that all of the music on his computer had been owned on CD by his sister.

He is counter-suing the record companies for violating antitrust laws, conspiring to defraud the courts, and making extortionate threats.