RIAA goes after Santangelo kids
p2pnet.net News:- It was inevitable.
Having made New York mother Patti Santangelo’s life quite literally a living hell, Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal have now turned their attentions to two of her children, Michelle and Robert, going so far as to blackmail Robert’s best friend into making statements against him.
“With Christmas only six days away, the Big Four Organized Music labels are bent on using children to continue their bizarre attack on people they allege have shared files online,” p2pnet posted last year. Because, “looming over her children,” Michelle, Nicole, Bobby Jack and Ryan, was the RIAA.
Members of the Organized Music cartel, the Big Four, are raging completely out of control as they go after, and deliberately and knowingly terrorize, innocent men and women, and even children, around the world who don’t have a hope in hell of standing up to them, their billions of dollars, their corrupt political and media connections, their legions of lawyers.
‘Competition’ is an obscene word to Warner Music, et al. They have to have it all and as an integral part of their efforts to make sure they gain total control of how, and by whom, music is distributed online, they’re accusing their own customers of being ‘criminals’ and ‘thieves,’ aided and abetted in this by the mainstream media who repeat cartel allegations unchallenged as though they’re proven facts from credible sources.
Almost a year ago p2pnet readers decided to do what they could to help Patti Santangelo, the New York mother of five who decided she’d stand up to the Big Four and so far, they’ve so far contributed $14,299.41 to the Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath defence fund.
But who’s standing up for Michelle and Robert as their legal representative? At the time of writing, no one. But that won’t last and they’ll soon they’ll need $. So if you can help, drop a dollar or two into the Fight Goliath fund which, I guess, should now be re-named the Santangelo Fund.
‘Hard fought discovery and investigation’
Here’s part of what the Big Four say through Robinson & Cole and Holme Roberts & Owen, the companies fielding the teams of lawyers Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal are paying to savage the two Santangelos.
Notwithstanding the vigorous and public denials by Patricia Santangelo and by the Defendants of their involvement in the substantial copyright infringement alleged, which denials went on for over one year, the evidence developed from these themselves and other witnesses in the Particia Santangelo Action has conclusively established that these Defendants are, indeed, responsible for the infringement at issue, having downloaded and distributed over 1,000 sound recordings through such sharing programs.
And,
…after a year of hard-fought and expensive discovery and investigation, Plaintiffs have discovered that both engaged in massive infringement at issue here. Indeed, notwithstanding their prior denials of their involvement, Defendant Michelle Santangelo has now admitted under oath to substantial and ongoing infringement of Plaintiff’s significant copyright interests. Similarly, although Robert Santangelo, Jr. testified under oath that he took no part in the infringement at issue, his former neighbor and best friend testified at length as to how he and Defendant Robert Santangelo, Jr. had together downloaded a file-sharing program and distributed these same recordings (the neighbor has settled Plaintiff’s claims against him by paying a settlement amount and by agreeing to the same injunctive language that Plaintiffs seek to have entered in this case).
The impression given is that Michelle was testifying during a trial. However, it was actually a deposition hearing during which is evidence given under oath for use in a court at some future date. In the US, it’s part of the discovery process through which both sides get information from each other for the upcoming trial.
Jordan Glass, Patti Santangelos’ lawyer, says he was there, but doesn’t remember Michelle “admitting or acknowledging” downloading.
Michelle is 20 now, but she was 16 when the RIAA first zoomed in on her, and Robert (Bobby was only 12.
Moreover, claims made in this kind of document are by no means evidence. In fact, they’re often little more than one step above the extortionate frighteners lawyers routinely mail and email to their clients’ victims as part of the softening up process.
The labels: haemorrhaging credibility and customers
File sharing is no more a form of theft now than it was the past when people taped music from the radio and vinyl discs, re-playing the music for themselves, or passing it around to friends. Music lovers do the same today, although in this digital 21st century, tracks come from CDs legally bought in record stores, or downloaded.
Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal claim sharing music results in sales lost, as though someone who’s received a track would have otherwise gone out and bought it.
However, the reality is the same now as it was in the 40s, 50s, 60, 70s, 80s and 90s. That’s to say if someone hears something they like, no matter from where, they’ll probably go and buy it.
Meanwhile, the labels are haemorrhaging credibility and customers wholly and solely because of bad product, bad business decisions, bad management, and bad taste.
The issue that’s most urgent, “for the four big companies that dominate the production and distribution of music – Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner and EMI” is so far, they’ve been slow to embrace the Net, “which has seemed to them not an opportunity but their nemesis,” said The Economist.
And that was back in 2004. “Rather than putting their product on file-sharing applications, they are prosecuting free-download users for theft,” it said, concluding that online music, “might truly take off if the majors were to make a truce with the file-sharing networks”.
Making peace with the commercial p2p companies would indeed have been the intelligent thing to do. But that would have meant acknowledging and accepting them as competition.
Instead, the Big Four are doing the same thing to their competitors as they’re doing to their customers: crushing them with lawsuits.
‘Hundreds of millions of wicked file sharers’
I’ve known the Santangelos for more than a year now and they’re just like you and me. They’re no more criminals and thieves than the labels are honest, aggrieved companies trying to keep their heads above water as they’re being “devastated” (their word) by the depredations of hundreds of millions of wicked file sharers.
In fact, the only people being devastated are the families being sued by Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal.
The lawsuits are terrifying. Victims, all of them very ordinary people with very ordinary means, don’t know what to do, how to respond, how to find legal help, or how to pay for it if they can manage that.
And on top of it, they’re continually harrassed by the so-called settlement centres which try to extort payments on behalf of the Big Four.
Some people are lucky enough to find attorneys willing to represent them pro bono. But they’re few and far between and anyway, to be blunt, services rendered by a pro bono lawyer aren’t likely to be on the same level as those delivered by lawyers who are being paid for their time and whose clients can afford the “expensive discovery and investigation” processes flaunted by the Big Four.
But music lovers don’t depend on the Big Four. It’s the other way around and Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal can no longer get away with this kind of corporate terrorism unscathed, as they’re discovering.
They used to control the international press corps but today, thanks to the Net, people everywhere are now their own information providers and there’s a phrase the Big Four would do well to bear in mind:
Critical mass.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton
Also See:
around the world – RIAA sues wheelchair mother, November 1, 2006
stand up to the Big Four – RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, September 4, 2005
bizarre attack – RIAA ready to attack more kids, December 19, 2006
The Economist – Music’s brighter future, October 28, 2004
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Well they could have paid off their debt for 3 grand, and still had 11 grand left over. This fight simply isn’t worth it.
As the Billy Joel’s Angry Young Man goes, “I’ve found that just surviving was a noble fight…”
Perhaps they should have downloaded that song.
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
yah right. give in to the bastards. and anyway the $14k didnt come in at the start it came in dribs and drabs
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Well, either way, who cares if she gave in. Her priority is to her family and to herself, not to some rightous fight. The hell with that, she needs to worry about her family’s survival – which the RIAA could care less about.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:24 pm
We can try anyway. EFF has a petition that anybody can sign that will be sent to congress to ask them to include the EFF in any meeting regarding copyright enforcement.
the link is: http://www.eff.org/share/petition/
Please, if you’re afraid to get a knock on the door from the RIAA, then this is a good thing to sign.
I don’t mean to sound like a promotional campaigner for EFF, but these lawsuits got to stop!
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
“Well, either way, who cares if she gave in. Her priority is to her family and to herself, not to some rightous fight. The hell with that, she needs to worry about her family’s survival – which the RIAA could care less about.”
The person making this statement is a big part of the problem, and is at odds with solution to the little guy being butt-surfed by big corporations/government. This person recommends giving in and therefor aiding and abetting the descent of working people into poverty. Let’s face it, it’s us or them. Big government and big corporations no longer care about the people who serve them or keep them afloat. They only care about what they can extract from the common folks.
Let’s assume that she does give in and spends the hard-earned money of contributors to pay off the labels. This will only encourage them to go after even more people. Rewarding criminals for bad behaviour only produces more crime. How can the industry be called criminals when they are protecting what’s “theirs by law?” It is simple, the industry had the laws written to favor them. Copyrights and patents were enumerated in the Constitution for the sole purpose of promoting USEFUL sciences and arts by providing CREATORS a LIMITED monopoly for a LIMITED time in which they could recoup the costs (and maybe some profit) of creation and discovery. This provision has been shamefully abused by the record, movie, software and many other cartels. It is time for this abuse to stop.
In the U.S.A., the Founding Fathers put together a document called the Constitution. This document was set in place to protect the rights of average folks. Furthermore, these people believed that government existed to protect the rights of people. Large scale bribery has unlawfully usurped the legitimate powers of government and have changed the said government into an instrament of extortion. Many of the Founding Fathers believed that once government no longer looked after the interest of the people, the people had a right and duty to replace the government with one that does.
The abuse will stop when people no longer rewards governments and industries for abuse. Extortion should never be rewarded. I would be very angry ig my part of the contribution is used to reward the “music” industry for bad behaviour. It would be a surefire way to discourage the common folk from coming together and fighting an enemy that needs to be put down.
I fight the cartels in a way that really hurts them. I starve their pocketbooks and encourage other people to do the same. How do I do that? It is simple. I no longer buy from the cartels. Before this sue them campaign started, I would buy music and rent movies that I wanted to hear or see. The movies and music that I wanted to see or hear, though, was few and far between. Does this mean that I violate the laws thay they have paid to have passed? No it doesn’t. I get my entertainment from freely offered independent sources. If it is not offered for free, or a cost payable DIRECTLY to the people that make the entertainment, I do not accept the product. I fight the software cartels by simply getting all of my software from places like Source Forge http://www.sourceforge.net . I don’t have to worry about Microsoft or some other Software giant persecution me for having an “unauthorized” copy of their software, because I choose to take the time and trouble of finding a freely available equivilent.
I also encourage people to use freely available alternative movies, songs and software available online. I provide people advice on how to keep the catels out of their computers. Since the sue them all campaign has gotten underway, I tell my family, friends and other aquaintances about peer to peer networks, free sources for music, video, and software as well as how to set up ways of easily distributing information once the cartels manage to figure out how to stifle the Internet. Now that net neutrality has been dealt a severe blow, people will have to come up with their own infrastructure so that they can get the content that they want and deserve.
I have a message for the cartels and government. Start playing right and respect those who keep you in business, or you will not be in business for long. People are becomeing both fed up and apathetic towards you. Both apethetic fiolks and fed up folks will do you in. Apethetic folks will continue to use whatever means they have at their disposal to get the content they want at a fair or low cost. This means from your competitors. Fed up folks will do the same. Not only that, most will also teach others how to do the same thing. You can work to come up with measure and technologies to stop your competition, but if those methods are dirty or underhanded, they will be leaked by your dissatisfied insiders to those who will use the information to promote competition. Every time you butt-surf a citizen, customer, client, employee or other agent, you create one more enemy. Yes, you may win your case in your courtrooms, but you will lose your case in the arena where it matters – your pool of potential customers.
I encourage Patty and her children to fight on. I will contribute more money towards their fight if need be. Even if they lose their case, then a move to Florida might be a good idea. Florida has very lenient bankrupcy laws. Under Florida bankrupcy laws, Patty’s children can have homes and cars that are not subject to the judgement of the court. After seven years, Patty’s children can start with a clean slate.
I also recommend that anyone who is suffering under the extortion calls of “Settlement Centers” to be polite and ask that they not call anymore. If the calls continue, then I recommend complaining to authorities. If that does not work, then a nice loud horn or wistle near the phone might be a good thing to have. After all, many people use these devices to ward off other threatening calls. STAY STRONG AND FIGHT, there are more of us then them. Keep fighting, and we will win.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
No…I disagree.
I am a realist, and I realize that it will be impossible for Patty and her family to win against the RIAA. It’s not up to her to fight the good fight for all of mankind – and to argue otherwise is a load of dog shit.
This world has run out of room for your way of thinking. There’s things you can fight against, and things you cannot. She is not capable of fighting the RIAA. But maybe someone who has the money can. 14 grand won’t pay anything, and she is heading down the road to financial ruin for herself and her kids.
Its very easy for you to hide behind your computer and sound like the angry young man, with his working class ties and his radicle plans. But its just a bunch of political mumbo jumbo. Its aslo easy for you to encourage her as long as you don’t foot the bill. So what you’ve donated a few dollars – or even 100 dollars. That might buy her lawyer some coffee.
So yeah, go ahead and champion Patty…as long as its not your money who cares, right?
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 am
I stopped buying music when the RIAA started this sillyness, suing people by the thousands. I don’t do business with thugs. On another note, I love my local library.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 am
I’m being sued by Sharman Networks and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming for libel and believe me, I don’t have $14K, or anywhere remotely near it, and nor do I have any other money.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5230776.stm
My case is different, agreed, but in the end, Patti and I are both trying to stand up to hard-core bullies with a lot of money and no scruples.
If everyone stood up against them, there wouldn’t be in lawsuits. Meanwhile, as individuals, we do what we believe we have to do for ourselves, at the same time hoping our cases will ultimately help other people.
I admire Patti, I really do. She was, and still is, an example for me.
Cheers!
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 am
No… I disagree with you. There needs to be more people like the post you’re replying to because there are too many people like you in this world. Too many people who claim to be “realists” when in actuality you’re defeatists, you’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before the internet, I would have agreed with you. Before the internet we would have had to rely on lamescream media to get our information, and the same companies that our trying to ruin this country are the same ones that own the media, so you’d never hear about inspirations like Patti.
The internet has brought together millions of people who share the same feelings and values. The internet makes it possible for each person to give a little, because eventually it’ll be a lot.
You can hide behind your computer and sound like the “realist” with your defeatist feelings, but it’s just a bunch of mumbo jumbo. It’s also easy to throw his idea in the dirt and bow to the corporations. What do you care… it’s not your life they’re ruining.
WRONG!!! We need people like Patti Santangelo, because if they don’t stand up, those same corporations can and will take away every freedom you think you have. They will RUIN your life, and your way of living.
We can’t wait for “someone with money” to stand up. There aren’t enough of those people to discourage RIAA’s current rampage. If everyone stands up and says NO, then maybe, just maybe, they’ll get the hint.
Fight on Patti, and Patti’s children. You have millions of people rooting for you.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:35 am
the eff used to be good but now its just another organization that only does stuff it it thinks it can benefit by
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 am
But they were wireless !
Someone on the street could have tapped in and downloaded the songs.
Prove different
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 am
“WRONG!!! We need people like Patti Santangelo, because if they don’t stand up, those same corporations can and will take away every freedom you think you have.”
I doubt it. I’m not foolish enough to use Kazaa – or lack vigilance over what my kids do on their computer.
“They will RUIN your life, and your way of living. ”
Again, I doubt it. If I had the choice of paying 3 grand and putting this nightmare behind me, or laying my kids financial future out to dry, I’d pay the 3 grand. Let some other fool battle the RIAA…
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:45 am
“Again, I doubt it. If I had the choice of paying 3 grand and putting this nightmare behind me, or laying my kids financial future out to dry, I’d pay the 3 grand. Let some other fool battle the RIAA…”
That’s what RIAA is betting on you doing, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.
If you were completely innocent of an allegation, I can’t imagine you would rather pay a fee that amounts to extortion to “make it go away” rather than force them to prove their allegations in court.
Let me where you are so I can sue you to make a quick few grand. Who knows, maybe I can just pick a random name out of the phone book and sue them. It’s worked for RIAA so far.
You are extremely short-sighted. You think other companies aren’t watching very closely how this sue-em-all campaign has progressed over the last few years. It’s a slippery slope once you hop on. Pretty soon you’ll be getting sued (or when the government gets involved, thrown in jail) for freely speaking your mind on the internet. Oh…. wait…. that’s already happening (this very site for those who just joined us).
keep it up… you’ll regret it later.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
“I doubt it. I’m not foolish enough to use Kazaa – or lack vigilance over what my kids do on their computer. ”
There have been MANY cases where the defendant didn’t
have kazaa, or any other file sharing app … didn’t know what
filesharing was .. and in some cases .. had no computer at all.
More than one case where DEAD people have been sued aas well.
Your ‘vigilance’ has no bearing on anything. It’s almost as if they
pick out ip addy’s that have a history of high bandwidth usage, and
target them.
They would have the same effect if they just went door to door,
Chances are, the recipient would
and passed out subpoenas
not be able to afford to prove their innocence.
So, it doesn’t matter if you have never downloaded, they could
STILL sue you. But I doubt they will, since you ARE part of the
problem .. aren’t you ?
November 5th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Really? Name one…
November 5th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
RIAA sues Dead Grandmother, Gertrude Walton
http://www.vnunet.com/computeractive/news/2012379/riaa-sues-dead-woman
A little bit about the Walls Family ( oops they have no computer )
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060424-6662.html
Then there’s the Lindor Case ..
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/02/marie-lindor-to-move-for-summary.html
The RIAA’s ‘Evidence’ ( their supposed Kazaa Screen captures )
is very suspect, since at the date and time they were allegedly
taken, the Lindor’s had NO computer. Yes, they do now, and
during that time .. the could have legally ripped cd’s etc …
but now she has to Prove her innocence … as I said
There are many more cases like this, as you know.
Many of them have been featured here.
MOST of them we never hear of, ignored by major media.
It’s bad PR you know.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
[quote]she has to Prove her innocence[/quote]
I thought it was the other way around. Aren’t the plaintiffs supposed to prove you’re guilty? After all it’s them who went ahead to make a claim, so prove it. Who the hell does the burden of proof rests on?
November 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
“I thought it was the other way around. Aren’t the plaintiffs supposed to prove you’re guilty? After all it’s them who went ahead to make a claim, so prove it. Who the hell does the burden of proof rests on?”
That is the way things are supposed to be. However trumped up “evidence” such as screenshots may be accepted as proff of infringement by the courts unless the defendent is able to refute the “evidence”. Defendent has to be able to refute (prove the evidence is bo good) the evidence presented by the plaintiff. If the defendant does not do so, then it is very likely that the court will rule in favor of the plaintiff. So yes, defendant has to spend time and money to disprove false claims.
November 5th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
You’re thinking in terms of criminal court with innocence and guilt. These cases aren’t being “tried” in criminal court. They are being tried in both civil court and the court of public opinion with media before they reach the court.
I sure some of our more legal types can steer you to the exact differences. The general gist is that the copyright holder doesn’t have to prove anything other than they suspect and it is likely. If they can present enough evidence that it is likely, then the case is very subject to going their way, whether or not the victim actually did. Can you yourself prove the day, hour, minute, and second of a particular instance you were on line, not by ISP records, but by your own records were I to name any given moment in time? Could you also prove your inablility to do as claimed for that moment and document it to court standards? Even then, given that you could, it does not prevent you from having to pay for representation, time, personal appearnce (no matter what is going on in your life).
It has already been shown that even when presented with no possible way it could have been done that the **AA’s are still taking folks to court in hopes of getting the settlement as the easy way out. This is one of the reasons that some of the latest cases are being thrown out of court by lack of “evidence” and willful malice on the part of the cartel watchdogs. When that happens they then want to try and weasel out of bearing the court costs, the victims legal costs to fight the charge, and walk away with an “oh well”. That leaves the victim in the hole for the whole costs of defending ones self against a friviolous lawsuit that never should have made it to that point of being a lawsuit.
So much for proving ones innocence, eh?
November 5th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
which is a bad thing, because it sort of corroborates that The US Justice System is fucked up.