RIAA targets Santangelo’s kids
p2pnet news view | Kids & Kartels:- The Big Four record labels are escalating their attack on Patti Santangelo, the New York mother who’s so far the only person to stand up to them.
And they’ll be using her children as weapons against her.
On Tuesday judge Mark D. Fox presided over a discovery hearing in Elektra v Santangelo and, “Elektra’s attorneys have answered Patti’s objections to their discovery questions,” her lawyer, Jordan Glass, told p2pnet.
“They’ve started to push back aggressively. They’re going after her children – and this time not directly so they can get around certain protections the children have. They had information about the children that wasn’t public, or wasn’t supposed to be public, and it’s of great concern not only that that they were able to obtain it, but also that they wanted it.
“They’re not treating this as a single case or as seeking a verdict for $3,500.00. They’re treating this as a symbol for how the other cases will go and I hope everyone who reads this will recognize the serious impact this case could have on their children.”
The RIAA has spent enough to feed a small country on trying to make the world believe it’s owners, the multi-billion-dollar Big Four labels, are being “devastated” (their word) by people who share music online, that contracted artists are suffering and that support workers are being driven into extreme financial hardship.
They make the completely unsupportable assertion that people using the p2p networks to share files would otherwise have paid $1 or more to buy the song from an online corporate music site or an offline music store.
And they claim file sharers are criminals and thieves, although nothing has been stolen and at worst, file sharing, a purely civil, not criminal, matter, involves copyright infringement.
Patti is said to have shared music, an allegation she flatly denies, and when the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) tried to get her to buy them off, she would have none of it, instead electing to act as her own lawyer against the labels.
When p2pnet spoke to her last September, “Assuming your case ends up in court, how far are you willing to go?” – we asked her.
“I’m willing to take it as far as I have to to prevent other innocent people being dragged into frivolous lawsuits,” she replied. “It’s wrong.”
She also said, “I have three teenage children who love music and I think that’s a great thing. I can’t count the amount of concert tickets and CDs that I’ve purchased over the past few years, and I still have two younger ones who are showing the same love for music. I find it hard to believe that file sharing could impact record companies to the point of devastation. There are some people, apparently, who copy and sell CDs, and that is piracy and they are the ones that need to be stopped.”
Thanks to the generosity of p2pnet readers, Patti has been able to retain Glass and is now going through the process of collecting the materials she needs to defend herself against the Big Four, Warner Music (US), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan, Germany) and EMI (Britain).
“This case is jeopardizing the actual well-being of children and you’re going to see problems develop which will be far worse than the mere ’shakedown for money’ ['settlements'],” says Glass emphatically.
“As just one example, it was deeply unsettling for us to learn just how much personal, non-public information the RIAA had collected on Patti’s children.
“All parents should be concerned and I think people have to know the implications.
“It’s one thing to sue children directly. They get a lawyer, rules are established, the court might offer certain protections, etc, but when it’s done through a back door – suing a parent to get information about a child – the child has no protections, especially when the plaintiff doesn’t even have the decency to not publish personal information about the child.
“This, then, is going to become the new feeding ground for those who seek to exploit children, whether through improper contact or identity theft.
“This new class of child – scared and facing the federal legal system, with few protections and their personal contact and identification information, as well as their posted feelings, fears, desires and thoughts – is now exposed to the world for all to see.
“And exploit.”
Glass is working virtually for expenses and the lion’s share of the $7,862.62 donated so far is going on collecting and collating the discovery materials and other documents necessary for Patti’s defense.
But a lot more will be needed, so please contribute whatever you can to the Fight Goliath campaign, bearing in mind Patti has taken on the international corporate music industry as much for other parents and children around the world who might find themselves in her position, as for herself and her children.
You can make a PayPal donation by clicking the button under the picture below, or you can send a cheque or money to:
Patti Santangelo
C/O PO Box 274
Hartsdale
New York 10530-0274
All donations are held in escrow and Patti personally approves all outgoings and expenses.
Spread the word. Blog, post, use IM, emails, ICR, whatever. Contact your local tv / radio station / newspaper. Can you get something on slashdot? Can you get the Fight Goliath campaign on Digg or anywhere else?
Thanks for your help. Patti quite literally can’t do this without you.
Also See:
Elektra v Santangelo – Patti Santangelo fights Goliath, February 14, 2006
innocent people – RIAA victim talks to p2pnet, September 4, 2005
February 18th, 2006 at 1:52 am
I wish Patti nothing but success in this ongoing battle. Perhaps it’s time to send mail/email to the artists of these ‘giants’ and tell them we will not buy their music anymore! Call the advertisers of the radio stations telling them we won’t buy there products.
It’s bad enough that the artists are double dipping. I buy cd’s for data but they still get some money from it.
February 18th, 2006 at 2:54 am
More facts, less propaganda please.
February 18th, 2006 at 3:01 am
It’s called “stop infringing on the copyrights of people who aggressively defend them with underhanded legal tactics and you probably won’t get sued” – I say probably because their legal teams seem to be so inept that there’s a good chance that they’ll sue your dead granny regardless.
Yes, most of the RIAA’s “product” is complete crap, and not even worth the cost of bandwidth to download it…and yet people download/upload it anyway! While I think what the RIAA is doing is totally fucked up, if people continue to infringe upon the copyrights they are entitled to protect, they shouldn’t be surprised when a lawsuit lands on their doorstep.
February 18th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Ok so what facts and discovery did the RIAA want? It characterizes what was seeking, without stating what was sought. The article does not say what shouldn’t be had or why it shouldn’t be (legal questions are usually not so cut and dried on a case). The article doesn’t explain why they obhect, nor does it explain why the RIAA is seeking it. Does the author not trust the writer to make his or her own decision?
I am a strong supporter of fair use, and feel that the recent copyright changes are not in the nation’s best interest. Nonetheless, it is important to treat people with respect, and allow them enough information ot make up their own minds.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:08 am
What did Patti Santangelo expect? The RIAA have sent investigators out to gain as much info on her children. They believe that her kids did it and they want to present that in court. They will have approached her kids friends, classmates and anybody remotely connected to her children.
Nothing is sacred in this battle. After all, Patti put her children in the firing line and so did you Jon. The RIAA is going to try and make an example of her. They have already proven that children are not innocent bystanders – take the Chan case.
The facts are straightforward here (according to the RIAA):
The likelihood that Patti’s kids were the offending party are pretty good. Her children are also vulnerable, and that is Patti’s biggest weakness, so they will go for that. Nothing wrong in that (in the eyes of the court).
I can understand Patti’s protective nature towards her kids – it is her maternal instinct. But this case is going to hurt her kids more than she realises. The RIAA lawyers will run up whatever costs to get to her and break her case down. If she loses, and the RIAA costs are awarded against her, I could well imagine a bill of $100 000…
This is going to turn ugly people! I have the utmost sympathy for this lady. Not fun and games.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:14 am
“I say probably because their legal teams seem to be so inept…”
I would not think so… Their legal teams win cases in IP cases all the time. Visit http://www.cll.com for info on their lawyers in this particular case. The lead attorney J.Christopher Jensen has won big cases on both sides as plantiff and defendant attorney. Perhaps it may be the companies getting the dirt for the RIAA that may be inept, but I would not say that of the attorneys.
Google Dean Garfield and you will see what sort of legal mind you are dealing with…
February 18th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Am i the only one who is sick of hearing about the poxy riaa?
Isn’t there a danger of giving them publicity by constantly focusing on them, surely if everyone ignored them it would be better??
February 18th, 2006 at 11:40 am
The four big ones doesn’t want that a legal p2p music system rises up.. they know that it’s the end of their centralized monopoly… and who owns shares of isp’s? they are getting rich on the broadband users…
I will never buy another cd from these twats…
music wants to be ‘free’ just like information wants to be free…
February 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
The RIAA is the reason I haven’t purchased a CD from any of the “Big Four” publishers. I only buy from smaller labels. I also refuse to pay for online music. Why pay for an inferior compressed file? These people are blood suckers. Do they have a right to copyright protection? Yes. Do they have the right to subvert fair use trample over private citizens? No. I speak with my dollars…
February 18th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
This story is outrageous.
The quote, “suing a parent to get information about a child”, allegedly by Santangelo attorney Glass, imputes improper conduct to Elektra’s attorneys. Further, the statement, “This, then, is going to become the new feeding ground for those who seek to exploit children, whether through improper contact or identity theft”, taken in context, might fairly be read as an accusation that Elektra’s attorneys are working in concert with paedophiles.
Released on a Friday night, the first question that I have is whether these story clearly might tend to cause an imminent breach of the peace.
February 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Dear RIAA and READERS,
I have spent thousands of dollars over the years on CD’s from the quote “major 4″.. Just because of this crazy action from you, the well
here has now dryed up.. I don’t read reports about you doing this
in 3rd world countries where full cd’s are sold on every street corner by the millions or the computer copy shops where 20 computers are connected to massive duplication racks. Knowing that there is nothing to be collected from someone who has nothing or organized crime shops where the owner will never be found. So, they trash the easy pray which is FAMILIES AND KIDS.. Call Evil.. Evil.. This is for sure.. It’s just another way for you to extract higher returns on a music investment. Most people just pay and get you out of there hair and you know this, as thats why the fine of $3,500 is so low. They know that most families will be able to come up with this small amout if they have to sell the family car to come up with it.. It’s all a ploy to just get more $$$$$$, lets just call a spade, A SPADE and be done with it.. Just like oil or anything else it’s always the money!
To the “BIG 4″ read this buddy.. You are hurting yourselves buy raising the price of CD’s and to go after families and kids. You will just unite us to not buy your products as word of this has spread fast and wide. The RIAA which you have saught to help you will be the corner stone in your demise. You have started a fire and now the cyber wind has gotten ahold of it and now the world is a blaze you will never be able to put out! I for one hope all the “BIG 4″ go in the crapper as for what you are doing is WRONG! You don’t bite the hand that feeds you stupid!
Besides, can you really call it theft.. A online version reguardless of its duplicated ability will NEVER be as good as the original CD.. Again as well, most of us would rather have the real milk. So, most would hear a cyber sample of the music and then go buy the CD for better quality. Face it most rips stink due to the software that did it or the ability to produce quality copy by the ripper. If the music is a poor mirror of the original (only a shadow) then how can you call this theft.. It’s not possible.. Most rippers don’t have $30,000 replication hardware which can produce exact duplicates.. We don’t hear the RIAA busting these copy shops now do you and they are all over the world. They not only copy the cd but also the label to be placed on the cd as its cover. Then they are sold by mail all over the world. Now this is piracy as they sell it for close to the same price.
Another thought too is that most of these titles would never be heard by most people if it were not for the exposure via the cyber world. Don’t look for them to be exposed by local radio stations as they have their own agenda to play only the well know to draw their own cash flow. Again, it’s always money!! Besides before there was a net lots of radio stations played full albums which lot’s of people would record to cassett and redistribute to friends or sell and no one ever went after local radio stations for transmitting the full recordings. Was that any different than a copy of a cd on a P2P network other then the quality was FM and almost a perfect copy with good signal recovery. NO, that was to be fine as long as the station paid for its air copy and you didn’t get caught selling the air recovered copy.
RIAA this is just old news and your getting rich with a new ploy.. DEATH TO THE RIAA and THE BIG 4!! Buy from small record labels and give the BIG 4 the finger right up the ole WAHZOO, till they get smarter and figure out that “Families and kids” are really not your enemy! We feed you pricks!! Buncha stupid asses.. Geeze!!
SIGNED, “FOR VERY GOOD REASON”:
Anonymous Coward
February 18th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
RIAA is launching attacks against American Citizens Children,
Undoubtedly the actions of RIAA can lead to harm and loss, pain and suffering, terrorizing these children.
Thus, RIAA, its members and employees, are all Enemy Combatants, as outlined in the Patriot Act.
George W. Bush stated that the United States Military would not see
a difference between terrorists, and those who harbor terrorists.
As such, RIAA, its headquarters and employees are now classifiable as legitimate military targets subject at any time to a ‘Shock and Awe’ decapitation pre-emptive attack.
RIAAâs leaders are similar to the âdeck of cardsâ persons of interest, whoâs capture could be rewarded by the USA military with millions of dollars of prize money.
If RIAA continues its assault against USA citizens, it is likely that one day, they will wake up to the sound of a predator drone flying over their homes, moments before they learn what it means to anger the wrong mothers.
February 19th, 2006 at 1:52 am
This story is poorly constructed, it’s biased unidirectional and shows unsustained facts to say the least, in the end i got nothing out of it exept an attempt to get my money.
If you want it to be credible, at least state the facts and sustantiate them!
what i mean is:
“(…) They had information about the children that wasn’t public, or wasn’t supposed to be public(..)”
What kind of information (no, whe don’t need to know the information just the kind of)
“This case is jeopardizing the actual well-being of children and you’re going to see problems develop (…)” says Glass emphatically.
In wich way, what problems?
in the end and for lack of substantiation, this article reeks of the”hearsay”, “pitty-me” and “gimme money” kind of trash!
February 19th, 2006 at 2:00 am
The RIAA is as bad as Hitler.
February 19th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
> surely if everyone ignored them it would be better??
You don’t ignore evil- you find it and root it out. Ignoring it is the worst thing one can do.
Mike
http://www.HeMaleOrSheMale.com
February 19th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
The RIAA needs to be sued by someone with some political clout. I suspect they’ve run afoul of the law doing this and it would be nice to see them pay for it.
Joe T. Rivia
http://QuickTrivia.com
February 19th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
The New York State Attorney Directory has an entry for Jordan D. Glass.
http://portal.courts.state.ny.us/pls/portal30/INTERNETDB_DEV.INDIV_ATT.SHOW?p_arg_names=v_reg_num&p_arg_values=2692226
The FindLaw Lawyer Directory contains a similiar record.
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1545014_1
However, an email inquiry via the FindLaw form bounces with a “550 No such user”.
February 20th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Amazing, would Jesus write something like this?
February 20th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Sounds like your a RIAA Croney
February 20th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
What information was collected? This story is useless without this type of information. Was it obtained through illegal means?
February 20th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
News flash: Jesus was Jewish.
February 20th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Internet rule 17
If you don’t have a valid argument, say that the person works for the **AA…
February 20th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Was there a page missing? Or, was this a lame attempt just to get people to read, and then donate to the cause based on imaginary outrage, or righteous indignation. How dare they go after the defenseless children! Any news without factual evidence is just a lot of words. You know that this RIAA lawsuit is really a CIA cover up because one of the children witnessed an gangland execution by a rogue agent? You knew that, right? I think his name might have been Jack Bauer, and he used to be part of a secret unit fighting terrorists, but then had to fake his death, so the child is still in danger of exploitation by the tabloids. That’s why there are no news articles, or other supporting facts. It’s for the children’s protection. Just take my words for it. Posted by an anonymous coward because I wouldn’t want the RIAA to exploit my children’s personal information obtained by illegal means. (You know exactly what I’m talking about, right?)