Comments on: Patti Santangelo fights Goliath

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:36:07 +0000

Regarding Patti’s legal defense fund, see: http://www.northcountrynotes.org/goliath/

There is a paypal buton. See also:

http://www.p2pnet.net/goliath/

where there is a script you can add to your website. Bless you for your interest and help.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 04:48:30 +0000

I think it’s pretty clear what tactic the RIAA will use in this case. Imagine what would happen if a mom knew nothing about, say, automatic weapons … that she was “weapons-illiterate” … but decided her kids might enjoy having one to play with. They are going to paint a picture of Patti Santangelo as a mom who “chose” to give her children access to something she, herself, didn’t understand. In short, they’ll imply she was a “bad mom” unwilling to spend the time it took to understand the tools she’d placed in her children’s hands.

If there is a jury trial, and during “voir dire” (jury questioning prior to trial), you can bet that industry lawyers will exclude anyone who admits to using a P2P application to download music … insuring the jury is made up of toadies who buy the current media spiel of “RIAA is good, P2P is evil.” And sympathy for a “bad mom?”

Patti Santangelo’s fight is a noble one and I wish her Godspeed. But nobility and 10 cents still won’t buy you a cup of coffee in any town … or courtroom.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:09:31 +0000

Here is the problem:

according to what I’ve read here before, she did say that someone (her daughter, i believe) must have done it. Was she on something??? How stupid it is to say something like that, she just admitted that the alleged crime has indeed taken the place. How does she expect to have the case dismissed???

“Yes, officer, my daughter killed that man but no one told her it was illegal. Can we all go home now?”

No court would throw out the case because of what she deliberately put herself into. I certainly do not agree with **AA tacticts but if you get caught, either deny everything (and there are a lot of ways to prove your innocence) or pay up if you are so dumb to admit it. Now, if I were the jury, I would’ve fought for the “guilty” verdict all the way only because she was foolish enough to speak when she wasn’t spoken to. I do hope she is going to be cleared of everything but it feels like a lost cause to me.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:54:25 +0000

On behalf of all of the Katrina victims, I thank you. We got the fringes where I live. 130 mph winds, power out for 9 days, and various and sundry other minor things. Luckily, we weren’t hard hit and did just fine, unlike those a bit farther south than we. Still have a roof over the head, still have food, so this one is far more lucky than others and isn’t complaining in the least.

Still I did want to say that there are those far less fortunate than we. Those that lost loved ones, lost everything to their names they had, and those that were just plain unluckly to maybe not have enough to buy a ticket out ahead of time and were forced to stay (and some of those lost their lives). It is through the donations such as the one here that help has filtered through. Make no mistake that the government has helped but that help will end far sooner than it takes to fix what is now missing in the wake of the hurricane. Missing homes are one thing, when it looks like the bomb went off where you stand it is another thing. Hard as heck to get back on your feet when the grocery store you bought food at is gone, the utilities you got are gone, and the job you depended on to pay for everything is also gone.

Again, my humble thanks for those that can’t say that for themselves.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:15:42 +0000

I would place a dontation link for Patti as i did for Hurricane Katrina victims and the clickthrough was very high.

I wish patti had a public donation fund setup.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:12:05 +0000

Judge: Son, you admitted to your FBI agent father that you downloaded 10,000 mp3 songs onto his computer. I hope that you understand that your father had to report the facts at the office. Had he erased the songs he would be found guilty of destroring evidence. Because what you did, copying songs to your father’s computer was intentional, I have to double the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song, to $1,500. This means that you will have to pay the record companies 15 million dollars. I am sorry but while this breaks my heart, asking a 12 year old kid to pay 15 million dollars, that is the law and I cannot do anything about it, just like your father had to inform on you.

Defendant: And how much is 15 million dollars? I only make 2 dollars a day selling newspapers. How long do I have to work to pay the money?

Judge: Hmmm… 15 million divided by two… about 20,000 years.

Defendant: That sounds like a long time. Don’t you have a heart?

Judge: I just do my job, like the FBI does. We follow orders.

REMEMBER NUREMBERG

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:52:33 +0000

It’s good there’s a fund raiser on the way. Maybe some people would also like to attend the court hearing on December 22nd as well to show support.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:13:43 +0000

I agree, Rafael, but people must be educated as to what to expect and what to do when summoned for jury duty. A jury needs to reconize when evidence is being suppressed, when the judge is abusing his authority, and what can be done about unjust laws. If I were to be sitting on a jury and had to decide a case where the defendent was guilty of violating an unconstitutional or unjust law, I would vote NOT guilty regardless of the evidence. The power that a juror has is the last piece of power the government has not stolen from the people. Even the election system is rigged, and thanks to computerized voting, companies can easily throw the results of an election to the highest bidder.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:06:26 +0000

The excess donations received should be used to file a lawsuit against RIAA and the RIAA members and all their executives.

New York is a pefect place for that, because it is a punitive damage state. RIAA can be shreded to pieces by a jury, for their legal tactics against music file sharer, inocent people.

I am sure that no American jury will like what they see… a bunch of foreigners criminilizing Amercan youth and mothers. Of course, a judge couldn’t care less. They are not into human problems.

I hope the RIAA lawyers read this and tell their customers the risks that they are taking by continuing their legal tactics. If they (RIAA) are smart, they will drop everything and simply go home, to whatever country that is.

Another good reason to make donations to the cause od Santangelo.

I think Santangelo may be a Saint and Angel in disguise. Her name says it.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:06:47 +0000

Here is an anecdote:

Here in Puerto Rico a jury awarded a songwriter/singer $7+ million dollars in damages because his song was recorded without a license and one word was changed, a moral rights violation.

Read the NT time article here:
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n24/4SaleLatinMusic-en.shtml

In my case, a publisher stole over 500 songs belonging to my family, 80 of which were copyright registered in their names. The damage awarded to us? $16,000 for the infringement of one of the songs. The case was heard by a judge.

As you can see , juries do make a huge difference.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:53:23 +0000

I agree with you on this post. When telling potential jurors about their powers, you might want to direct them to the Fully Informed Jurors Association’s website ( http://www.fija.org ). There are many good article here explaining to people why the jury system was put in place and what their poers are.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:47:00 +0000

Protest does absolutely no good without action. If the judge overrules the jury or does not allow Patricia Santangalo to excercise her right in court, the judge should be lynched.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:44:23 +0000

Well, I am Jewish, but I agree with the post above your that Hollydud is virtually devoide of Christians. I will also say that Christians that tend to speak their minds about the media are usually label by the same as anti-semetic. As a Jew, I realize that there is indeed an attack on Christianity in general. While I believe that it is wrong to persecute someone for their religious beliefs, I also believe that Corporate Christianity is largly at fault for allowing the situation to become what it is today. An example of this is the fact that the Christian Coalition supports the (porn and violence spewing) entertainment cartels when it comes to persecuting file sharers. As a Jew, I did not see anything terribly anti-semetic about Mel Gibson’s Passion….. In fact, isn’t Mel Gibson working on a movie about the holocaust? What I see this as is the government-cartel alliance keeping dofferent groups at odds with one another. If we ever come together, we could do a lot in forcing justice back into society.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:34:53 +0000

If a jury is allowed to hear her case, she might win. However, it is a judge who decides what evidence is allowed to be presented. It is a judge who can rule to admit or suppress evidence. I found this out when I went in front of a judge for a speeding ticket violation.

The judge not only would not alow me to present all of my evidence, he also threw out all precedent and case law I presented. In fact, the judge, Robert Pell of Panama City is not even a real judge, but rather a “hearing officer.”

I wonder what type of kangaroo court Patricia will be subjected to. Most juries are blindly obedient to the judge’s instructions. If a judge tells them to not consider a peice of evidence, most of them will not consider that peice of evidence. If a judge tells a person presenting his or her case that he or she can not present a piece of evidence, then that person risks a “contempt of court” charge if he or she continues.

What is needed on the jury is a group of people who understand their powers as jurors. I recommend that anyone who has not done so to visit http://www.fija.org website to learn of their powers as a juror. I know if I were to hear a case where the defendant was constantly shushed by the judge whenever he or she tried to present the case, I would vote not guilty.

Court have long ago become arena’s for the rich and provide little justice to the poor unless the poor person has a lawyer who think he or she can make money from representing that person. If were to lose a case simply because I did not have the funds to present the case in court, I would probably go Heemeyer on the court house, RIAA, or associated buildings. There is very little justice for the little man and things will continue to get worse until the peopl become ready to do something about it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:38:47 +0000

Sorry, but forgot to include others that work for the record companies and should know the copyright laws and the copyright status of everything they sell: artists.

Of all the unlawful records made and distributed by Sony one stands out because it sold overr a confirmed 4.5 million copies by about 1999. Surely sales are now over 5 million copies. The most succesful latin song record ever made by Sony or any other record company. The record is Sentimientos (Feeelings) by singer Charlie Zaa.

Surely Zaa has made at leat a few million dollars off this record, that has produced sales of over 75 million dollars at retail level.

One would then expect that Charlie Zaa would have a greater responsibility than Santangelo to make sure that the songs copied were being copied in a lawful manner and with authorization from the copyright owners.

I will also ask my lawyer to bring Charlie Zaa into the case.

FYI: This is a Charlie Zaa’s page:
http://www.furiamusical.com/charlie_zaa.htm
The infringing Sony record (Sentimientos) is being sold here right now, five years after Sony was sued.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:35:31 +0000

Sorry, but forgot to include others that work for the record companies and should know the copyright laws and the copyright status of everything they sell: Salepersons and the distributors and their salespersons.

Actually these salespersons have a higher responsibility of knowing the copyright status of everything they sell than a downloader, because they make a living from their selling and make money from their transactions, where as downloaders (unless proven otherwise) make no money. They only enjoy the music.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:20:24 +0000

Here is an idea that will break up RIAA. I will start by using it myself in my lawsuit against Sony for infringing our music.

My lawyer has just requested the discovery phase of our lawsuit aginst Sony for massive and intentional infringement (to save money in royalty payments, a form of theft) start. About time! The lawsuit was filed in February of 2001.

I will ask my lawyer to bring into the lawsuit as John Doe of all the Sony employees that worked in the factory that worked on each of the 16+ infringement recordings unlawfully made by Sony. I am talking about production line operators, the ones that operate the machines that make the cd’s, the ones that make the cd jackets, the ones that do the shipping, etc.

Sony should implode when their hourly paid employees are sued.

My theory here is that Sony employees are just as responsible for infringement as anyone that shares or copies for non commercial purposes.

If it is expected of downloader that they know the copyright laws and that they know the copyright status of the works they copy, and are somehow guilty if they do not or act as they do not, then the same logic shall apply to production line employees of the record companies.

Patti Santangelo, if it were true that she copied any songs without the authorization of the copyright owners is just as guilty as John Doe, who infringed the rights of my family when actually making or shipping the infringing CDs.

The principle: Equity in Justice.

If Santangelo is found guilty of infringement no one will want to use the Internet hereafter.

If Sony employees are declared guilty of infringement sure no one will work for Sony, or any record company, hereafter.

To be just with the Sony employees, whatever damages they have to pay must be paid, surely by Sony.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:47:53 +0000

The best case scenario as I see it, is that Patti wins and OM get stuffed. As much as I would dearly love to see that happen however, I am painfully sceptical about the outcome. Patti is just one strong woman against a massive business and a questionable judicial system whose raison d’etre is to line their pockets. It goes against reason to assume that there haven’t been payoffs and dodgy dealings somewhere along the way for OM to achieve what they want to, in what will be a high profile and landmark case.

There are only 10 days left until Patti has to stand up for not only herself, but also everyone else who has been victimised, and who potentially could be victimised by OM’s morally reprehensible extortion racket. That’s a lot of people. At the last count, the official figures were somewhere around 9 million around the world. If we all pitched in a buck, that would more than cover Patti’s costs and any potential ruling against her, and give the p2p movement a fighting fund for any future defences.

The faster we can get something in place to financially support Patti in the event of things going against her, the better. I would dearly love to see her win this, not just for everyone else who has a vested interest, but just for the joy of seeing an innocent Mum stick it to ethically twisted corporate America.

In the worst case scenario, if it does go against her, [and heaven forbid] and if the judge were to award a fine and costs, how great it would be if Patti could be in the financial situation to say, “Will you take a cheque?” and walk away from the Court with her head held high!

Come on folks, when the time comes, put your money where your mouth is and help Patti out!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:24:28 +0000

Sure you’ll be able to help. This post was meant to say, in effect, that a fund-raising campaign is on the way and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear. But I’ve just revised the article. Have another look. Does that do it for the moment? Thanks.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:11:58 +0000

So you’re suggesting the actions by Organized Music against P2P companies and individuals involved in downloading are part of a wider Jewish conspiracy and it’s all somehow linked to lobbying that took place against Mel Gibson’s film? If that’s the case, isn’t it funny how many activists (especially in the academic area) who support the rights of these poor people are Jewish … or doesn’t that count if your post is motivated by simple blind hatred.