Patti Santangelo fights Big Music
p2p news / p2pnet: The Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath campaign is doing well – $3,311.87 as we post this. And it’s generating a lot of incoming p2pnet email, 99.9% of which is wholly supportive. The rest, mostly misguided or just plain self-serving, just gets filed under ‘ignore’
However, two aspects come up over and over again:
How much does Patti need?
And
She’ll never win. So why bother?
On the first, who knows? But we’ve been told it could be as much as $100,000.
And on the second, she could indeed win. And if and when she does, her case will draw a huge amount of international media attention and have a major impact not only in the US, but around the world. Because the Big Four, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI, aren`t just victimizing American men, women and children. They’re using legal systems everywhere – France, Britain, Germany, Sweden, Russia, you name it – in a twisted marketing campaign under which they’re trying to sue their own customers into buying product.
They claim file sharing is robbing them of sales.
Untrue. They’ve never been able to show how a file someone shares with someone else equals the loss of even one sale.
They say file sharers are thieves.
Untrue. The files they accuse hundreds of millions of their own customers around the world of stealing are low quality, compressed copies of digital tracks that have already been used, and sold, on existing CDs. Moreover, nothing has been physically or digitally removed and no one has been deprived of something he or she formerly owned.
The Big Four say they’re bizarre sue ‘em all sales effort is both driving people to the corporate sites they supply, and significantly reducing the number of people who are using the p2p networks and independent sites (which are not at all incidentally their only form of competition) for their music downloads.
Untrue. In fact, the numbers of people turning to the p2p networks are rising steadily year by year, not falling. And although the mainstream media are making great play of the 17,000 or so people who’ve been sued (none of whom have ever appeared in a court or been found guilty of anything), somewhere between 51 and 61 million people in the US alone regularly log onto the p2p networks. In other words, the chances of a given individual being singled out by the Big Four’s RIAA or any other **AA are virtually non-existent.
But back to the worry that Patti Santangelo could never win against the multi-billion-dollar Big Four record labels, think again.
The McDonalds food chain is another unimaginably vast, obscenely rich, multi-national. Could a postman and a gardener without legal representation take on McDonalds with its teams of highly paid, expert lawyers, and win?
Not a chance in hell, you’d think. And yet Helen Steel and David Morris did exactly that. They accused McDonalds of of animal cruelty and false advertising, among other things, and made it stick.
Moreover, their triumph was turned into a documentary that’s being shown around the world, with all that implies.
Think about it.
And while you’re doing that, make a contribution to the Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath through the PayPal button below, and if you have your own site, put a donations button on it. Help make it clear not only to the Big Four record labels, but also to the movie studios, software companies, and anyone else who needs to learn the lesson, that they depend on us, not the other way around.
Go here to the Fight Goliath site to get the code so you can post a donations button, and here to see the contributions and donor sites.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Anyone that knows me at all, knows how strongly I feel about fair use and the plethora of reasons on why we should have these rights; however, to look at the case itself here.
This case, as you mention, WILL (not could) have dramatic and lasting effects that ripple throughout the world but the horror of it is that if she does lose this case it sets a precedent that harms everyone on my side of p2p….
From what we’ve been told on this site it sounds like her kids used her pc and downloaded a few songs that are auto-shared upon completion of download by kazaa (an option that can be disabled but they (RIAA types) can share files themselves and they can log each ip as they connect to download as well – they’ll know who’s downloading even if you donât upload…. anyway, back on track… If her kids downloaded and accidentally shared files the court (imho) isn’t going to care that it was an accident, the court (imho) will rule that the kids were using the pc and that their mom is just as liable as if she’d handed them the keys to the gun cabinet – and i suspect they will find her guilty… as this is the 1st, and sharing mp3’s is an offence punishable with jail time, I suspect they will give her jail time and a stiff fine….
I really hope I’m proven wrong but if you go with the (moronic) laws on the books right now and given that Patti has made no statement that the files were never downloaded/shared on her pc, I donât think it looks good… I hope the expensive attorney keeps her head above water because if he’s not one of the best (in the world) and if she doesnât go before a really radically thinking judge – then this will set an awful precedent.
Just my 10 cents.
_-Jile-_
January 6th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
In the Police States of America you can rape a child and get 60 days in the slammer, but get up to 10 years for camming a movie. People in the P.S.A. need t band together and start helping each other fight the governments, cartels and others who distort the rule of law. I plan to snailmail a contribution to Patty as soon as possible.
Child Rapists get 60 days http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48219
19 years old teenager can get 17 years in prison for camming a movie
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6705.cfm
And people think I am crazy for suggesting voting for candidates of alternative parties, and maybe even resistance. I know that those who written the U.S. Constitution would most likely have tarred and feathered as well as killed a few judges and politicians if they were alive today. I refuse to call the court system in the P.S.A. the judicial brance since there is very little that is fair about it.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
There is a small chance that Patti Santangelo’s fight is not what it appears to be.
1. News reports portray her as “computer illiterate” and others have shortened that to “illiterate”. Her job title and a picture of her in her home study seem to point in a different direction.
2. It could be that her fight will lead to donations greater than her costs. On the plus revenue side would also be paid media appearances and book or other deals. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I thought some legal work has already been donated to her. Now that she is representing herself she is not out lawyer fees.
Also, let the buyer beware in terms of donations to her campaign thought the above mentioned mechanism. While the parties involved may well be totally honorable, you are not dealing with accounting audited type non-profits that have outside money scrutiny.
Posted by- There may be two sides to a story.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
The MacDonalds issue was a completely different scenario. Mrs Santangelo is facing a lawsuit based on copyright laws. Unless Mrs Santangelo can mount a good defence other than it was not me, she will lose. I am sympathetic to Mrs Santangelo’s cause, but my personal take on the situation is that she should have settled when she had the chance, rather than blow $24000.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
RIAA Folk Anthem
Well, they’ll sue ya when you’re trying to be so good,
They’ll sue ya just a-like they said they would.
They’ll sue ya when you’re tryin’ to download.
Then they’ll sue ya when you’re feelin’ glum and blue.
But I would not feel so all blue,
Everybody must get sued.
Well, they’ll sue ya when you’re walkin’ ‘long the street.
They’ll sue ya when you’re swingin’ to the beat.
They’ll sue ya when you’re walkin’ on the floor.
They’ll sue ya when you’re walkin’ to the door.
But I would not feel so all blue,
Everybody must get sued.
They’ll sue ya when you’re at the breakfast table.
They’ll sue ya when you are young and able.
They’ll sue ya when you’re tryin’ to make a buck.
They’ll sue ya and then they’ll say, “good luck.”
Tell ya what, I would not feel so down and blue,
Everybody must get sued.
Well, they’ll sue you and say that it’s the end.
Then they’ll sue you and then they’ll come back again.
They’ll sue you when you’re riding in your car.
They’ll sue you when you’re playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so glum and blue,
Everybody must get sued.
Well, they’ll sue you when you walk all alone.
They’ll sue you when you are walking home.
They’ll sue you and then say you are brave.
They’ll sue you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all unglued,
Everybody must get sued.
CopyClef 2006 Bob Dylan and Barsoom Tork.
January 7th, 2006 at 1:06 am
I don’t think so…. If Patti exersized reasonable constraints and by reasonable -what the average PC owner in America can be expected know how to do-.
Then I do not see a case. We all know what a gun is and does. What we believe is reasonable to secure it is common knowledge.
Should we jail parents because spam or a virus pops up porn and harms a child? All things that someone might avoid if they were experts in IT.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:54 am
If it gets that far it will be up to a Jury of 12 normal people like Patti to decide whether she did what the RIAA said she did…
Now I don’t know about you but what are the odds that 12 normal people will agree with a greedy huge group of companies and find someone who is exactly like them is liable for millions of dollars?
Lets be realistic if I was the RIAA I would pay HER money to drop the case – they WILL LOSE in front of a Jury – if for no other reason that they feel sorry for her (I know that is not how they are meant to decide but it will come down to that I am sure) – so these cases are losers for the record companies – and easy to win for the normal people!
January 7th, 2006 at 4:02 am
you are ignorant of the law.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:03 am
you ARE kidding right? if she is a parent and her kids were downloading music, she is responsible for the actions of those kids until they are 18. simple. if they are caught stealing from a store, she’s gotta pay. whether you agree with the RIAA or not, she’s pretty much stuck.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:06 am
Hi, just for fun I am going to take this, put it out and make a ton of money and not give you anything. cool? oh, and it is NOT stealing!!!
January 7th, 2006 at 4:06 am
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that really hurts….we’re shaking in our boots!
January 7th, 2006 at 4:27 am
YOU, ya YOU. You keep repeating this foolishness about parents being supposed to monitor and know everything their kids are doing, but that’s utter nonsense. Society does not jail the parents of under age criminals. These RIAA/MPAA sleezebag extortion lawsuit threats have got to come to an end and Santangelo will see to it.
GO PATTI, we’ve got your back !!!
January 7th, 2006 at 5:20 am
I do owe you some pennies, because I find you entertaining.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:28 am
You should thing about that again, if you are an industry shill. I am here to tell you I see this sort of reaction almost daily from people all over the net. I have been seeing folks say “Not another penny” for several years. One by themselves doesn’t make a big splash.
The industry is steadily making enemies with just the same sort of actions as those against Patti. Her’s isn’t the only story told either. You can bet every one of those on the sue list isn’t buying. Better they’re telling their friends the same thing.
Now the lamescream isn’t putting up much screaming about what the cartels are doing. You find that at sites like this. There are daily more and more of those too. So many in fact that the cartels are starting to hire shills to do much the same sort of reactions as the one above is doing. If it wasn’t being effective on the net, they would not be out in force patrolling the net to heckle people.
You’ll get little symapthy for me for the heckling. Truely I hope you do work for the industry. Go tell your masters they need you; we don’t.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:59 am
If they are caught stealing a CD they would either have to pay the $10 for it or they may get in trouble with the police! they would not end up in court sued by the record companies for hundreds of thousands of dollars!
So if anything that proves the point that the RIAA are just greedy fools and as the other person who replied to you said if parents are responsible for everything their children do then why is there anyone under the age of 18 in prison (or the under 18 equivilent)?
The fact is for anyone who downloaded music to commit the crime of theft they need to show dishonesty – that is a legal requirement- when downloading the music – and seeing as they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong they lack that – thus, the RIAA’s only course is to sue and like I said no way will a jury feel the punishment fits the act which causes that person to be in court – and thats the be all and end all – the RIAA will lose in court and they will then be in real trouble! – and lets not forget if they did lose then they could be facing lawsuits from the people they sued for millions of dollars!
So if I was the RIAA I would drop it now…
January 7th, 2006 at 10:06 am
I would enjoy an intelligent industry shill coming to p2pnet. There are enough posters here with the wits to blow any crappy argument he gives out of the water.
Oh and shill, considering that sales are down 10% this year while the economy has been improving is enough to start getting at least a bit nervous.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:07 am
âShould we jail parents because spam or a virus pops up porn and harms a child? All things that someone might avoid if they were experts in IT.â
Of course we shouldn’t, but this is a civil trial which is an entirely different ballgame then a criminal trial. The same people who are found not-guilty of murder in a criminal court are routinely found liable for the victims death in a civil trial. Even if she did have a jury trial the jury would not even be required to come to a unanimous verdict to find her liable. I hate to say this, but I really cannot see her winning considering she is acting as her own counsel with no legal experience, she is in civil court, and the simple fact that the record companies have a lot more money then she does.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:58 am
This must be a RIAA joke.
First nothing was done by Santangelo helself. Then the acusation if that a computer was used as it was designed for, files copying, sharing downloading. It used to be that computers were mostly for data processing. Home computers are for another purpose, entertainment and information gathering.
Maybe Santangelo is being acused of being naive and not sending her kids to the seminar: How to legally use the SAVE option of computer programs. Her problem being that no one is giving the seminar, yet.
But a congress protected (biiiiiiiiiig lobby money here) RIAA wants to turn entertainment and information gathering into a time bomb that can explode when least expected, such as when saving (same as copying) something, anything into a hard disk without doing a required but impossible copyright status research.
This while RIAA itself is a time bomb for artists and songwriters. As I have said before right here on P2PNet, the labels, as exemplified by Sony on my case, steal songwriters by using their songs without authorization and without paying royalties. See the lawsuit from my family to Sony for producing many recordings (18+) with our songs that sold many millions of records and never had any authorization from my family.
Venegas v. Sony Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/venegas_v_sony_lawsuit.htm
Now that is real infringement!
Now that is big time stealing!
And where is RIAA?
Why has RIAA not investigated the production of records without licenses by their own members so as to clean up the image of their own industry?
I get it! It is easier for RIAA to go after and blackmail kids and parents who have done nothing, other than using a computer system as it was designed for. Maybe that way no one will notice that the music industry, the record companies and the music publishers are the real thief. Accuse before you are accused! Redirection of guilt!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 7th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I have some questions
“HTTrack allows you to download a WWW site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer.”
I frequently use HTTrack, to download entire copyrighted web pages to my hard disk. When i like the web site, I leave it in my computer. On several ocasions I have given a copy of the web site to a friend. Sometimes the web sites have music. Is this type of downloading legal?
Im I a sitting duck for a RIAA type infringement lawsuit?
Is my mother responsible?
Can I sue HTTrack programmers for inducement?
Are the mothers of the programmers of HTTrack responsible?
How many years of jail can I get?
Will my mother go with me?
January 7th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
They were found guilty of libel and ordered to pay 60,000 pounds, later reduced to 40,000 pounds. While the judge found that *some* of their claims had merit (and thus couldn’t be considered libel), the conviction ultimately held and they were ultimately held responsible for the 40,000 pounds.
They *were*, however, successful against the British government, which they accused of violating their rights by not providing publically-funded counsel. They won a judgement of 20,000 pounds against the *British government* and are considered to be a driving force behind changes in Britain’s libel laws, so they are considered to be successful in that regard.
But not against McDonald’s – they lost that one.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Lets hope patti wins!
January 8th, 2006 at 12:58 am
MUSIC BRINGS PAIN
(ODE TO SADISM)
WANT TO SEE A KID SAD?
THE SADDIST SAYS THE KID DID BAD.
A DOZEN OR SO DOWNLOADED, THE SADDIST SAYS.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, MOM IS THE ONE TO PAY,
THEN SUE HER, FOR EACH, 150 GRAND GET.
IF DONE FOR FUN, GO GET MOM ANYWAY.
IF FOR LOVE OF MUSIC, MOM IS TO PAY.
IF NOTHING WAS DONE, LET US ALL PRAY.
FOR LOVE OF MUSIC, THE KID DID BAD.
FOR LOVE OF MOM, THE KID IS SAD.
NO MATTER WHAT, MUSIC BRINGS PAIN.
January 8th, 2006 at 11:08 am
We should help fight the double standard in America when it pertains to cybercrime law. There is a kid facing 10 years in jail right now because he found a way to access his High School’s network. Yet, it is perfectly “legal” for american companies such as the RIAA to hire OTHER companies such as Media Sentry to “hack” you computer, getting it to send a complete list of all your media to them. Is it written somewhere that cybercrime only pertains to those that can’t afford lawyers? I say we fight a lawsuit with a lawsuit. Give them a taste of their own game. Most of us know the real reason the RIAA got sue happy is because they are still licking their wounds from the price gouging anti trust suit 3 years ago. We need to stop talking about hitting them where it hurts and actually start doing it. If any lawyers want to take up a class action suit against the RIAA and Media Sentry, please do so. Ill jump on for the check
January 9th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Courts are suposed to protect children from mistreatment.
Now the courts ARE USED to mistreat children by exposing them to lifetime psychological damage for causing their parents extreme damages.
The courts are guilty along with RIAA of sadism.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
hope that she will. maybe if she loses though the jury will award the RIAA and it’s boss’s exactly what they deserve, between $0.50 and $0.10 for each song.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:34 am
HELLO…did IQs drop while I was away. You all should read the online documents from the court appearances that have occurred already. No one from Patti’s family downloaded ANYTHING…HELLO…DID YOU HEAR ME?? She believes if anyone did it, it might have been a friend of one of her children, but not her children, nor Patti download ANYTHING!! Due to viruses on the computer, it was shipped to another location months before any lawsuit was filed. She can’t verify anything, nor can the RIAA lables prove anything, because the evidence is gone!!
January 10th, 2006 at 7:38 am
If anything, it would be Copyright Infringement, not Theft. Then, given proof of Copyright Infringement, you’d have to prove damages. That’s impossible with P2P because you don’t know if 1 person downloaded from your shared folder or 100, or none. The RIAA label will lose!!
January 10th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
and how much is 100 1’s and 0’s worth or 1000 1′and 0’s?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Oh yeah they(RIAA & Courts are sadist)I am a father of 4 and I
was intimidated into settling for thousands of $ and it took from
my family.I suggested that I donate the $ that I was forced to
pay to RIAA to the Red Cross to help Katrina victims at least I
would have felt good about giving $ away.I have boycotted the
Recording industry for life and have told all my family to do the
same.I am a music lover and have all the music I will ever need.
So the music industry can kiss my bitter ass.