p2pnet - rss feed: Patti Santangelo update
p2p news / p2pnet: p2pnet officially launched its Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath campaign at the end of December, 2005, but for various reasons, we haven’t been able to post as many updates as we’d have liked. As a direct result, we’ve had several emails suggesting the lack of stories meant we were quietly trying to drop p2pnet’s involvement because we could see we were onto a losing proposition.
No way. Not never, nohow. p2pnet will be there when Patti and her lawyer, Jordan Glass, hear a jury foreman announce that between the two of them, they’ve booted the seriously misnamed RIAA, short for Recording Industry Association of America, onto its gluteous maximus.
Recording Industry Association of America? There’s very little ‘American’ content, figuratively or literally. To all intents and purposes, the RIAA is owned and operated by Vivendi Universal, the world’s most powerful record label group which is based in France; the odious Sony BMG (Japan and Germany); EMI (Great Britain); and, bringing up the rear, Warner Music, the only US label.
In other words, Santangelo is being sued not by the RIAA, but by a vast and venal, profit-obsessed, multi-billion-dollar international corporate cartel with zero scruples and absolutely no respect or concern for its own customers.
Moreover, Santangelo doesn’t have teams of highly paid lawyers behind her. She’s represented by Jordan Glass, who works out of his house, not from a plush law practice with associates to do the grunt work.
Helped to an extent by Patti, who has no legal training, he has to do that himself. All of it. And put the paper-work together. Which doesn’t leave any extra time. Hence the dearth of p2pnet updates.
Michelle (left, 19) and Patti were recently grilled by music industry lawyers. So was Bobby, 15, with Ryan, 7 (centre). It’s called it being ‘deposed’.
Michelle was 16 when the RIAA first glommed onto her, and Bobby was 12. The ‘trade’ association also wants to go after Robert Santangelo, Patti’s ex-husband, and Nicole (below), now 17, but who was only 14 when the RIAA first showed up. No doubt they’ll soon be wanting a chat with Jack, who’s 10.
The only reason they haven’t latched onto Robert senior, with whom Patti remains on good terms, is because he’s just undergone a liver transplant.
For a while, it seemed a donor couldn’t be found and when we were talking to Patti a couple of weeks back, what with the upcoming civil court trial, she was very, very depressed.
We all know the law acts for people with money. Ordinary people have to look after themselves as best they can, something Sony BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Warner Music count on.
That’s why every one of the more than 18,000 USA citizens (young children included) singled out for special attention is an ordinary person without legal or financial resources, and who’s therefore unable to even begin to compete with the labels with their bottomless pockets and legions of lawyers.
Commercial law firms won’t even look at the cases without a hefty retainer. Ask any of the other Big Music victims. So it’s left to attorneys such Jordan Glass to try to balance the so-so called scales of justice. And people like him are thin on the ground.
But Patti told us she was hanging in no matter what and even if, by some grotesque travesty, she loses, she’s going to continue against the Big Four.
Meanwhile, the RIAA is doing its best to kill Glass’ efforts by snowing him under with documentation.
A favourite RIAA tactic is to serve massive written discovery demands, although it’s, “none too eager to respond to written discovery requests which the defendants themselves serve on the RIAA,” as Ray Beckerman points out, going on that in Patti’s case, “the RIAA has served lengthy objections on both the interrogatories and the document requests which Patricia Santangelo’s lawyer served upon them”.
In other words, if you know you can’t beat them, pile so much crap on them that they can’t possibly respond within the time constraints imposed by the courts. You hope, if you’re the RIAA.
Justice is supposed to be blind meaning under the law, everyone is supposed to be equal. But we all know that’s about as likely as recent Big Four claims that they care about families.
Then and now
However, that was yesterday. Today, we have the Net and the word is out.
We ordinary people now routinely talk to other ordinary people and en masse, and we’re back in the driving seat, where we should have always been.
The labels need us. We don’t need them.
Sony BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Warner Music believe they have Patti and others like her exactly where they want them. But thanks to you and the fact you can choose whether or not to waste your money on Big Four ‘product,’ they’re wrong. Dead wrong.
The labels lie that file sharing is been costing them money. They claim a file downloaded equals a sale lost.
This has never been show to be true. Not even nearly.
Meanwhile, more and more people are communicating through blogs and news sites and email, and this is in turn forcing the lamescream media, largely owned by the entertainment cartels, to give coverage to the sue ‘em all scandal. But that doesn’t mean the coverage has to be adequate, accurate or on-going. Print and electronic media outlet owners don’t like having to give the other side of the story. But because more and more blogs and sites are tuning in, they don’t have much choice, at least not if they’re to maintain the pretense of impartiality and fair and balanced reporting.
p2p equals People Power and because of it, soon, it really will mean major Big Four bottom line losses. But they won’t be because of ‘theft,’ as the labels disingenuously call downloads. It’ll be because the critical mass has been reached and enough people have stopped buying Big Music ‘product’ for it to be reflected in sales figures.
It doesn’t have to be that way, though.
All the labels have to do is fully open their catalogues, lower wholesale prices so the desperately struggling corporate sites can charge reasonable amounts for downloads, and start treating their customers like human beings instead of cash-cow marks.
Yes, the labels will have to compete fairly in open markets, something they’ve never had to do before. And that’ll mean innovation will thrive, again, new artists will get a chance, again, and music will be for everyone. Again.
Meanwhile, speaking of online people-to-people communications, yesterday at around 1:00 pm Pacific, the fund was at $11,769.76. Today, at 12:27 Pacific, it had reached $12,983.79. And $1,000 of that apparently came from one site (more on this on Monday).
Who’s now got $16.21 to make it $13,000?
The Fight Goliath campaign isn’t about Patti. It’s about you and your freedom to choose between something you want and something you don’t want, without fear of reprisal from some giant, soul-less record label; and, to guard against seeing yourself and your kids become RIAA victims.
Put your virtual hand in your virtual pocket. $1 or $1,000. It all counts.
And remember - you don’t depend on the labels. They depend in you.
And if you don’t want to use PayPal, snail-mail your contribution to:
Patti Santangelo
C/O PO Box 274
Hartsdale
New York 10530-0274
If you’re a site owner and you’re be willing to display a Fight Goliath button, go here. And go here for an update on contributions..
April 15th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
$13023.73 as I read this
April 16th, 2006 at 3:17 am
This is neither a P2P case, nor is the money going to Patti, but to the swine that is Beckerman. This is a case of a person refusing to cooperate with the court by refusing to give out the names of the people (her kids’ friends) who actually did download.
And Beckerman is merely making a name for himself as a “standing up for P2P” lawyer, charging huge sums, abandoning his client, getting himself a set of new suckers to leech for all their money and making one hell of a living off it.
Filth is what I call him. Low-life scum.
Jon, I don’t think you’re a bad person, but I think you’re a bit gullible.
And please don’t delete this post. Doing so would prove that you’re trying to hide something, which I hope you are not.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:29 am
Just donated $25 to the cause. If I was a millionaire, it would be great to be able to donate a small pittance of my total estate and totally ruin the RIAA. May you burn in hell RIAA/MPAA for all your supporters and puppets in Washington and everything you stand for.
April 16th, 2006 at 3:46 am
I sure think Jon would gladly refute this post.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:27 am
It’d be beneath me to reply to this. So I won’t ; )
Meanwhile, all the best to Jordan, Patti - and Ray.
Cheers!
April 16th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
very lame. could this be the late but not lamented ex-slycknick?
April 16th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
1. I am not “ex” anything. If you read the major nationals and look hard enough to recognise my style (as I use my real name there) you will quickly see that I have a somewhat wider audience than ny of these p2p sites could lay claim to.
2. I haven’t posted anything on this site in months
3. Whilst I tend to agree with the sentiments, it wasn’t me.
SlyckNick
April 16th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Ahh, yes. Nearly forgot that everyone who doesn’t stand on a soapbox and shout “f… the RIAA” must be working for them.
I wouldn’t unpack those boxes in your new work location, Ray, your reputation is getting around.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:43 am
I couldn’t have said that better myself…
Please ask your friends to donate too. Patti needs the help!
April 17th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Yup, it was him
April 17th, 2006 at 8:04 am
“Ahh, yes. Nearly forgot that everyone who doesn’t stand on a soapbox and shout “f… the RIAA” must be working for them. ”
Almost always true.
Directly, or indirectly.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:36 am
slycknick is also posting his crap on on slyck. guess he doesnt have anythng better to do
April 17th, 2006 at 11:41 am
So speaks that outstanding troll (sorry, contributor) to the cause of P2P…Eclectica.
April 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
“Ahh, yes. Nearly forgot that everyone who doesn’t stand on a soapbox and shout “f… the RIAA” must be working for them. ”
LOL or someone who WANTS to work for them.
Slycknick.
( public info at Slyck )
Nick Parker, actually.
A UK Lawyer ( what a surprise ).
Probably bucking for a fat retainer from one of the **AAs.
All the professions of greed .. UNITE !!!
LOL
April 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Useless loser. Nick Parker has done more for P2P than you!
April 17th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
oweeeeee. someone called me a loser :(.
I must go cry in shame now. LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Looks to me that you do much more for yourself, than anyone else Nick.
April 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“This is neither a P2P case, nor is the money going to Patti, but to the swine that is Beckerman. ”
Looks more like professional jealousy.
I am a little miffed at Beckerman leaving this case, but I don’t know all of the facts.
From the here and there’s that drift out, it is beginning to sound like his old FIRM may have been the ones that were the problem.
But there is no way as of yet, to know for certain.
Even so,
Gutter talk , name calling ?
Professional Jealousy.
What, exactly, has Nick “done” ?
Who has he represented ?
What has he “done” …. not written ( anyone can write baseless crap .. you do it well yourself ). ?
What has he … “done” ??
April 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
tom mennecke says he fired parker but parker says he didnt.
“I not only keep my employment, I get more work and appointed as a staff writer to a major periodical - for which I am also very well paid.
“Interesting how those who blindly support the terminally faltering campaign to fund Mrs Santangelo’s misguided battle to avoid telling the truth to the courts also support the notion that if you don’t scream “F… the RIAA” at the top of your voice then you must be one of their employees. And then rely on a jaded blog masquerading as a news site (P2PNet) to slander anyone who disagrees behind their backs.”
April 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
sorry -
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21600
April 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Actually, Tom Menecke said
“In addition to the visual and back-end changes to Slyck.com, there is some disheartening news we also must share. It is with great sadness that Nick Parker (SlyckNick) is no longer part of the Slyck.com writing team. Losing any member of the Slyck.com team is always a difficult time for us. We will miss his contributions and dedication to Slyck.com. However, creative and operational differences made it impossible to continue our working relationship.”
That doesn’t equate to the facts. The operational difference referred to was an offer to join the staff of a large publisher, a paid position.
/disengaged
April 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
“creative and operational differences made it impossible to continue our working relationship.”
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21321
April 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
It has been a while since I posted a comment but I feel the need here.
Parker and by default Slyck are certainly doing an excellent job for the opposition by attacking P2PNet, Newton, Mrs Santangelo and Ray Beckerman. I can guarantee that the RIAA will be very pleased.
It is just what they love to see: infighting amongst sites which should be supporting each other in every way they can.
Morg
April 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Parker is a PERFECT candidate for their payroll.
A Lawyer/Writer that they can feed their propoganda through
to major publications.
By being seen in these debates as a major pro-corporate player,
he can attract some nice coin from them. This appears to be more
of a self-serving attempt at corporate whoring by a greedy individual than an attempt to keep the community divided.
So,
To let the RIAA know ……
While the major news outlets may spout his crap without question or research .. Nick Parker has very little credibility where it REALLY counts.
You’re wasting your cash.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
hehe you give him way too much credit. hes a no one from nowhere.
April 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
By its nature, p2pnet and, hence, myself, as founder and editor, attract flac. No worries, usually. I just ignore it. But the vicious campaign aimed at p2pnet, me, Patti Santangelo and her ex-lawyer Ray Beckerman by long-time Slyck poster Nick Parker is starting to annoy me, I must admit.
After achieving 15 minutes of fame on Slyck, where he’s still pouring out streams of vitriol, he’s off somewhere else. I sincerely hope his new employers won’t allow him to pump out the same kind of unfounded, untruthful and poisonous garbage he’s become accustomed to producing, unscathed. But I’m not holding my breath. Certainly, his ravings must be pure music to the ears of the RIAA and other entertainment cartel groups, as Morg suggests.
Why do I allow Parker to keep posting on p2pnet? Why don’t I just delete him and his rubbish? That would be the thin end of a wedge I have no intention of ever introducing.
Anyway, his posts are so mean-spirited and nasty minded that I’m quite sure your average, normal person sees right through them.
As for me, I’ll continue supporting Patti Santangelo and others like her in every way I can ’till the cows come home. And people like Slyck Nick Parker can go to hell.
Cheers!
April 17th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Dear Jon,
Thank you for standing up against this RIAA bully.
Keep up your important work.
Best regards,
Ray
April 17th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
“Anyway, his posts are so mean-spirited and nasty minded that I’m quite sure your average, normal person sees right through them. ”
Yes, you are, of course, correct.
It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of us DO see right
through the comments, to the smallness of the person behind them.
” As for me, I’ll continue supporting Patti Santangelo and others like her in every way I can ’till the cows come home. And people like Slyck Nick Parker can go to hell. ”
Amen.
Heh,
Send 1 dollar to the Santangelo fund for every nasty post.
If all the regulars do this, it will quickly negate a paid shills
effectiveness, AND send a message
April 17th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Nice job, yourself, Newton.
It has become a tendancy amongst some of your regulars to dismiss anyone who has the audacity to criticise this Santangelo issue as being a stooge of the RIAA.
Let me assure you right here and now that I have never drawn a penny in profit from P2P, filesharing, the RIAA/MPAA/BPI - or for that matter any other copyright enforcers. Not a penny in professional fees for representing people against them (which I have done), not a penny in fees from advertising, not a single bean for over a year of contributing to Slyck. I have no financial interests in doing what I do, whereas you have the incentive of drawing readers in and promoting your site, thus attracting advertising revenue (”tell your girl you love her: rent this space $15 a day”!). So who are you to accuse anyone of self interest?
Before you rubbish my contribution to P2P again, let me remind you that you have been happy enough in the past to reproduce more than a few of my articles on your site. And, to tell the truth, I have been perfectly happy for you to do so.
My “15 minutes of fame” have seen me catapaulted to writing for a prestigious and highly respected media giant. Now I am being paid for my spare time endeavours, albeit that they are far broader than the issue of P2P. The only cost to me of such a progression is that I dissociate myself from any official capacity in running forums such as these.
But that doesn’t mean that I will tolerate your personal hostility, any more than I tolerated Beckermans, as he recently found out to his cost.
I do not for one second believe that Mrs Santangelo’s predicament is particularly relevant to P2P. I believe it is more a matter of her stubborn and wilful refusal to identify people whom she admits were using her PC (and ISP) to share copyrighted files. I’m not saying that she is right or wrong in adopting this stance, merely that I can think of far more worthy causes to donate money to.
And just as you have the right to your opinion, then I surely have equal right to express my own.
This does not mean that I wish Patti Santangelo any ill, for I would be delighted if she were to win. I just don’t think that is a realistic expectation.
By all means carry on with your campaign, but at least present it honestly. It is not a battle for the rights of filesharers, it sets no precedents relevant to filesharing, it is merely to help pay someones legal bills. And by exploiting this as some huge filesharing issue, and given the probability of failure, it is you who are risking the bad publicity for filesharing that will result in the international media.
And the resultant public relations damage could be terminal for the issue of filesharing. Is that a price worth paying?
I won’t wish you to hell, as you have done to me, as I think you are already well on the road to that destination.
SlyckNick
April 18th, 2006 at 3:29 am
“My “15 minutes of fame” have seen me catapaulted to writing for a prestigious and highly respected media giant. Now I am being paid for my spare time endeavours, ”
Translation ….
By feeding the corporate lie openly, I have been hired for a large
amount of pay by a company owned by one of the same corporate parents that control the balls I lick.
You’re welcome.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:38 am
“My “15 minutes of fame” have seen me catapaulted to writing for a prestigious and highly respected media giant. Now I am being paid for my spare time endeavours ”
“Ahh, yes. Nearly forgot that everyone who doesn’t stand on a soapbox and shout “f… the RIAA” must be working for them. ”
Almost always true.
Directly, or indirectly.
Thanks for the proof.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:08 am
it should be noted that nick parr\parker in no way represents slyck & has had his smalltime moderation powers garnished from him
he now trolls slyck under various aliases in an attempt to push his agendas!! most ppl can see right through his sad attempts at drawing attemtion
theres also good evidence to support hes not actually a lawyer if you look hard enough!!
good luck jon
\\ Paul
April 18th, 2006 at 10:09 am
“Parker and by default Slyck are certainly doing an excellent job for the opposition by attacking P2PNet, Newton, Mrs Santangelo and Ray Beckerman. I can guarantee that the RIAA will be very pleased.”
How can Slyck be responsible for someone who is no longer allowed to be part of the team there? Nick may still have the name SlyckNick but reading between the lines, he’s as welcome there as syphillis. I want to know why he got fired. But granted - he’s an annoying man and the internet will be better off without him
April 18th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Thank you for allowing me the right of reply and for cleaning up the duplicate posting, for which I am sorry.
I will try not to abuse that priviledge, but answer those who responded.
1. The media giant for whom I am now employed is a conventional publication, nothing to do with the entertainment industry.
2. Not all posts here attributed to me were actually made by me.
I have said many times on record that there is nothing better I would like than to have my concerns proved wrong, and see Patti win this case. But at best, it would establish the right of a defendant to refuse to name those who were implicated in a civil wrong (filesharing). It would not amount to any filesharing precedent.
If, as I fear, she loses, then it simply establishes that a person cannot refuse to name others implicated through use of her computer and ISP.
There were almost $25k of costs before the withdrawal of her former lawyer, plus whatever Jordan Glass is charging. And then there are damages and the other side’s costs to pay. And, to top it all off, there will be a huge amount of anti-P2P publicity. You can be sure the RIAA will capitalise on that.
Thank you for the opportunity to put my view across. I will not be returning to this thread unless asked by yourself.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:14 am
“Send 1 dollar to the Santangelo fund for every nasty post.”
Nobody has that much money.
What about sending a dollar for every time he uses words which he hopes no-one but him understands in a feeble attempt to elevate himself above what he perceives to be his intellectual inferiors?
If we can get Gates on the $1 bandwaggon - we can bankrupt him too, killing two birds with one stone
April 18th, 2006 at 10:26 am
” I wouldn’t unpack those boxes in your new work location, Ray, your reputation is getting around. ”
I think you`ll find the only reputation that`s been damaged here is yours, Nicholas.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
In the past i’ve questioned the fact that Nick claims to be a lawyer. At one stage I was sure that this was a false claim.
Now that i’ve read this
“The operational difference referred to was an offer to join the staff of a large publisher, a paid position.”
I know for A FACT that Nick must be a lawyer because no-one else would be able to tell such a lie with such confidence without receiving proper legal training. Thanks for this link Nick:
http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21321
I note that SlyckRay has no idea what you are doing in the future
“we have no idea what Nick’s future plans are, but we wish him the best in whatever they are. ”
SlyckRay is obviously a gentleman and you are a liar.
You’ve
/disengaged
from so many forum threads only to come back 2 minutes later, I doubt you really have
/disengaged
but if I was you, i’d
/disengage from the internet before you have nothing left to lie about
April 19th, 2006 at 11:09 am
April 19th, 2006 at 11:10 am
SlyckNick is THERE ……..
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006140654,00.html
Staff writer for a MOST reputable paper
Credibility won’t be much of an issue then.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:15 am
“”The operational difference referred to was an offer to join the staff of a large publisher, a paid position.”
LOL Staff writer for “The Sun” UK.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006140654,00.html
Maybe he will advance to “The National Enquirer” or,
“Weekly World News” .
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
April 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Such childish remarks. A bit sad really
April 19th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
And perhaps, saddest of all, Jon deletes those posts that support Nick Parker yet retains those that attack him
April 19th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Most likely the birth name of the poster SlyckNick on the forum isn’t really “Nick Parker”. And I found an old article on The Sun from 2003 by a Nick Parker.
Actually if I were to guess, SlyckNick is the same person who posted on the Napster forum in 2000 and 2001 under the name of “napgirl” (”Sue”), who was an RIAA propagandist. I see a similarity in writing style.
That makes me wonder if for the last six years the same person has been working for the RIAA as a propagandist, and that would be pathetic. Or maybe the RIAA has hired the same propaganda firm with the same employees to get their message out on high traffic sites, and that explains the similarity in writing style.
It’s good that “Nick” has left the Slyck staff. “Nick” is a good candidate for post-partum abortion.
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
The Sun is a T&A rag.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:10 pm
the RIAA never has served the interests of Music or Musicians. instead it has only served the interests of Industry. and it uses it size to bully scared individuals.
bloody hell, i wish i had the nerve to do what you’re doing. you’re my new hero! rob johnson (london)