Sceptical about Patti Santangelo?
p2p news / p2pnet: I’ve been quite saddened by some of the responses I’ve come across towards the Fight Goliath campaign set up to help Patricia Santangelo battle the RIAA in court.
As most people reading this are aware, this New York mom is just one of the people being targeted by the RIAA under their bizarre theory that if enough ordinary people are litigated into the ground then everyone will go back to buying CDs like the good little consumers they used be.
Doing the rounds on my favourite forums, I’ve come across a lot of scepticism about Patti. Here are three examples:
“Last time [I] donated any money to a cause like this it was scam. So no $$$ from me.”
“methinks its a con”
“anybody remember lokitorrents?” and “Yup. First thing I thought when I saw this thread…”
I thought I might take some time to shoot down some of the unfounded doubts people may be having.
A) Patricia Santangelo wasn’t running a torrent site. She’s said to have been sharing music through Kazaa. No huge advertising revenue. No huge user-base. No huge facilitation of copyright infringement. Just one tiny node on a network of millions.
B) Patricia Santangelo isn’t a p2p developer. She didn’t come up with some great way to share billions of files with millions of other users, nor is she bundling spyware/adware with her non-existent application.
C) Patricia Santangelo can’t afford a lawyer. She used to have one, but an affidavit to Judge Colleen McMahon her now ex-lawyer, Ray Beckerman, says “(a) defendant does not appear to have the financial resources that would be required for the pretrial discovery, and summary judgment and/or trial work, that lay ahead, and (b) it is clear to the undersigned that the plaintiff’s case is frivolous, so that it would be unwarranted for defendant to go to extraordinary means to finance her defense of this case.”
D) Patricia Santangelo still has legal expenses. Retaining a lawyer is not the extent of the total legal fees that can be racked up fighting a civil lawsuit. Need to file a document with the court? Pay up. Need to subpoena a RIAA “piracy investigator”? Pay up. Need a one-off conversation with an expert in a particular legal or technical field? Pay up. It’s not a “Lawyer costs $100/hour x 35 hours = $3,500 in legal fees” kind of situation.
E) Patricia Santangelo isn’t some anonymous name on your screen, begging for money. All her details are publically available through the court documents on her case. We have photos of her with the court documents. We have videos of her on NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.
F) Patricia Santangelo has opted for a trial by jury. As in turn-up-at-the-court-and-watch-the-whole-thing-with-your-own-eyes kind of trial by jury.
Now that we can see Patti isn’t asking for us to “please send bank details an i will deposit 1 million dollars 2 yor acont” what are some best or worst case scenarios?
Worst case – Patricia Santagelo runs off with all the money. The RIAA spends hundreds of thousands of dollars tracking her down so they can drag her back to court and bankrupt her.
You lose your $5 donation. The RIAA lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. Patti loses everything.
Another worst case scenario – Patricia Santagelo caves in to the RIAA and hands over all the money. You lose your $5 donation. The RIAA lose hundreds of thousands of dollars net because they’ve already forked out that much on legals, so they don’t make a profit on the deal. Patti is spared the fate of all the others who’ve been sued, thanks to the kindness of people who, every day, still do exactly what she’s in trouble for.
Best case scenario?
Patricia Santagelo wins. She doesn’t have to pay the RIAA anything. Instead, she gets her court costs back and you get a warm, fuzzy feeling knowing your $5 donation helped stick a nail in the RIAA’s coffin. Patti gets the benefit of not being bankrupted and can to go back to being a mother and a provider instead of an RIAA PR piece.
The RIAA? It gets a lot of very bad press on top of the very bad press it’s already getting, and it loses a chunk of money and the ability to victimize people like you.
Unfortunately, this thing is bigger than you. Or me. Or Patricia Santagelo.
I don’t have a crystal ball that will tell me if its “worth” donating to this cause. What I am doing, though, is imagining myself standing in the Valley of Elah holding a betting slip with “David – 100 Shakels To Win” written on it.
We all knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Maybe not one in the first thousand, maybe not one in the first ten thousand, but we all knew that eventually, some ordinary person was going to fight back against the huge corporate bullies.
But in fact, Patti isn’t just some ordinary woman.
She’s extraordinary.
Alex H, p2pnet – Sydney, Australia
[Alex is an operations manager for an ATM (automatic teller machine) supplier and he specialises in infrastructure development and maintenance, and logistics. He’s also an[other] active member of the Shareaza community who’s just started his own blog called Tech Loves Art where you’ll find past p2pnet posts, together with other goodies to come ; ]
=================
NOTE: – As we post this, 244 people have donated $3,659.46 from 13 sites. Go here to see the sites and the exact amounts.
Meanwhile, use the button below to contribute whatever you can afford and if you’re a webmaster, go here to get the code that’ll allow you to put a Fight Goliath button on your site.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Ever heard of appeals?
or Directed Verdicts?
This case is on a no-win track. Unfortunately.
Patti Santangelo should have settled. She is not a cause for p2p – she is human being, a mother of five and she is getting screwed.
The RIAA are to blame, but so too are all of those who have encouraged her to champion the p2p cause….
Disgraceful!
January 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Don’t be assholes… help this woman out.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
I don’t think that this case is a no-win situation and this case is worth the 5 dollars to help.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Patti puts a face on the people the RIAA are sueing.
I will sell my old CDs an DVDs and continue to donate money.
I like this on a few levels…
January 8th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
“This case is on a no-win track. Unfortunately.
Patti Santangelo should have settled. She is not a cause for p2p – she is human being, a mother of five and she is getting screwed. ”
Does the RIAA give you your check in person, or do they mail it ?
January 8th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
The author of this article is missing the point. It’s not about Pattie Santangelo scamming donations, it’s about the possibility of a bogus compaing in her name. I don’t think that’s the case, and I have promoted this thing. At the same time, it is set up badly. The weird AOL email address that receives the PayPal donations doesn’t inspire confidence. This campaign is amateurish, and is getting the mixed reception it deserves. Set up an operation that looks professional. You’ll raise more money and get more respect.
January 9th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Sounds like a worthy cause to me. I’d be inclined to donate. However…. why is she doing this without legal representation? That sounds like a wrong move, they’ll make mincemeat out of her in court. And if there’s no legal representation, what are the donations for? If enough people donated, she could get a good lawyer, but it seems as though she’s already decided not to.
January 9th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Prehaps one of the hardest sells to make is the internet sale. If it is something the viewer wants to buy on their own it is one thing. If it is something that someone wants to convience others is worthy of spending, the scammers have long ago made sure that each and every internet user is a sceptic.
Scams and the like have been part of the internet for so long that the crowd that uses the net have become a hard boiled lot. The scammers have worked just about every angle one can use. From “you need this” to “please have a bit of sympathy” for the unforetunate. From call this number for further info (being a toll call of high fees) to scamming ones’ passwords and credit card numbers; all have made the majority of net users a suspicious lot.
Then you add something like what was pulled with lokitorrents (if that was the correct site) and its owner vowing to fight till he had the money to do so and instead took that money and bought his way out of trouble and in the process turned over what logs he had. It gave the internet crowd a foul taste over the way it came out.
Understand, I am not saying Patti doesn’t need help. I am saying that is where all this mistrust is coming from. I think the cartels believe they have Patti right where they want her and that the results are something they believe will set the standards for further lawsuits. Sadly I believe that no matter how innocent Patti is, these animals are going to take her (and us in the long run) to the cleaners. That this particular case is a setup job. That Patti is being the fall guy to clear the way for the cartel to continue with business as usual. It is simply the mode of operations and the level of lowness they are known to stupe to.
The cartels may think that they are being successful in changing public attitude. I don’t think they have a clue just how successful nor the direction of that attitude. It certainly isn’t inspiring customers to continue to purchase the drivel the cartels are offering as product.
In the end, I truely hope Patti does far better in the outcome than I expect to happen.
January 9th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Wow, you are a true skeptic. I feel you are so wrong and have lost all hope in the world. How can you even go on living with that kind of thinking?? With our help, Patti is going to kick the living crap out of them!!!!!
Regarding the other poster mentioning that Patti doesn’t have an attorney now. That is true. They dropped their support when she couldn’t pay them anymore. That’s all the more reason to help her out, then she can hire them back. They should have done it pro bono IMHO.
January 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“This case is on a no-win track. Unfortunately.”
Correct statment: The IRAA can not possibly win
“She is not a cause for p2p”
Correct Statment: She fights for the cause of justice and truth
“She is getting screwed.”
Correct Statment: The IRAA is trying to screw her into paying thousand in settlement, and you encourage her to let them.
“Disgraceful!”… yes you are!
January 9th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“This case is on a no-win track. Unfortunately.”
Correct statment: The IRAA can not possibly win
“She is not a cause for p2p”
Correct Statment: She fights for the cause of justice and truth
“She is getting screwed.”
Correct Statment: The IRAA is trying to screw her into paying thousand in settlement, and you encourage her to let them.
“Disgraceful!”… yes you are!
January 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I reckon it was a direct bank transfer!!
January 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
I don’t blame the poster for skepticism regarding the U.S. court system. There is only one phrase you need to know concerning it-”O.J. won”. To boil it down, in America if you are rich you can commit murder and walk, if you are poor you do hard time for lesser crimes(like filming movies). Or take the supreme court’s Kelo decision, which now allows Walmart or any other company to take your house by eminent domain. I think Patti is going to lose, not because she deserves to but because in America big money wins. Having said that, I don’t think she should just roll over, if nothing else she is bringing some bad publicity for the RIAA.
January 9th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Just the sort of comments to be expected from a bunch of half wits who don’t get the entire picture. I get the picture and a few others with whom I have discussed this issue. I really feel sorry Mrs Santangelo, but I think that a bunch of half wits are geeing her on, with no thought for the consequences. She is going to lose this case and it is going to cost her dearly.
Perhaps the money that is raised can be used to pay the damages award to the RIAA.
And no fuckwits, I don’t work for the RIAA or any media company – I am just a concerned individual. I don’t agree with these lawsuits one bit. It is tragic what is unfolding before our eyes….
January 9th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
How is the RIAA going to collect if it wins. If they sue me, I decare bankrupcy. If they move in to take my house, I will be forced to sign it over after I create a hazard that will cost many millions of dollars for them to clean up. If they try to garnish my paycheck, I will simply get a job somewhere else. Despite what many believe, it is easy to live under a false “Social Security” Number in the P.S.A. My employer had the incorrect one on all of the tax forms for years, before it was discovered (by me).
Unfortunately, under the democrat-republican “leadership,” it is the money that talks – not right and wrong. While I plan to contribute, I really believe that the RIAA and MPAA will win this case, because the judges are appointed by democrat-republicans. I do believe that one day, the **AA’s will sue the wrong person and that person will do something very drastic to the studios such as going Heemeyer (Marvin Heemeyer, Granby, Colorado), going postal, or even going McVeigh. Even if I believe that copyright infringers should be sued, I think that Patti should be found innocent simply because she did not download the crap (RIAA “music”).
January 9th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
$5,000 or even $10,000 is only a drop in the bucket as funds go for a lawyer. The money helps her in many ways as she defends herself. It can be used for the cost of issuing supoenas, evidence filing fees, expert witness fees, reasearch fees, and so on. If she is smart and comes up with an unique strategey, there is a good chance that she can beat these RIAA lawyers at their own game.
January 9th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
There is no justice, nor is there any rule of law in the Police States of Amerika. There will never be unless one of the following happens:
1. The Messiah returns.
2. Depite the skewed election system, the people in open defiance of the democrat-republican party elect members of alternative parties such as the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or any other alternative party.
3. At least ten percent of the population begin an uprising against those in the government that continue to foster corruption and abuse of power. (Every now and again, this happens such as the case of Marvin Heemeyer of Granby, Colorado – this was a one man uprising).
A paedophile in Vermont got 90 days for repeatedly raping a 7 years old girl, Michael Jackson walked away scott free, and so did O.J. Cam a movie and get 17 years. Rape a helpless kid, get three months. This make me wonder if Judge Edward Chashman is a closet paedophile, or if any of his relatives is a paedophile. I wonder if he was offered a bribe or was blackmailed. Whatever the cause, this guy needs to be removed from the bench by WHATEVER means it takes.
The closest address and phone number matching is listed Edward J Cashman – (802) 872-0615 – 29 Lamoille St, Essex Junction, VT 05452
(This may be the judge’s address, and then again, it may not be)
January 9th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
There is no justice, nor is there any rule of law in the Police States of Amerika. There will never be unless one of the following happens:
1. The Messiah returns.
2. Depite the skewed election system, the people in open defiance of the democrat-republican party elect members of alternative parties such as the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or any other alternative party.
3. At least ten percent of the population begin an uprising against those in the government that continue to foster corruption and abuse of power. (Every now and again, this happens such as the case of Marvin Heemeyer of Granby, Colorado – this was a one man uprising).
A paedophile in Vermont got 90 days for repeatedly raping a 7 years old girl, Michael Jackson walked away scott free, and so did O.J. Cam a movie and get 17 years. Rape a helpless kid, get three months. This make me wonder if Judge Edward Chashman is a closet paedophile, or if any of his relatives is a paedophile. I wonder if he was offered a bribe or was blackmailed. Whatever the cause, this guy needs to be removed from the bench by WHATEVER means it takes.
The closest address and phone number matching is listed Edward J Cashman – (802) 872-0615 – 29 Lamoille St, Essex Junction, VT 05452
(This may be the judge’s address, and then again, it may not be)
January 9th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
“Unfortunately, this thing is bigger than you. Or me. Or Patricia Santagelo.”
It sure is. It will determine if RIAA and others like it and hired gun lawyers and big brother government can turn the courts against innocent children (and their parents) whose only crime is loving music and doing what everyone else is doing with computers, using the SAVE feature for the intended purpose.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 10th, 2006 at 1:09 am
I agree 100% with this comment. Although I am very interested in this story and would dearly love to donate some money towards Patti’s case i have so far chosen not to for the reasons outlined in the parent post. I’ve been hoping someone would set a system like that up since reading about Patti’s plight on slashdot.org a few months ago.
Upon closer inspection I too noticed the aol email address and decided that I was unable to verify whether my donation would actually go to Patti.
Even now all I have is your word that (all) the money is going to her. There has been no statement from her endorsing or indeed even aknowledging the fight goliath campaign.
I invite you to prove my assumptions wrong but frankly, I dont know how you would go about it. A public statement from Patti would be a start. A more trackable email address for the paypal fund would go a long way too. I mean … what the hell were you thinking using an AOL address in there. It seriously lacks legitamacy.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:26 am
For the RIAA to win, they’ll have to prove their case in front of a Jury. Sorry, you are wrong, she WILL WIN. Didn’t you even read the online court documents?!?!
January 10th, 2006 at 10:08 am
You missed one. “Patty is asking for money”
January 28th, 2006 at 2:58 am
[[ Just the sort of comments to be expected from a bunch of half wits who don't get the entire picture. I get the picture and a few others with whom I have discussed this issue. I really feel sorry Mrs Santangelo, but I think that a bunch of half wits are geeing her on, with no thought for the consequences. She is going to lose this case and it is going to cost her dearly.
Perhaps the money that is raised can be used to pay the damages award to the RIAA.
And no fuckwits, I don't work for the RIAA or any media company - I am just a concerned individual. I don't agree with these lawsuits one bit. It is tragic what is unfolding before our eyes....]]
You get the picture, do you? Right, you can go put your lips back on the RIAA’s ass, now that you’ve stopped talking/typing bullshit. No one is egging her on. Patti undertook the decision to fight her case on principle, as she has said in the interviews on NBC and ABC.
Paying damages to the RIAA? Haha! The RIAA isn’t getting another cent from me, you corporate shill. I’m not buying another CD from member companies until the RIAA stops this bullshit and issues a formal apology. You think I don’t matter? You’re wrong. I used to buy hundreds of dollars of CD’s every year, and there are thousands of people like me, and the number of dissatisfied and angry customers is growing every day. So, go crawl back up Carey Sherman’s ass where you came from. In case, it’s you writing, Carey, go crawl back up your own ass.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:08 am
Yes, she’s a human face to this whole RIAA insanity. It doesn’t help the RIAA’s public image that all the people they’re after are already kind of screwed or have no financial resources. It’s no accident who they are targeting.
Let’s also not forget the otehr people who are getting sued. Patti’s just the one who’s getting the most attention. There’s 13 (maybe 14 now) year old Brittany Chan who has to stand in court by herself with an ad litem guardian (I’m not sure what that is) appointed by the court. A 13 year old girl for Christ’s sake! The RIAA should be strung up and shot for exposing a minor to this kind of trauma. What country do we live in? If she dropped a bowling ball off an overpass and killed a driver, yes, take her to court and throw her ass in jail. She downloaded a couple of songs! She’s 13..
Then they’re Tanya Andersen in Oregon, a single mom who’s disabled and living on social security. Someone really out to help her out too.
Yes, the RIAA is absolutely right to go after people who profit from songs, but the way they are doing it is disgusting and unethical. These people are not the “pirates” the RIAA wants us to believe they are. But keep it up, RIAA. You already look like assholes, and most people won’t buy something from an asshole.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:11 am
“The author of this article is missing the point. It’s not about Pattie Santangelo scamming donations, it’s about the possibility of a bogus compaing in her name. I don’t think that’s the case, and I have promoted this thing. At the same time, it is set up badly. The weird AOL email address that receives the PayPal donations doesn’t inspire confidence. This campaign is amateurish, and is getting the mixed reception it deserves. Set up an operation that looks professional. You’ll raise more money and get more respect.”
It’s amateurish because, guess what!, it is! I’m sorry if it doesn’t meet your standards of glossiness and professionalism. This is a grass roots, guerilla movement, and Jon doesn’t have the money to pay for advertising. I thought the AOL account was phishy too when I sent my $5, but it’s in fact Patti’s email. (shows you what kind of noob she is. she’s got an AOL account!).
January 28th, 2006 at 3:18 am
How did you all miss this? Ray Beckerman has posted his firm’s address and the Patti stories have that address at the bottom of them. This is a legitimate effort, not some scam.
Patricia Santangelo
c/o Ray Beckerman
Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP
99 Park Ave (16th Fl)
New York, NY 10016
If any of you skeptics need further proof, you can go down to this address and have a look around, although security won’t let you upstairs. The office is a few blocks from Grand Central Terminal. Ray’s blog has him and Ty standing in front of their building.
Patti is a real person. So is Ray. They’ve both appeard on national TV to speak about the case. Crawl out from under your rocks.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:20 am
why? because she can’t afford it! She used to have a lawyer (Ray Beckerman), but even at semi-pro bono rates, she couldn’t afford it. It costs a ton of money to file these court papers, several hundreds at a time. Filing a motion costs $250, as stated in one RIAA document.
January 28th, 2006 at 3:34 am
“A paedophile in Vermont got 90 days for repeatedly raping a 7 years old girl, Michael Jackson walked away scott free, and so did O.J. Cam a movie and get 17 years. Rape a helpless kid, get three months. This make me wonder if Judge Edward Chashman is a closet paedophile, or if any of his relatives is a paedophile. I wonder if he was offered a bribe or was blackmailed. Whatever the cause, this guy needs to be removed from the bench by WHATEVER means it takes.”
He got 60 days in prison.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48219
January 28th, 2006 at 3:40 am
No, Patti is not asking for money. The fightgoliath site was set up by Jon Newton and Jason Rohrer on her behalf. These are real people. Jon runs this site, and Jason is a programmer/activist who has a website at
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
she in fact isn’t asking for any money. Jason and Jon did this out of their own time and pockets to set up the site. so what even if she was asking for money? I’d give it (and did). she’s some $24,000 in the hole! She said this on national television, in the presence of her then-lawyer, Ray Beckerman, so i doubt she’s lying. If you are still skeptical about this whole operation, I feel truly sorry for you. You’d probably do what John Goodman did in The Big Lebowski and throw a crippled man out of his wheelchair to see if he walks.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
I’d be interested to hear why you think she can’t win this case? I don’t know enough details one way or the other, but my understanding is that she decided to fight some time ago, on the very reasonable bassis that she didn’t do that of which she is accused.
That she needs to appeal to the wider community to fund the case seems reasonable and I am very happy to send her 30 quid or so as a small donation to someone with the gumption to stick up for themselves.
I don’t know what her chances of success are but I wish her the best of luck and I’m sure she’ll get plenty of technical assistance.
Wookey