Comments on: Patti Santangelo fights Goliath: II

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 22 May 2007 06:26:37 +0000

Something that bugs me I read the script of what Patti Santangelo said on that CNN show. I don’t know which one. But she said

SANTANGELO: Certainly. I think a lot of children have Internet access, and I did use parental controls on their AOL accounts, because that’s all they use.

If you use the parental controls on AOL you can’t use programs like Kazaa because AOL blocks them. You can download the program kazaa and install it on your computer but you cannot connect to the kazaa network to download files. If a music file was on the computer it most likely came from a website or maybe a friend sent it to that computer. Either way if the parental control on AOL where working right then programs like kazaa don’t work. I’ve tried getting around this problems a few years ago and never really found a way to get around it. So if AOL was blocking the p2p programs how did the kids download illegal music?

It been awhile since I messed with AOL but I know it use to be setup to block p2p programs.

That may help the case some. I don’t know the latest on the case but I hope it gets dismissed. If the RIAA ever sues me it’s going to be an interesting case………hehe….I’d fight too. I just never hope it happens. Plus they would have nothing on me……

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:45:44 +0000

The New York Times rag needs to be shut down and held accountable for treason. If not, why not? Hanging would be just fine. They have caused the war to be prolonged and death of many of our miliatary. No excuse. Hang em high! The person or persons leaking information should really be held acouontable. Will they be though, or will this be swept under the rug? Again? I can not tell you how angry people in this nick of the woods are over this incident. I want to see some guts by those who can do something about this, and do it now…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 30 May 2006 19:30:04 +0000

can you tell me how you connected, I have the same option but I don’t know how to get my new HP to set it up to search for the wireless router. I am short on money and my neighbors knows and he don’t mind if I can do it. But he don’t know how to do it either. I am good with computers but I can not seam to understand this wireles. Please help a mother

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:29:48 +0000

She not the onl one being sued . I’am am also I settled out of court for $2500. an ther aslo thers 240.000 or so people there going after for copyright infrigement . I would have took it to court I would pay $150,000. per inferaction from using ET an other sites for down loading movies .From advice from a family friends lawer.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 22:57:57 +0000

P2P - part of the problem or part of the solution:

I guess that Kaaza and other P2P-networks which make it possible to prove a single IP-adress has shared a specific file is nothing less than ENTRAPMENT from any kind of lawenforcementagency or otherwhise. These kind of P2P-network are obsolete since a few years back and are only a new form of business for the big companies trying to force single individuals paying them big money for shit they can´t sell any other way.

No person using P2P and sharing files so that companies loose money would ever use such unsafe methods when filesharing.

Everyone I heard of and who is filesharing uses many combined stelthmethods to avoid getting caught. Since their are a great deal of Internetsites in former east-European countries and all over the world where you can pay for your music something like $1.00 per musicalbum and get your mp3:s whith quality of as much as 320 kbs/s.

Their is no way in hell that any company could claim they are loosing money on filesharing.

Because the “laws of business” a customer would newer ever pay their overprices for there inferior products.

Therefore any claims from any company that they are loosing money on filesharing is false.

Since everybody knows that buying a whole music-album from an Internet-site for something like $1.00 that would be a legal way to purchase any music one would ever want but at the same time I would give my money to some Mafia and still no money would go to the musicians or their production company.

Filesharing is simply a way to prevent giving my money to some Mafia(organized crime).

But can the musicians and their productioncompanies blaim me for using filesharing for getting the product of my choice that they don´t make available themselves.

They simply doesnt sell the products that the consumers are asking for and at the right price!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The day the musicians and their production companies make their music available with the right price, quality and form that us consumers want they will get paid from every single consumer who would ever want to buy their products.

This is also true right at this moment that they are getting paid from every single consumer who would ever want to buy their products of today.

Since most music is available thru radio, tv, your own or friends mp3-player, internet broadcast, café, stores, malls, planes and almost everywhere you are but not always exactly when you want it most consumers are satisfied with that massive availibility and only if it is some extrodinary master-piece that you want always available the consumer is guaranteed to buy it just because it´s worth it!

Just like one would never steal one´s christmas-tree because it´s just wrong. It wouldn´t feel right. One would not be able to enjoy christmas!

Sincerly,
Swedish consumer

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 21:22:09 +0000

Spoken like a man that A) Doesn’t have any children. B) Has more than a passing interest in computers. C) Has an interest in downloading music.

You can’t expect parents and all PC owners to know more than how to power up their PC, install a few games and just e-mail and surf the net.

They have a life that doesn’t revolve around a PC. As I sit in my home I don’t even have to pay for internet access. (I do and my wireless is encrypted.) But I have three strong signals from my other wireless neighbors. My job is IT.

So if I download music off their routers…should they pay? Come-on Chris you are ignoring the fact that it might not even have been her children that downloaded the music.

My neighbors should know how to secure their routers right? I’ll bet they don’t even know if they are using their OWN router.

Neighbor A maybe using Neighbor B’s router and the other way around.

These people are just common average people. Smarter than me probably …who own a PC but don’t live on the PC.

A Sony executive has admitted this just by saying - and I’m paraphasing, “What’s the big deal the average user doesn’t know what a root directory is.”

They know and understand how people use their computers, but sue them all like high tech experts.

Was anyone threatened with a lawsuit charged with a crime?
That would be interesting but I’m not an expert in law.

You can’t raise the standard expected level of computer literacy above the common average. You can’t expect someone defending their home to act like a policeman or someone doing CPR to perform like a doctor.

Finally I see lots of people threaten with law suits but I don’t she anyone charged with a crime.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:11:34 +0000

A true christmas story.

Yesterday an elerly lady called a radio station where a certain news reporter now works.

The reporter was workikng as a tv reporter 20 or so years agos and worked on a christams television progrm. Part of the program was made on the lady’s home, because it was chosen as the best Christmas decorated home found, on a poor neighborhood.

The lady said she had someone videotape the program and it has now become a tradition in her home, to get together the familiy on holy night to have a dinner and to view the television program. She even call the reporter every year to thank the roporter for choosing her home for the television program. It is the pride of her life, her one moment of glory which she dedicates to “our lord Jesus”, she said.

But this beautiful story has a potential dark side. The lady could be classified a criminal for having an illegal copy of a television program she helped make, surely for free, which someone downloaded from television for the purpose of theft, unless viwing the tape for 20 years can fit the description of time shifting. As result, a familiy does not watch the current television programs and artists would loose thei livelehood, and advertising income.RIAA could say. After all, God is business too for RIAA, just as art is.

I think RIAA and the RIAA lawyers and some judges would say this lady is a thief.

We need to think about this lady and her possible plight if the TV industry goes after aher as RIAA has gone after Santangelo and others.

Merry Christmas.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:37:23 +0000

Enough vague talk. I want an ACTUAL METHOD TO SEND DONATIONS TO Patti Santangelo. I hear about PayPal scripts and forthcoming snailmail addresses. Where’s the actual info?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:59:19 +0000

There is such a thing as a primary use for a product.

We are here in the area of pure semantics. You can say that the primary use of p2p is to share. Another could say it is for infringement. Another could say is for costless distribution of files that can be legally copied by anyone. Another could say it is for freech speech. Another could say it is for selling ads. Take your pick and I will not argue your decision. That is your freedom.

But do you know what is the primary purpose of the Sony blank music CDs? Theft as defined by RIAA, owned by Sony and others.

Do you know what is the primary purpose of blank Sony DVDs? Theft as defined by RIAA, owned by Sony and others. Just the other day I saw a man at the checkout counter at a store carrying out a bunch of 100 blank dvd packs. The man commented to another person in the line that it was the perfect xmas gift for his grandchildren, not realizing that per RIAA he was turning his grandchildren into criminal (per RIAA).

Do you know what is the primary purpose of VHS to DVD copiers? Theft as defined by RIAA.

“the judge ruled that it can be held liable of aiding infringement because of the fact that its primary purpose was allowing illegal downloads”

Well the judge’s semantics could have been mistaken because anyone can contradict the judge and say that p2p is a tool whose primary purpose is the permitted costless distribution of digital files for whatever purpose (including free speech) and it is up to the user (as is the user of anything) to determine if the tool is used as legally permitted. Remember guns? Remember the printing press?

Rafael Veengas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:13:07 +0000

There is such a thing as a primary use for a product. In the recent case against KaZaA, (and several other p2p providers) the judge ruled that it can be held liable of aiding infringement because of the fact that its primary purpose was allowing illegal downloads (KaZaA has sensed appealed this ruling, and the case is still not 100% solved). Primary purpose is simply what the software or product is used for the most. P2P sites, as great as they are, are used for illegal purposes about 75% of the time, if not more. The primary use of a copy machine is to copy documents that someone has personally made. Therefore copy machines are allowed without being sued. Primary use as I mention it is not the primary use of something by an individual person, but as the primary use of the total population of users.

Chris

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:00:52 +0000

TODAY’S TOP STORIES :: BUSINESS :: OPINION :: FNC TV :: RADIO :: FOXFAN :: FOX CONNECT :: VIDEO
Updated: 12-29-05 12:54am ET
SEARCH

A Look Ahead (and Back)
Opinionated predictions for the next year in tech, based on what happened in 2005Let the Subpoenas Fly
N.Y. attorney general sets sights on new target: alleged digital-music price-fixingAnother Shot Fired
Pioneer unveils drive-bay burner for Blu-ray DVDs; consumer models won’t be far behind
E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
Woman Takes On Recording Industry Alone
Wednesday, December 28, 2005

STORIES
•French Lawmakers Vote to Legalize File-Sharing•Court Rules Against Mother in Music-Downloading Suit•Kazaa Accused of Ignoring Court Order•Web-Based MP3 ‘Locker’ Open for Business•Grateful Dead Puts Concert Recordings Back Online•Man Gets Three Months for Uploading Movies•Grokster Agrees to Shut Down
WHITE PLAINS, New York — It was Easter Sunday, and Patricia Santangelo was in church with her kids when she says the music recording industry peeked into her computer and decided to take her to court.

Santangelo says she has never downloaded a single song on her computer, but the industry didn’t see it that way.

The woman from Wappingers Falls, about 80 miles north of New York City, is among the more than 16,000 people who have been sued for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks.

“I assumed that when I explained to them who I was and that I wasn’t a computer downloader, it would just go away,” she said in an interview. “I didn’t really understand what it all meant. But they just kept insisting on a financial settlement.”

The industry is demanding thousands of dollars to settle the case, but Santangelo, unlike the 3,700 defendants who have already settled, says she will stand on principle and fight the lawsuit.

“It’s a moral issue,” she said. “I can’t sign something that says I agree to stop doing something I never did.”

If the downloading was done on her computer, Santangelo thinks it may have been the work of a young friend of her children.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTSAdvertise Here

Santangelo, 43, has been described by a federal judge as “an Internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from kazoo, and who can barely retrieve her email.”

Kazaa is a peer-to-peer software program used to share files.

The drain on her resources to fight the case — she’s divorced, has five children aged 7 to 19 and works as a property manager for a real estate company — forced her this month to drop her lawyer and begin representing herself.

“There was just no way I could continue on with a lawyer,” she said. “I’m out $24,000 and we haven’t even gone to trial.”

So on Thursday she was all alone at the defense table before federal Magistrate Judge Mark Fox in White Plains, looking a little nervous and replying simply, “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” to his questions about scheduling and exchange of evidence.

She did not look like someone who would have downloaded songs like Incubus’ “Nowhere Fast,” Godsmack’s “Whatever” and Third Eye Blind’s “Semi-Charmed Life,” all of which were allegedly found on her computer.

Her former lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says Santangelo doesn’t really need him.

“I’m sure she’s going to win,” he said. “I don’t see how they could win. They have no case. They have no evidence she ever did anything. They don’t know how the files appeared on her computer or who put them there.”

Jenni Engebretsen, spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, the coalition of music companies that is pressing the lawsuits, would not comment specifically on Santangelo’s case.

“Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and give legal online services a chance to flourish,” she said. “The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store.”

The David-and-Goliath nature of the case has attracted considerable attention in the Internet community. To those who defend the right to such “peer-to-peer” networks and criticize the RIAA’s tactics, Santangelo is a hero.

Jon Newton, founder of an Internet site critical of the record companies, said by e-mail that with all the settlements, “The impression created is all these people have been successfully prosecuted for some as-yet undefined ‘crime’. And yet not one of them has so far appeared in a court or before a judge. … She’s doing it alone. She’s a courageous woman to be taking on the multibillion-dollar music industry.”

Santangelo said her biggest issue is with Kazaa for allowing children to download music without parental permission.

“I should have gotten at least an e-mail or something notifying me,” she said.

Telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Australia-based owner of Kazaa, Sharman Networks Ltd., were not returned.

Because some cases are settled just before a trial and because it would be months before Santangelo’s got that far, it’s impossible to predict whether she might be the first to go to trial over music downloading.

But she vows that she’s in the fight to stay.

“People say to me, ‘You’re crazy. Why don’t you just settle?’ I could probably get out of the whole thing if I paid maybe $3,500 and signed their little document. But I won’t do that.”

Her travail started when the record companies used an investigator to go online and search for copyrighted recordings being made available by individuals. The investigator allegedly found hundreds on her computer on April 11, 2004.

Months later, there was a phone call from the industry’s “settlement center,” demanding about $7,500 “to keep me from being named in a lawsuit,” Santangelo said.

Santangelo and Beckerman were confident they would win a motion to dismiss the case, but Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the record companies had enough of a case to go forward. She said the issue was whether “an Internet-illiterate parent” could be held liable for her children’s downloads.

Santangelo says she’s learned a lot about computers in the past year.

“I read some of these blogs and they say, ‘Why didn’t this woman have a firewall?’” she said. “Well, I have a firewall now. I have a ton of security now.”

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL

Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Spring deadline was Dec. 2, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
foxnewsonline@foxnews.com; For FOX News Channel comments write to
comments@foxnews.com
© Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
MORE TECHNOLOGY
•New Frequencies to Cost Gov’t Nearly $1B•Woman Takes On Recording Industry Alone•Yahoo Streaming CBS Sitcoms•Euro Satellite Challenges Pentagon’s GPS•Video Game Shuns NFL, Gets Violent•Tech Consultant John Diebold Dies at 79•Dvorak: Net Censorship and Democracy’s Fall•Sirius Tops 3 Million Subscribers•Tech Helped Big Apple Deal With Strike•Web Creator Tim Berners-Lee Starts Blog•French Vote to Legalize File-Sharing•Solar Purse Charges USB-Powered Gadgets•Senate OKs Digital TV-Deadline Legislation•Texas Adds New Claim to Sony BMG Lawsuit•EU Warns Microsoft About Antitrust Rules•Apple Web Site Growing in Popularity•Poll: Americans Dependent on Gadgets•RIM Income Surges Despite Patent Dispute•Review: Creative Zen Sleek MP3 Player•IBM to Acquire Micromuse for $865M•Seagate Buying Maxtor for $1.9 Billion•Utility Rolling Out Power-Line Broadband•Google, AOL Seal $1 Billion Deal

ONLY ON FOX
Steve Jobs, Phone HomeCombo cell phones/MP3 players may take bite of iPod’s market shareTrail of EvidencePolice investigators find blogs, such as accused killer David Ludwig’s, to be prime sources for cluesWhat’s In a Name?Software could allow better transliteration of Arabic, other foreign names, but U.S. government slow to actGym Class by ProxyPhysical education goes online as schools tweak fitness programs to adapt to budget cuts

VIDEO
The Year in Sci-TechCloning controversy, shuttle back in space, video iPod, plasma car all in news this yearEyes on the RoadBritain putting surveillance cameras all along national highwaysCyber-ProtectionIs government’s effort to monitor, combat Islamic terrorists on Internet succeeding?No Google ThreatFear that terrorists, other baddies might be using Internet-based satellite maps to plot attacks overblown

U.S. & WorldPoliticsTechnologyScienceHealthFoxlifeNew! SportsWeatherFOX411Southwest Residents, Governors Survey Fire DamageU.S. Judge Order Nazi Guard Deported After 30-Year BattlePadilla Lawyers Want Supreme Court to Clarify War PowersNew Orleans Delays Katrina Home DemolitionStorms Swell Northern California RiversSponsored
by
Rewind: Bush, Iraq Topped Political News of 2005Sept. 11 Loan Recipients Not Hurt by AttacksIntelligence Officials Move Up in Pentagon Succession PlanBudget for 2006 Hits New High, Gets Done Sooner Than LaterLawyers May Challenge NSA WiretappingSponsored
by
Louderback: Top Stories and Predictions for 2005, 2006Spitzer Subpoenas Music Cos. for Price-FixingPioneer Rolls Out Blu-Ray DVD BurnerMove to New Frequencies to Cost Government Nearly a Billion DollarsWoman Takes On Recording Industry AloneSponsored
by
Adult Brain Cells Do Keep GrowingGood-Hearted Women Fail to Deal With Bad HeartsFish Mating Preferences Change With AgeStudy: Southwest to Get Much HotterHwang’s Last Two Stem-Cell Lines to Be ProbedBird Flu, Cloning, Katrina: Top Health Stories of 2005Surgery Offers Hope to Mutilation Victims Vitamin D May Lower Some Cancer RiskBest Place to Have a Coma: Soap OperasDepression Implant Gaining AcceptanceStrakalogue: Grrr! 2006 …The No Spin Year?
Fox411: ‘Kong’ Clobbered by ‘Chronicles’
NBC’s ‘Book of Daniel’ Sparks Fire-and-Brimstone ReactionPatridge Matriarch Finds New Sex Life on ScreenStallone Magazine Allowed to Stay on SaleStrakalogue: Grrr!Holiday Gift GuideSponsored
by
Scores and news from FOX SportsLocal WeatherWeather AlertFOX411: ‘Kong’ Clobbered by ‘Chronicles’
Ex-Enron Exec Richard Causey Strikes Plea DealDelta Pilots OK Double-Digit Pay Cuts U.K., U.S. Hilton Hotel Deal Said CloseAsian Economy Set to Surpass JapanAT&T Launches Huge Ad CampaignViewsFOX News PollsFOX Blogs24/7 FNCImmigration: A Tool in the Enemies’ Toolkitifeminists: Abuse of Temporary Restraining Orders Endangers Real Victims
Martin Frost: King George W. ?
Tongue Tied: Santa’s Racist Little Helper, Greetings Gripes
ifeminists: Campus Conscience Police?
Friends InsiderGretawireHarrigan on the HuntRick’s RamblesWilson WatchO’Reilly’s Talking PointsCavuto’s Common SenseHume’s The GrapevineGibson’s My WordWhat’s Coming UpDaytimePrime TimeSaturdaySundaySpecialsBiosShowsFOX Around the WorldThe Big StoryDaySideFOX & FriendsFOX News LiveStudio BYour WorldFOX ReportHannity & ColmesOn the RecordThe O’Reilly FactorSpecial ReportBeltway BoysBig Story WeekendBulls and BearsCashin’ InCavuto on BusinessForbes on FOXFOX & Friends SaturdayFOX News Live WeekendFOX News WatchFOX Report SaturdayHeartlandThe LineupWeekend LiveBig Story WeekendFOX & Friends SundayFOX News Live WeekendFOX News SundayFOX Report SundayThe LineupSunday BestWar StoriesWeekend LiveBreaking PointNews ServiceTony SnowJohn GibsonAlan ColmesNewslettersSpeakoutWhat We’re ReadingExclusivesFNC iMagFOX Means BusinessGoodiesFOX Around The WorldFAQsFNC UpdateDollars and $enseFNC PoliticsFOX411GretaWireSubscribeManage SubscriptionSite ToolsNewslettersFNC RingtonesFOX News ShopFOX Around The WorldFNC AlertsSearch ToolbarNews TickerWeather AlertHotel FinderFNC UpdateDollars and $enseFNC PoliticsFOX411GretaWireSubscribeManage Subscription

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:01:31 +0000

I wonder, can China become a free-for-all IP heaven to improve their leadership position in manufacturing?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:40:06 +0000

“This is true, but the primary use of a copy machine is not infringement, the primary use of a computer is not infringement, the primary use of a p2p network IS infringement.”

When you say the above statement you must be thinking of specific cases, right? Surely a person can use a photocoper only for stealing (as RIAA calls sharing). Then the primary use is “infringement”. Surely a person can use a computer solely for making fake copies of CDs to later sell them, Then the primary use of that computer is infringement.
Surely a person can use P2P to share literary works, videos and public documents that are in the public domain. Then that person;s use of the P2P network is perfectly lawful. Right? My point is, there is no such thing as a primary use for any copying equipment or system. Each user will determine what use he/she will give the equipment of system.

*************************************
“The copy right laws are important weather you think so or not.”

Pardon me, but I will rephrase your tought. It is important that copyright laws accomplish what they set out to do: Promote the production of arts so the public gets the most benefits. The copyright laws started with this idea in mind, with a secondary economic incentive built in to help in the primary purpose. Along the way it the original purpose got lost and the idea became the enrichment of the copyright holders (cartels) which were in music, not the creators of the music, but the music publishers and the record companies. In the tergiversation the songwriters and artists became not important. In the end the music and their enjoyment by the people became the big loosers because the original copyright idea was tergiversated. A good explanation of this tergiversation is given here at THE COPYRIGHT DOG site:

The copyright Funnel
WHY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE WRONG
http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:26:19 +0000

To be honest with you it is the parent’s responsibility to control their children. I am sorry if the parents don’t know how to but they should learn. They should talk to their kids, they should be Parents, if they are not able to do this then they should not be parents. Like I said in another post, if a parent leaves a gun out and a kid gets it and uses it to kill someone, don’t the parents get in trouble? Or if the parents leave car keys out and a 15 year old takes the car, gets in an accident, who gets in trouble, the parents. Yes those examples are extreme, but They are just to prove a point that parents do have a responsibility to control their kids, and they must teach their kids the difference between right and wrong, and that stealing is wrong, even if it is from the “big mean RIAA”. If someone feels they are being mistreated, then take it to court; don’t steal music just because they don’t think it is fair. I don’t think it is fair to pay $12.50 to see a movie in NY, but I still pay it and go to the movie, I don’t break in because I think the price is unfair. Besides I only know a little about the movie industry, who am I to say that that price is truly unfair. What I do know a lot about is the Music Business; I got a degree from college in the subject. And I know that people are breaking the law and they are going about it the wrong way, if they want to change prices. The Music Business really has no other option than to sue the criminals, and yes they are criminals. These are my opinions, some of this is opinion, but most of it is fact.

Chris
New York, NY

Also, if your father ownes the copyright, and gives you the right of duplication then it is fine to make those copies. Or, even if he doesn’t have the copyright, you do have the right to make copies for YOURself. I believe the number of copies you can make is 5. But the difference is that you can not make those copies for a friend. Only yourself.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:26:50 +0000

“What if the band is a flop, well guess who losses the money, that’s right the record label does. They are the ones taking the risk.”

Sorry pal, but the logic is flawed. An ingredient is missing. That is a guaranteed sucess. If record companies gambles with artists it is because they actually sign all comers, regardless of talent. If the gamble does not work out the record company looses little but the artist is tied down to a contract that obliges him/her to continue with the flopped record company.

Simplified, a record company has no problem if 95 percent of their signed artists make no money for the record comany. Statistically the record company does well with a 5 percent sucess rate. But for each artist, it is their only livelyhood. Their failure is a 100 percent failure.

Artists have another problem with record companies, The latter has a stable of established artists that they promote with payola on the radio and the press. An artists that does not get a place in the stable is in essence dumped, be it for political, racial, nationality, not paying kickbacks, or giving sexual favors and other forms of discrimination and illegalities. Or maybe there are just so many vacancies in the stable.

Don’t get me wrong, there may be some decent record labels. It is just that I never seem to see them. As I have repeted many time here on P2PNET, out there in the stores and the Internet there are about 75 USA produced records/songs that have songs whose copyrights are owned by my family. None has a legal license to use the songs and none has paid a single cent in royalties in tha past 12 years, since we own the songs. NONE. That give you an idea how decent and kind record companies are. I also know personally know many artists and sonwriters. None speak well of record companies.

Sorry if we do not meet eye to eye. It is just that I call things as I see them, as they are. I have stopped swallowing the cartel’s artist line. The artists ar the cartels, who are con-artists.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:20:08 +0000

I’m no expert, but from my understanding of the law and constitutional law, the RIAA did not have a valid search warrant or appropriate court order from any judge that I know of to go hacking in to and searching her computer. To my knowledge, one must have a search warrant or appropriate court order to do something like this.

No sane judge or jury would let the RIAA get away with this garbage, and toss the whole case out of court.

Of note, the New York Attorney Generals Office has started investigating the record labels of price gouging and price fixing on digital music downloads. All I can say about this, for the AG’s Office is go for it. Enough of this greedy pigs.

Also note, the artists who the RIAA claims to represent, don’t see a one red cent of this money they supposedly collect. No joke about this, the RIAA and the record labels stick this money in their own pockets, and the artists don’t get one red cent of it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:03:24 +0000

Why have we become a copyright criminal, as defined by the Cartel?

December 28, 2010

I am Dr. Wang. Chief of Medical Research at Shanghai University.

My team of researchers discovered the cure for AIDS in 2007. As a result we won the 2008 Nobel prIze for medicine.

I live and work in China, for the Chinese government, who owns China Pharmaceuticals, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. My research team is now working and close to a cure for aging.

The Internet is a great tool for research. We make great use of the Internet, unlike other countries, such as America that have become slaves of copyright legislators, lawyers, judges and cartels, To simplify we shall call this group the Cartel. The Cartel opposes copying off the Internet and says it is a crime.

Whenever we find a web page, an article, a chart, a PDF file, etc. that can be useful to our research we save files to hard disks. We have decided to never check that copyright status of what we save to disk for several reasons. It is impossible or (incredibly complex) to verify the status and to get copying permission. More on this point below. Then also, we don’t care to find a reason not to copy what we want to copy. After all the Chinese government we work for doesn’t care to impede our research, which is needed to save the people. The government couldn’t care less what the Cartel thinks or wants.

As result, we now have a vast collection of research papers on our computers. Even if Google went off line tomorrow due to war, we can survive.

You may ask, why have we become a copyright criminal, as defined by the Cartel?

Research cannot be done in a vacuum. A lot of facts/information and previous research and conclusions must be analyzed as part of the current research. Then those facts/information and conclusions must become part of the current research documentation’s.

I will give an example as to why we must save, say a 100 page PDF document written by a scientist from India to the hard disk of the 20 or so main scientists on our staff.

First, reading several 100 plus page technical document on PDF files in a seating by 20 persons is impractical. So you save the document so you or another scientist can later go back to it as needed. Perhaps I will read it during the weekend at my mountain home while my colleagues will read it while traveling to Africa, where our AIDS cure is being applied with their advise.

The problem with working with the document on line (not copied) are many. For example, you may need to refer to the document in a location where a member of the research team can take his laptop computer but there is no Internet connection.

Also you cannot count that on a future date the document will be available on the Internet, as documents on the net or web pages where they reside simply vanish. After all, the research documentation we need prepare may need to be reviewed one or ten years hence.

So if we need a PDF document for my research we will copy it, no questions asked. Yes, a solution to AIDS was more important that what some Cartel lawyer or judge may think about copyrights from their aloof positions.

In the old days of research, you simply photocopied pages from a referenced book or document, indicating on the research reports what was the source. The original book or document could always be located because it was in available on some library.

The closest analogy between the old days of photocopying by researchers and the Internet is to copy the reports or books (PDF files) to a computer hard disk.

Previously I commented that it was impossible or (incredibly complex) verify the copyright status and to get copying permission to copy.

Many PDF documents have an indication that the document has copyrights. What that means I do not know. I am a medical doctor not lawyer. On my research team we have doctors and scientists but no lawyer. Anyway we have decided to do what we are paid to do, find a cure for AIDS and other diseases, not legal copyright research.

In spite of this, we once hired an American lawyer who said he specialized in “International Copyright Law”. to advise us on the matter of possible copyright infringement. He talked about “fair use” but said that was only an American concept and that no one had clear idea about it’s meaning. Unfortunately the American “International Copyright Law” lawyer could not read Chinese or Indian or French or German copyright jurisprudence and could not really advise us about anything about copyright laws. He did mention that the real copyright laws were not the laws themselves but the jurisprudence and these were continually contradicting each other. He also said that what was legal in one country was unlawful in the next, further complicating things Well, so much for copyright legal advice. We decided that copyright legal advise was essentially useless.

Additionally, there is no one place where you can get good information as to wether a file on the Internet can be copied or not. We once contracted an American university scientist to ask permission to post his writing on our related web page. He replied that he sent the message to the legal department of his university. The legal department said that the research was funded by the American federal government and that because of that some research was need to determine if the work was in the public domain as must be all federal government documents, by law. Unfortunately the university had to contract an outside copyright lawyer to do the necessary legal research and there were no funds available for that. We never got a final answer.As a result of the legal hassle, that research paper is no longer available on the Internet.

We Chinese are now the biggest producers and exporters of medicines. 90 percent of the medicines used in America and the world now come from China. A few years back, America was the leader in pharmaceuticals, until they started to sue and imprison copyright infringers. As a result all American research was stopped or became a criminal activity in which no scientists in his/her clear mind would participate. Research in America became also too expensive, since it had to go back to the old days of photocopying, as all computer contents could be checked by the Cartels who then sued everyone in sight. That is why all the top American minds now work for us.

I always knew that there was something funny about Americans. The make copying unlawful and then develop so many tools for copying. Why even Acrobat, an American company has a little button to induce users into the criminal action of copying, and the American courts say that inducement to commit the crime is a crime itself. Why would any country decide to make a criminal out of everyone is beyond me, when the country has the largest relative prison population in the world before staring the copyright witchunt.Anyway I am a medical scientist, and know little of the social sciences.

Believe it or not, that is the secret of our success. I do not mind sharing it with the because their legal system of our potential competitors, mostly Amrica, is so spaghettisized that there is no salvation for them.

So, going back to the question, why have we become a copyright criminal, as defined by the Cartel? To succeed and to survive.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:48:32 +0000

“The law allows for fines of $250,000 per copyright infringment, and 10 years in jail per copyright infringment.”

Frankly I cannot understand how anyone can say this without commenting on the absurdity of the law and the fact that the law (as all laws probably are) are taken out of context.

The $150,000 maximimum (it is not $250,000) statutory damages are applicable when they are a fair compensation for the actual damages suffered by the VICTIM of the infringement. When no damages are suffered (copying for personal use does not cause any damages), there should not be any damages awarded.

Under the mistaken theory of this post, when someone copies a single image or one of the millions of pdf files you see on the Internet (without a warning that you have no right to copy) to the hard disk, you could be charged with a crime, sent to jail 10 years and given a huge monetary sentence, for each infringement.

Clearly the person who wrote this post is a lawyer (thus will not be sued) who has no computer (thus cannot be hacked), that works for RIAA or a similar organization (that is the motivation), has no family or neighbors or friend (that will no be sued)and therefore has no need to be concerned about the fate of any fellow humans.

Sound to me like the German who said it was right what was being done to the Jews, mostly because they made money from the exterminations or the reduced competition from the Jews or out of fear.

The phrase “and i can start making money agin” says it all. It is all for money. Not much humanity here, is there?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:22 +0000

Maybe we should go a bit father with the infringement issues. You are of course aware that on a regular, daily, basis that all walks of life from school teachers to lawyers and judges infringe without a seconds thought. The copy machine makes it very possible and it is used as that. Now if IP is to be protected, then just as surely that is infringement as well as songs. Strangely we aren’t hearing so much about judges reading the facts from an infringed document. It’s still infringement, its still just as serious as your issue, and it still happens everyday. One can’t cut the ball in half and expect it to still roll afterwards. Or how about images? Ever save a picture for a desktop background? If you did, most likely you also infringed on someones work. What I am saying here is this. That it is common preception that this happens day in and day out, not just for songs (which your particular interests lays) but for all works.

Now there is no “copyright markers” on the p2p that I see. Simply it isn’t there. Just like if you want no trespassers on your property, you have to take certain steps to meet that issue. Those steps aren’t earmarked, for whatever reason on those songs. How do you tell the begininng band that wants you to download their songs, from the well established band that you are not familar with? You see the problem? The music industry has been anything but clear on what’s theres and what’s not theirs. They don’t have a data base where you can run go check and know with certainty that you shouldn’t. Yet every one of us is expected to know which is which and what the laws are, despite most of us not qualifing as a lawyer, nor as a copyright specialist.

Further the penalities for statutory infringement aren’t in line with the crime. Statutory penalites are for those that resell or in some way make profit off of those songs. To my knowledge, not one soul sells stuff on p2p. No one is seeking profit. So how does statutory penalities even fit? Honestly they don’t.

However, if IP is to be considered property, as in tangiable property (like land) then it too will be taxed. We aren’t at the point that the laws are balanced with this idea. Some areas are open season while other areas are not. How do you tell the difference between them in a digital file? You don’t even know what the file is till you view it. Lord knows what some of these folks name stuff to get it around the people that would gladly kick some of this crap off the net if they knew. You see where I am coming from? There isn’t an easy way to idenify what is copyright protected and what isn’t.

And what about malware? Only this week a new one is out. One that installs on your computer where you can’t find it to get rid of it, and then turns around and starts downloading movies without your knowledge. Is anyone responcible for that too?

Digital files aren’t really tangible. I erase them for all practical purposes they are gone. That is hardly the realm of tangible propery which is where IP laws are going.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:12:17 +0000

“I work in the industry and my income is suffering due to the millions of criminals who decide to steal my work.”

I work in the industry too.

For the past 10 years I have run a music publishing company that belongs to my family. Prior to this I new little of the music business other than that my father (see here http://www.gvenegas.com) never made money with his songs even though he was considered a great songwriter and composer and hundreds of his songs were recorded and very suceesful.

But since I have learned that the industry is mostly run by thieves, be it music publishers, and record companies.

The industry is nothing more than a contract-trapping industry, where artists, songwriters always get the short end of the stick while all the profits go to the business owners who hold the one side contract everyone is forced to sign if any one is to get recorded.

Sure, some very few artists and songwriters, frequently the worst ones, make it and sometimes even big, but it is always through payola (radio and press) and the control of the distribution channels. This is how the crap that makes most of the music that “makes it” gets to the public.

The reality is that most of the better artists, songwriters get nothing conmeasurate with the talent and work done.

And the customer? They get the 98 percent music crap and now the shot in the foot and absurd lawsuits from the record companies.

Great industry, Isn’t it?

No wonder it is headed into oblivion.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com