Comments on: Patti Santangelo fund nears $11.5K

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 21:20:15 +0000

I wonder, is it claiming money under false pretences to suggest that the Patti Santangelo case has anything to do with filesharing?

Now, before people dismiss me as a troll or accuse me of “working for the RIAA”, deluded people that they are, hear me out for a moment

Patti is not contesting that her pc, isp account etc were used for filesharing. She is merely contesting the fact that it was her. She has chosen not to divulge the names of other people who it could have been. The issue isn’t about filesharing, it is about her refusal to substantiate her assertion that it wasn’t her

Is Patti misleading people? Or are her lawyers guilty of deception, have they merely jumped on the back of this whole issue to try to further their vain attempts to publicise their practice? By lawyers, I don’t mean the shadow of Ray Beckerman, his proxy, Jordan (”incorporated in the tax free haven of the Bahamas”) Glass, but the irascible and self opinionated Ray Beckerman

You have to admit it’s a pretty strong incentive. Adopt a gullible person and put a spin on the whole issue, promote her as a cause celbre – a martyr to filesharing – and collect the cash and win the glory. And if you lose, still collect enough cash to cover your costs, handed over by well meaning sympathisers.

Is it trolling to question what we’re told? P2Pnet has milked this campaign, with totally honourable intentions IMHO, but the lawyers are certainly hanging the whole thing out to dry. What track history does Glass have? For that matter, what track history does Beckerman have? For all his rhetoric, he hasn’t done much to help Patti S.

One thing for sure, the donations are drying up and the matter quickly becoming yesterday’s news. It isn’t a filesharing issue, it’s a distraction, more a story of callous exploitation of the gullible, a drawn out farce in which the leading player is in a lose-lose situation and the promoter has nicely insured himself against failure.

Better that this dies speedily than continue to suffer the ignominy of a protracted and painful death by a thousand cuts. Nobody is really interested any more

Let’s move on and have some news on this site.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:15:05 +0000

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, AND I’M BOYCOTTING TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:31:11 +0000

It should be a lesson. I for one stopped buying the day they announced they would start to sue. To this day I haven’t purchased one single cd.

The same with the MPAA. Only I was purchasing dvds regularly. They can be as greedy as they wish. However, the choice of whether I spend my dollars to support an industry that I don’t agree with their business tactics is up to me and no one else. No matter how it is presented, I won’t pay to finance financial terrorism.

I know dang good and well I’m not the only one either. No matter the industry shills and trolls that come through, it doesn’t change this fact. I will continue on this path till the day it ends. They call this a boycott and it has a purpose. To tell those we do not agree with through financial denial as the only method they understand.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:13:14 +0000

Good job lackey…you go on buying the crap your pushing these days! The CD format is good, but not when it’s DRM’d to death or contains spyware!! Get a clue, listen to your customers needs like all good businesses do!! RIAA sues customers….then customers stop buying music…hmmm looks like a very important lesson there!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:14:30 +0000

I love it when you dingletwit audiophiles call the RECORDING INDUSTRY greedy for suing over MP3s. The point is: people are downloading MP3s instead of buying CDs. Most consumers (myself included) don’t give a sh*t about a few barely perceptable artifacts in the audio.

I’ve got news for you… mp3, flac, ogg… doesn’t matter – you’re still a target for litigation.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 02:11:26 +0000

I’m looking forward to the fund reaching 31337, for the elite solidarity that the p2p community has shown in helping out Santangelo.

Every time I read the posts of RIAA lackeys on this board, I am inspired to give even more money to the fund. So all parties here should just keep doing what they’ve been doing. I wouldn’t want any of you to change your ways.

These uneven donation numbers bother me. To compensate for Paypal’s fee, multiply your intended donation by 1.046.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:49:57 +0000

“Some of these areas are technical and relate to if you have an open unsecured wireless router or whether making files available on P2P equates to “distribution”

This comment strikes me as odd. In my Venegas vs. music publishers the court decided that music publishers who licensed songs they did not own to radio stations and to record companies did not constitute copyright infringement. I testified that I hear songs performed on the radio. The judge said that the evidence of hearing the songs was worthless. The judge also decided that the millions of record made as a result of the licenses issued did not constitute infringement of our copyrights.

In essense, the judge decided that our “distribution” rights were not violated by the song thieves, who stole songs and registered them at the Copyright Office falsely claiming ownership.

Sure, no one has taken the time to analize our (Venegas) case or to report on it, but regardless, what Santangelo may have done (downloading of songs) is nothing comparable to a music publisher stealing hundreds of songs and licensing them to radio and record companies and the jusdge said there was no infringement. This was an an american abusive federal court.

I challenge all those that want Santangelo to win her case (as she should) to help her by comparing publicly her alleged actions with the actions of the two music publishers that stole our songs, made money off them and destroyed our market and were then let off the hook by the court.

The courts will not stop their senseless arbitrariness until the people wake up.

The details of my case are on my web page. You can help Santangelo by speaking of our case, a jurisprudence which essentially says that no one can be guilty of copyright infringement, no matter the extent of the real damage done to the copyright holders.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:09:09 +0000

wow a post that basically says it’s good your fighting but you can’t win. hmmm, says something about the american legal system eh. Only those that can aford to be right are right.
Not that it’s much different in Canada.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:49:09 +0000

Gee, what Greedy Insanity!!!

Many People, or Individuals don’t get missled, or aren’t fooled that easely by such Propaganda!

The only & Best Audio Formats are WAV and FLAC.

OGG is sometimes OK, sometimes not.

Obviously the CD is the Best Format and it’s the Orginal too!

As said, suing someone for sharing lousy formats (Actually in Reality they are Advertising them freely, how’s that for an Idea dear Riaa???); is just Plain Stupid.

People are not stupid you know, you can be sure, dear RIAA & your Allies), that you will Reap your rightful Harvest due to your Greedy Actions!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 12:53:28 +0000

IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY GETS PAID TO THIS LAWYER OR THAT LAWYER, OR WHETHER PATTI BUYS A BURGER WITH THE MONEY, IT’S GOING TO HELP HER, PERIOD!!!!!!

YOU INDUSTRY LACKEYS MUST *REALLY* BE SCARED, AND YOU SHOULD BE. YOU’RE GOING DOWN BIG TIME!!! WE WILL CONTINUE DONATING MONEY INTO THE MILLIONS, PUBLICITY IS SPREADING AS WE WRITE HERE, SOON THE MONIES WILL BE POURING IN AND FREE PUBLICITY WILL BE OUT THE ASS. I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, BUT THE TIME OF THE BUGGY WHIPS IS OVER.

GET READY TO RECEIVE YOUR PINK SLIP, CAUSE YOUR JOB JUST GOT CUT!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:57:14 +0000

Wow, you seem to be very Desperate Indeed!

Afraid of the Dark?

You’re desperate Attempt, trying your very Utmost Insulting someone, will not prevent you in any way whatsoever, Informing the Public of the Tactics of the RIAA & their Agents (likely you’re one of them)…

Cool down, or you might Blow a Fuse/ Gasket or two…uhm we don’t mind you doing that…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:25:13 +0000

That’s right. People who don’t agree with you must be working for the RIAA!

Honestly! This isn’t an issue over filesharing, it never was, it is a simple issue about a badly advised and doubtless very pleasant lady who has neverthless got herself into trouble over refusing to identify the person in her household (or who has access to her household) who used her computer for filesharing.

Dear readers, it is you who are being asked to pay the cost for Mrs Santangelo’s peculiar actions. Ask yourselves if this is relevant to filesharing.

Forget Jordan Glass, he’s just come onto the scene. You were asked to help support Mrs Santangelo in settling her costs with her former lawyer. Ask yourselves why he has now passed it all on to another?

Now it transpires that she needs the money to prepare for discovery, itself a simple issue given that the issue of filesharing is not even being challenged. Ask yourselves why it is costing so much simply because she refuses to tell the whole truth to the court?

Where are the lawyer’s bills? How much exactly has been paid and for what? How much exactly did her former lawyer cost, and why is he a former lawyer?

Oh, sorry. I forgot. We’re only allowed to donate, we’re not allowed to ask any questions

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 19:56:50 +0000

Thanks, Jon, for another cogent comment made in the guise of being a reader. Listen to your wife… get a life.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:05:12 +0000

“Why is she doing this?

“This isn’t just for me,” she says. “It’s for all those other people as well.”"

I believe that the statement above is very misguided. It is a statement from a very sincere and honest lady. Unfortunately, the fight is her own. In the matter of fighting for others, it would be more appropriate if the case was a matter concerning the constitutionality of the methods of the RIAA & MPAA in gathering evidence against people and legal arguments in that vein.

Mrs Santangelo has a massive fight on her hands. On the side it is a well funded and very powerful organisation with very deep pockets. The plantiff’s bill will probably in the region of $100K+ and here we are getting excited about $11K?

The attorneys representing Elektra will be going on the distribution issue – there will be significant amounts of info that will be as evidence and that is what is worrying. I don’t think that the case would be in court without RIAA having good evidence.

I indeed hope she wins her case, but let us stop thinking that it is for p2p. It is not. It is her case and if she wins, it will be miraculous, but unfortunately, appeals will await her. I am saddened by the rhetoric surrounding this case, and I think that this lovely lady and her children have been poorly advised. I appreciate her principles and I think as a Christian, it is a notable characteristic to simply not give in. My prayers are with Mrs Santangelo. May she prevail against these greedy corporations.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:21:19 +0000

Exactly!! People harnessed mp3s for their own personal use, then the industry saw what people were doing and wanted in on their action. Patti didn’t do anything wrong. And the industry needs to prove she did anything wrong, in court. The labels don’t stand a chance, and they know it!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:17:23 +0000

Exactly, negative posters are lackeys!! They are VERY AFRAID THE LABELS WILL LOSE!!!! THAT’S GOOD FOR CONSUMERS, BAD FOR THE INDUSTRY!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:13:37 +0000

What the f*ck are you, some RIAA stooge?!?! Go F*CK YOURSELF IN THE @SS!! Your industry is trying to f*ck consumers, and now we’re f*cking you, NO SALES!!! Go pound sand you stupid f*cking lemming!!! The boycott is gaining momentum, Patti will win, and you are f*cking history!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:58:50 +0000

Instead of letting Folks Advertise in MP3 (Compressed & Low Quality Format), generally MP3 sucks anyway, it’s not one of the best sounding Formats! Generally, the best one closest to CD Quality, [is the CD!!!]

So, the Idiots (RIAA & their Supporters like suing $$$ those who Advertise their Compressed, Low Quality Tunes Product, in an attempt to Brainwash the Masses into believing, portraying these poor People as Pirates & Criminals!

Greedy Organisations must be Punished!!

The only REAL EVIL is, making Money of someone else work, obviously that’s just Plain wrong… (Esp. without Permission)

Those who’re into doing that, are the the REAL Criminals & Pirates!!!

Danny

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:39:09 +0000

Meh, if anyone can’t see these as paid-off lackeys that’s their look-out, Patti is fighting a force none have reckoned with in many years, suddenly, people seem to have a voice, what an interesting prospect. Big corporations don’t want people to have a voice, just like the governments don’t… coincidence?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 04:58:08 +0000

Dear Jon and other cheerleaders for Santangelo:
While there are legitimate reasons to create case law in the march to the digital future, Santangelo has a relatively low chance of prevailing.
Here are several reasons:
1. People here and elsewhere look at the legitimate things worth testing and trying to imply them to the specifics of Santangelo. Some of these areas are technical and relate to if you have an open unsecured wireless router or whether making files available on P2P equates to “distribution”. However, discovery and statements already
have been made that make it impossible to apply these sorts of possibly legitimate arguments to Santangelo.
2. People here and elsewhere keep thinking they are going to try the process the music industry uses to nab people. Unfortunately this is a dead end because judges ruled early on against the music industry in granting access and how the ISPs were to be approached. Since this extra due process was proscribed by the courts this is not going to be appealable in a Santangelo specific case. The court and the judge are not going to let you put the court itself on trial.
3. Thirdly and most importantly- the Supreme Court took MGM vs Grokster and made its very wide majority and clear ruling “that (I paraphrase) BETAMAX ruling that everyone had been relying on for an automatic safe harbor had been misapplied. Basically everyone
was acting like if there was any non-infringing use of a technology, no matter how small, then all infringing uses got a basically free ride. It has not been reported in the press, but I downloaded and read all of MGM vs Grokster and the court says very clearly that all common law is not waived and common sense common law is very applicable in sorting out who is infringing whom. This will provide the context to the arguing the case and allows any jury to use its own common sense about morality and who is legally at fault. This case would not turn on some shallow trick that the defense might throw up because
there would be so much other settled case law that would overwhelm the shallowness of the defense since the Supreme Court instructed all to use all the law available at stop relying on a single “bright-line” defense.