Patti Santangelo goes mainstream
p2p news / p2pnet: Finally, it’s happening.
- Mother of five fighting record companies’ lawsuit on her own: Newsday in New York.
- Mother goes solo in fight with record companies: Tracy Press in California.
- Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own: Leading the Charge, Australia:
- Internet-illiterate’ single mom takes on recording industry: Cleveland Plain Dealer.
They’re just four of the 121 main-page Google News headlines the day after Christmas. Because it seems the mainstream media are at last picking up on the fact New York mother Patti Santangelo is taking on Organized Music.
By herself, and without a lawyer.
Does this mean the world media will finally provide balanced reporting on the sue ‘em all travesty under which Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Warner Music are literally trying to sue men, women and even children around the world into buying product?
Santangelo is being pilloried by the Big Four record labels as a part of their extortionated marketing scheme under which they’re using legal systems not only in the US, but around the world, to try to force consumers into buying criminally over-priced, ultra-low quality, digital music downloads.
In the latest twist the Big Four, who spend millions of dollars annually to maintain an image of themselves as honest companies being “devastated” by millions of thieving file sharers, are being sued by the state of New York for fixing the prices of the music downloads they’re accusing people such as Santangelo of “stealing,” although no theft has ever taken place.
They also say downloads equal sales lost but can never reliably justify or quantify their claims.
In September, p2pnet asked Santangelo, “Assuming your case ends up in court, how far are you willing to go? ‘I’m willing to take it as far as I have to to prevent other innocent people being dragged into frivolous lawsuits,’ she answered. ‘It’s wrong’.”
And she has the courage of her convictions
“People say to me, ‘You’re crazy. Why don’t you just settle?’,” the Associated Press has her saying “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.”
As Part II in their plan to terrorize her into paying their blackmail, the Big Four Organized Music cartel are using infamous Big Tobacco litigation firm Shook Hardy Bacon to go after her children.
RIAA spokeswoman Jenni Engebretsen wouldn’t comment specifically on Santangelo’s case but, “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,” AP has her saying. “The illegal downloading of music is just as wrong as shoplifting from a local record store.”
And, “The David-and-Goliath nature of the case has attracted considerable attention in the Internet community,” the story adds. “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.”
The internet site AP mentions is p2pnet and AP reporter Jim Fitzgerald also asked, “Aside from this case, what’s the feeling of the p2p people about the RIAA’s thousands of lawsuits and about the RIAA’s tactics?”
Newton said not only “p2p people” are affected. Rather, “it applies to everyone who’s ever bought a record or CD from the major labels. And the feeling is: they’ve been ripping people off for decades, and getting away with it. But now, thanks to the Net and to p2p, we can make our feelings known in virtual international protests the music industry can’t ignore. As to their tactics, they’re wasted. File sharing is going up, not down, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
“They’ve painted themselves into a corner and now they can’t get out without losing face. But sooner or later they’ll have to admit they completely misread the entire p2p situation. When they do, they can get back to their business of producing music and selling it. But until they do, they’ll continue generating tremendous ill-will and haemorrhaging customers.”
Santangelo says Sharman Networks is wrong for configuring its Kazaa p2p application to allow children to download music without parental permission. “I should have gotten at least an e-mail or something notifying me,” she told AP, which states, “Telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Australia-based owner of Kazaa, Sharman Networks Ltd., were not returned.”
In an earlier email to p2pnet, “I also have very strong feelings about how, if this did happen on my computer, KAZAA could allow a child to obtain an account that could be potentially dangerous to the child and the parent without parental authorization or the authorization of the person who owned the computer,” she said.
“I do believe that recent lawsuits against p2p networks have changed this but that doesn’t help the people who have already been forced to settle, or the 12-year-olds still being sued.”
Meanwhile, early in the New Year p2pnet’s Santangelo Fight Goliath donation site will go online.
It’ll carry code written by Jason Rohrer to allow people who want to help Patti take on the Organized Music’s RIAA to contribute directly and to see the total as it mounts.
Not at all incidentally, although the Big Four are suing Americans such as Santangelo through their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), only Warner Music can lay claim to the ‘America’ in the title. And even Warner is run by a Canadian.
Sony BMG is based in Japan and Germany, Vivendi Universal is French and EMI is British.
For now the Patti Angelo Fight Goliath Donations site will be online shortly.
Stay tuned.
Jon
Also See:
fixing the prices - Big Music mp3 price fixing, December 24, 2005
asked Santangelo - RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, September 4, 2005
Associated Press - Mom Fights Downloading Suit on Her Own, December 26, 2005
after her children - Teens next RIAA victims, December 23, 2005
go online - Patti Santangelo fights Goliath: II, December 17, 2005
December 26th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
at some point an artist deserves to be paid.
at some point everyone who works deserves to be paid.
If a levy of some means can be distributed to artists/labels
then I am all for p2p
if it is just download for free because I can
and nobody who deserves to be paid get’s paid
i am against p2p
treat other’s how you want to be treated
if you want to get paid for work
than pay artists for their work
i prsently use nap****.**
December 26th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
In theory songwriters are paid when their works are used on the radio, yet the listeners do not pay directly for using the radio (AM and FM).
This gives you the idea that it is possible to pay artists for the use of their works, if there were the willpower of the legislators.
Ah, but they are too busy listening to the lobbies, at fundraising parties and getting reelected. No wonder nothing gets done.
Changes are needed!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 26th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Good luck on this. I’ll certainly contribute.
Let’s hope the media get it right.
December 26th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
if she has any chance at all it will in the trial stage. If the riaa loses wich is highly unlikely the will appeal and she going to have to have a lawyer for that no question. I do admire her for trying stand up for what is right. the lawayer she had was awful i just wish she could have someone to give her good representation i wish her all the luck
December 26th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
MY QUESTION IS, CAN A PRIVATE COMPANY ENTER INTO YOUR RESIDENCE AND CONDUCT A SEARCH WITHOUT A COURT ORDER? THEY AREN’T HOMELAND SECURITY. WAS A COURT ORDER SECURED AND WAS THE DEFENDANT NOTIFIED OF THE COURT ORDER AS TO WHAT THE SEARCH ENTAILED, IN WHAT COURT WAS IT OBTAINED, AND SIGNED BY WHAT JUDGE? IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE PRODUCING LEGALLY OBTAINED OR FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE? IF NO COURT ORDER WAS SECURED THEN THE RECORD COMPANY CONDUCTED A BURGLARY OF HER HOME. I THINK SHE SHOULD CONTACT THE ACLU FOR REPRESENTATION ON THOSE GROUNDS.
December 26th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
i prsently use nap****.**
That explains it.
December 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
As an independent artist I have failed to see how we can be paid if sharing becomes legal. Despite the fact that our music is shared on p2p networks along with signed artists we get no money from any form of levy that exists today in the world. I am sure that only major labels will get paid if this happens.
ViC Phoenix
December 26th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
In reality it’s major labels who get paid because they own copyrights to music that is played on the radio.
ViC Phoenix
December 26th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
(I don’t know how to log in so I am posting as anonymous. Forgive me as I have no problem standing behind what I say)
The first I heard of this subject was through a friend of mine who is in the same situation as Patti. These are a bunch of ‘thugs’ demanding money from people, many of whom have no clue as to why this money is being demanded. These ‘thugs’ scare the innocent and demand that they sign a statement saying they will not do it again (even if they did not do it in the first place), and hand over a hefty check. I pray that Patti prevails as this action by ‘thugs’ must be stopped, now!
PROTECT THE INNOCENT!!
December 26th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Did the Suddenly change the law if they used an investigator to “prrk” at her computer they Violated her Right of privacy and her right not to self incrinimate without a Warrant and no Judge would issue a warrant to do this, Keep fighting. dirkbratley@clearwire.net
December 26th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Did they Suddenly change the law if they used an investigator to “peek” at her computer they Violated her Right of privacy and her right not to self incrinimate,Without a Warrant and no Judge would issue a warrant to do this, Keep fighting. dirkbratley@clearwire.net
December 26th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
well i don’t use itunes but that’s an apple rant
i got tired of the cria ranting and raving i was a theif
even tough in canada downloading for personal use
is suppossed to be legal.
napster.ca is label aproved and cria aproved
so for 15 bucks a month i can get legally tons
of music with napster to go
yes it’s renting but i want to pay the least amount of money i can for the most 100% legal music i can get and 15 bucks a month
is worth the time it takes to spend downloading with p2p and fake files and virus crap
December 26th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
I wish Patti the best in this mess. I find it hard to believe that she has no knowledge of the download, how to use p2p, and is still faced with this infringement issue. Clearly this is nothing short of extortion. Even if the music exists on her computer, if she isn’t the only one that used that computer, that doesn’t make her responcible for infringement, any more than you loaning your car to your friend and being responcible for his accident. Just because you own a computer doesn’t make you responcible for its use. With all the spyware and malware out there today, saying that you are responcible for what you don’t even know exists on your computer is insane.
Again Intellictual Propery is showing holes in the logic of it even being a valid concept. Users are being put in the line of legal risk because they aren’t world class programmers to understand binary and machine code. Since Microsoft doesn’t issue code in the clear, must users can’t say for sure they know what is on their computers. With a new malware out that downloads bits and peices of movies without your knowledge, you too could be an infringement victim in the same sort of way Patti is being held up. Think about it before you answer that one with a negetive.
One of the big hitters with the artist crowd is that of payment. Only the very same stumbling block that is bringing out these law suits could readily agree to a form of payment that ends the infringment and the artists still gets paid. That one of a tax on all internet users for downloading, just as there is a tax on all blank media today. Personally I think they should be made to swallow that one as a given seeing as how they are doing their business of robbing everyone in site. So the question is begging, why aren’t they readily accepting that as a solution instead of suing everyone in site over infringement? After all, that way everyone gets paid, artist, copyright holder, and publisher alike. They take home the bacon at far higher levels than they recieve now.
I would imagine that one of the big hitters on that is it ends the raising of prices. It ends the lockup control over the media. Today there is no place that one can go to hear fresh new music. The radio is so locked up with the past payolla experiences that everyone in “The Bizz” has their hands out for a chuck. No pay, no play. It is the public listeners that are being taken to the cleaners over this. The radio stations are for the most part playing the same tunes over and over every hour and nothing fresh and new is actually hitting the airwaves to enspire you to go buy new stuff. In the end, the real looser is “The Bizz” as potential buyers are tired of the old stuff and not purchasing in the droves that you saw during the heydays of music.
December 26th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
December 26th, 2005 at 9:50 pm
This case raises a large number of very troubling questions:
These are just a few:
1. Why did the judge allow Santangelo’s lawyers to collect “over $20,000″ and then withdrawal at such a crucial juncture of this case?
2. What, exactly, did they do to earn $20 grand before even conducting discovery in the case?
3. Why hasn’t some lawyer or group of lawyers offered to aid Santangelo pro bono, given the wide-ranging implications of this case?
4. Why hasn’t any lawyer or group filed amicus briefs regarding this case at the trial court?
5. Why hasn’t any lawyer or group tried to certify the 17,000 member group of defendants as a class for litigation purposes?
6. Why have the attorneys general of the various states in which these actions have been conducted failed and/or refused to investigate Big Music’s claims or the defendants’ claims of various abuses of the legal process?
7. Why hasn’t anyone in the legal community - lawyers or judges - looked at the issue of obtaining “evidence” through the unlawful trespass into private computers? Even if cyber spying laws weren’t in place at the time of the act, common law protections CLEARLY apply: No one has the right to enter your property (house, car or whatever) even if you leave it “unlocked.” Judge don’t need degrees in brain surgery or rocket science to follow that reasoning; they just need to be smart enough to know the law. The “unclean hands” doctrine should stop this case in its tracks. Why don’t they?
December 26th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
“In reality it’s major labels who get paid because they own copyrights to music that is played on the radio.”
Yes, the big payees for radio airplay (performance) are the record companies and the music publisher.
The record companies own many copyrights to songs because they have set up their own publishing operations and then get songwriter to assifgn the rights to songs to the record company publisher because sonwriters think that if the songs are “owned” by a record company the record company will record the song frequently.
Of course it is a contract trap, since the majority of songs are either not recorded or if recorded, just once, by the record company that owns the songs, and few records are sold and little money gets paid to the songwriter.
A flaw which the songwriters do not see is that a record music publisher is not too interested in helping other record companies (their competition). The other record companies are also not too keen for using the songs controlled by competing record companies.
Some songwriters assign their song to the record company publishers because they are fed up with traditional publisher’s flimsy accounting practices and lack of promotion. They have walked out of one trap (traditional publisher) and into another (record company publisher).
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 26th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
If you are an American songwriter, wether you are or not a member of the American Society of Composers (ASCAP), you should ask them what have they done for songwriters lately and why have they not pushed or proposed the collective method used by ASCAP to collect royalties from radio, to the legislature for use on the Internet.
After all, ASCAP should be an ardent supporter of songwriter collectives.
December 26th, 2005 at 10:57 pm
This is whwre the laws become inconsitent.
If a person steals a 25 cent candy bar and gets caught, said person has the right to have the Miranda rights read, meaning that the person is told by police he/she can remain silent.
But if the person is acused by RIAA for causing one million dollars in damages through downloading 10 songs or copiing a CD into a computer, the person has no right to have Miranda rights read. Not only that, but the person had no right to privacy to begin with and RIAA can open the person’s computer to see what the person is using the computer for and what files were copied to the computer, be it music, pornogrphy, politics, whatever. We are back to Gestapo times.
Clearly the legal system was defined by a comitte of jackasses .
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 26th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Nice article Jon.
As you know I have a bit of a downer on this case, for various issues. However, going after children when action effectively fails against the responsible adult is a very cheap trick
Good luck to her
Nick Parker
December 27th, 2005 at 4:53 am
“Clearly the legal system was defined by a comitte of jackasses.”
The key words being ‘legal system’ in that sentence. That is what the USA has, a ‘legal system’ and not a ‘justice system’. Justice is pretty much a flip of the coin. The same is true for most free societies I think, including here in Canada where I’ve had the displeasure of being on a jury before. It does not matter what the truth is, only what you can convince the judge or jury of, and this is where big money and big resources almost always pays off. This is why I refuse to ever sit on a jury again. The so-called legal system is a joke, and I choose to never be responsible for possibly sending a innocent person to jail, or vice versa, again. I refuse to have that on my conscience.
In regards to the story, I hope they get this donation site up and running soon, and that it’s not a sham (or come across as one). I plan on donating as much as I am able, and I hope many others do as well.
December 27th, 2005 at 5:19 am
“I would imagine that one of the big hitters on that is it ends the raising of prices. It ends the lockup control over the media.”
I think you hit the nail right on the head with that statement. The recording industry is basically made up of a bunch of middle men, and they are the ones in control of everything. The rights to the music and how it’s used, where the money comes and goes, etc. It’s not just customers that continually get the shaft, but the majority of the artists out there as well. So why are the middle men steadfastly refusing to come to the table with everyone else in order to come up with a plan that sees everyone get their cut so to speak? Create a system that everyone can be happy with? It’s because they know that thanks to the internet, any and all solutions will have one important fact at their core, and that is the loss of absolute control they have enjoyed all these years. Control means monopoly, and a monopoly means they can dictate all terms to both customers and artists. This is what has allowed the middle men to get so rich, and is why they will never come to the table unless forced by the law makers and enforcers to do so. Sadly, most segments of the government aren’t willing to do this for whatever reason. I would say it’s most likely the lobbyists that are to blame, and crooked politicians. Thanks to the internet however, they’re loosing control at a break neck pace, and while they are doing everything within their means, fair or not, in order to get back that control, I don’t think they will ever be able. At least not without some crooked laws on the books, and strong arming other countries. The days of the middle man are coming to an end, and things will eventually come to a head, that much is certain. Hopefully it’s the consumers and artists will come out on top in the end, but I fear it will get worse before it gets better.
December 27th, 2005 at 6:00 am
The answer to your first two questions is: institutionalized professional greed. No matter how much of a nice guy the lawer is, unless he handles the case pro bono he HAS to charge a “going rate” that is essentially set by the big names in the field, and is tantamount to extortion for the 99% of americans who NEED a lawyer. If he does not, he runs the risk of losing his license to practice law for “unethical” behavior: either gouging his hiigher-price clients or undercutting his peers for the lower-price clients. It is a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation for the lawyer.
As to why he didn’t tak the case pro bono, that would most libe because taking such a case mandates that you finihs it (again, legalized ethics), and THIS case looks to be a BIG fight. It could drag on for years, even decades, during which time the lawyers isn’t feeding his familly with the proceeds from other cases. Remember that this guy is essentially just a joe-schmoe with a law degree, not part of some big legal firm. He flatly cannot AFFORD to take a major case like this pro bono, and still EAT!
And the answer to all your other questions is a realtive of the previous answer: money. The Organized Media Maffia has it, Ms Santangelo does not. So THEY make the rules, and SHE has to deal with it. The american legal system is set up in such a way that the DEFENDANT has to PROVE violation of thier rights in order to RETAIN those rights, which is a pretty fucking disgusting state of affairs. And since the pne doing the violating has pockets deep enough to file injunctions and appeals over every single scrap of evidence or legal proceeding, Ms Santangelos great-great-grandkids will likely be fighting this court case.
December 27th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
you’re renting the downloads? excuse me, if i’m paying them for those downloads, they should be mine, to use for as long as i like, no expiration date included. i should be allowed to burn them to cds as many times as i need to (we all know cds don’t last forever, especially if you play them a lot). i rip my bought and paid for cds to my pc so i can burn them as mp3s to listen to at work. 10 hours of music on a cd means i don’t have to interrupt my work to change cds every 45 minutes. also means i can make compilations of music i like without having to listen to the shitty songs included on a cd when i only like 1 or 2 songs on it.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I know this is slightly off-topic but bear with me …
From what I have been reading online, music and film companies are trying to put in place “Intellectual Property Protection” systems that entirely negate our consumer rights, whether you are buying hardcopies or softcopies.
At the moment with the HD Movie formats we will probably have “protection” systems that will require internet connections and ban players that do not fit “approved specs”. This will also include modded players, and will equate importers as “criminals”. If you don’t connect your player to the net, movie discs will be released that will force the installation of hidden firmware updates, in a bid to keep their dubious protection system “effective”.
This is akin to the previous owner of your house coming over and, redecorating the place because he doesn’t like what you did with it. Thatwould totally illegal, yet these Media GIants have no qualms about destroying, modifying, or monitoring your property. Your privacy and rights mean very little to them. This is shown already by this case and others. Look at Sony’s CD protection scandle last year, even.
If we let them do this, it will only get worse. No doubt music formats will get the next technological upgrade, and I fear what they will do in order to “protect” it. Already we have horrible licence systems on downloaded music, and limitations that are entirely against our consumer rights. Just because they are in the contractual fineprint that makes them legal, it doesn’t make them moral.
It is like we no longer own the things we pay for. I am not willing to pay for a song, just so I can lease it! These companies are only driving consumers away with high prices, and constant cash-focused recycling of the same old ideas.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:03 am
With a little common sense and a lot of legal research this lady stands an excellent chance of beating the RIAA. She is getting a lot of free help behind the scenes in the form of coaching and legal research.
The RIAA has gone too far. So I will continue with my conversion of all 350 record albums that I own to .mp3 and CDs (yes, I have software which will convert an mp3 to a cda). As I convert them I am selling them to a local book store which is then selling them to interested persons. This is possibly illegal but I am anonymous and behind ghostsurf so the RIAA can try to find me!
Would I share my collection of mp3s? Seeing as how the RIAA won’t share with the artists who created their wealth in the first place…well what do you think?
So am I a Anonomyous Coward or just passive agressive? Or not foolish?
February 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I support the fight against the RIAA. I don’t support Patti Santangelo. She’s obviously in denial if she thinks HER kids didn’t do the downloading. If was a little more honest, and a little less willing to foist the blame onto scapegoats, she might be worthy of our support.