p2pnet - rss feed: Patti Santangelo fights Goliath
p2pnet special: If you’re a Christian, December 22 is a mere three days before Christmas, the season of good will and good cheer. And even if you’re not, it heralds a holiday, a time to kick back and give and receive presents and generally relax and have fun.
Unless you’re Organized Music, Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI or Warner Music, the Hard-Core Big Four corporate record labels, that is. Because there’s certainly no goodwill or good cheer there.
And unless you’re Patricia Santangelo, the New York mother who epitomizes the 17,000 or so Americans who have so far been victimized by the Big Four, and all in the name of the bottom line.
On December 22, she’ll be stand alone and unrepresented in a New York court for an “In Person” conference with judge Mark D. Fox in Elektra v Santangelo ——— or, more properly, Patti Santangelo versus the Elektra Entertainment Group, Virgin Record America, UMG Recordings, BMG Music and the disgraced Sony BMG Music Entertainment company.
This morning , “Patti is resolved, is she?” - my wife asked. “Yes,” I said. “She knows exactly what she’s letting herself in for. She knows about Cecilia Gonzalez.” And she also knew about Brittany Chan, a 14-year-old scgoolgirl, and Tanya Andersen, a disabled mother living on a disability pension who’ve also been singled out by the cartel for special treatment.
“It’s terrible, really, having to think of this just before Christmas,” says Patti. “It’s exhausting to have to be thinking and worry about this at any time of the year, but just before Christmas?”
But as she also told p2pnet today, “This isn’t just for me. It’s for all those other people as well.”
Sony won’t be under any stress, of course. It has legions of highly paid lawyers taking care of bidnes and the Sony bosses, such as Andy Lack (upper right), will be thinking of other things, including the official launch of the corporate Mashboxx ‘p2p’ application (for which Lack is a prime mover) beta.
But that’s not the case for Santangelo. She’ll all too soon be standing by herself in the first of the Organized Music extortion cases to actually come to trial.
“Laws were written to protect people, not to give huge, multi-billion dollar mega-corporations a way to terrorize them,” we wrote recently. “Will the law work equally well for an ordinary person with no heavyweight legal team and no unimaginably vast financial resources behind her?
“Patricia Santangelo will find out …”
And she’ll find out on behalf of the millions of people around the world who, totally disgusted by the labels’ scurrilous treatment of them, and of the flagrant overcharging for low quality mp3 digital music tracks worth only a few cents, have made their disgust known by refusing to have anything to do with iTunes, RealNetworks, Sony Connect, Napster and the handful of other music download and rental sites backed, supported and supplied by the Big Four and the hundreds of labels they own.
Instead, online music fans have gone from being mindless, cash-cow ‘consumers’ to customers, again, people exercising free choice by turning in their hundreds of millions to the p2p networks and independent sites, a practice Organized Music is determined to crush by any and all means, including suing its own customers.
Santangelo flatly refused to give in to OM extortion. Judge Colleen McMahon turned down her appeal to have the RIAA case dismissed, the lawyers who’d been working with Santangelo up until then pulled out.
Now this mother of five children will face the international music industry by herself, and with no legal or financial resources to back her. And what happens to her will eventually reflect directly back on you if, one of these days, you too are selected for victimization.
The RIAA, used by the Big Four to attack victims, is short for Recording Industry Association of America. But if course, it’s no more American than are the Organized Music members themselves - Sony BMG (Japan, Germany), Vivendi Universal (France), EMI (Britain) or Warner Music (US, but run by a Canadian).
The RIAA is a dedicated propaganda weapon designed to terrorize customers and influence the media, as are all the other pseudo-trade organizations such as the IFPI, ARIA, CRIA, BPI, and so on.
It’s successful in planting vast quantities of disingenuous dis- and misinformation releases full of claims that people who share files are thieves; that it’s losing untold amounts to file sharing; that its workers and support staff are being laid off in droves because of file sharers; that the artists its owners have under contract are also suffering.
It’s nonsense. All of it.
Files are shared, not stolen. Nothing has been taken and no one has been deprived of anything.
The Big Four say their vicious, and bizarre, sue ‘em all marketing campaign is driving people away from the p2p networks and independent sites which are springing up as the labels’ first, and only, competitors.
Edgar Bronfman jr, the Canadian who runs Warner Music, claims the, “five-year legal fight against unauthorized downloading or sharing of songs is starting to pay off after thousands of music fans were sued and file-sharing companies such as Grokster Inc. were shut down”
In fact, at the least, 51 million people in America alone currently share music with each other via the p2p networks, and the number is going up, not down. In the US in November, 2004, on average, 5,445,275 people were simultaneously logged onto one or more of the p2p networks at any one time, says p2p research firm BigChampagne.
By November this year, the number had risen to 6,530,408.
But the sue ‘em all campaign isn’t confined to America. Music lovers around the world are also being persecuted by Big Four enforcement organizations identical to the RIAA and which, like the RIAA, claim their terror tactics are having a marked effect.
However, this, too, is a complete distortion of reality,
Globally, the number of people sharing at any given moment in November, 2003, was 4,392,816. By November, 2004, it had reached 7,452,184 and by this November, the figure was 9,168,812.
Patti is a working mother with five children to take care of. She doesn’t even begin to have the kind of money or resources she’ll need to take on the multi-billion-dollar labels on by herself.
From today and until Patti and a jury of her peers decide Organized Music has gone too far, our Sunday will be devoted solely to the Patti Santangelo Fight Goliath campaign and stories centering on the Big Music sue ‘em all scandal.
We’ll be posting updates, together with details on how you can make donations directly to Patti, and other things you can do to help.
Because she’s not alone. There are hundreds of millions of people behind her, all of whom can chose not to continue supporting the Organized Music sue ‘em all campaign by not buying Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, EMI or Warner Music ‘product,’ as they correctly term the cookie cutter, lo-fi tracks they’re trying to palm off for $1 and up each.
Sandro in Canada was the first volunteer. He provided the Fight Goliath domain name.
What can you, where ever in the world you are, do to help? Patti will need ongoing financial support and possibly some expert back-up in terms of how the RIAA puts its claims together and if they hold up technically. We’ll try to find out what Patti will need the most.
So stay tuned and within the next few days, we’ll tell you what you can do.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
I personally think it’s not right for anyone to be held accountable for a crime that they had no knowledge of before the fact, unless they actively try to conceal the crime after the fact.
Hopefully she can get a jury trial. I think her best chance lies in trying to convince a jury. From what I’ve read so far on this story I believe she would be truthful in saying she doesn’t know enough about computers to know file sharing was even possible, much less that it could be illegal, and that she had absolutely no knowledge of any file sharing activities before or after they occurred. It may be that this would meet a “lack of intent” standard, but I’m not a lawyer.
If I was on a jury and believed her I’d probably vote to acquit based on these points. But then I have a soft spot for a single Mom with five kids to feed.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
“If you’re a Christian, December 22 is a mere three days before Christmas, the season of good will and good cheer … Unless you’re Organized Music”
Just as we witnessed the entire Hollywood establishment do everything they could to try to destroy Mel Gibson’s The Passion, it should be obvious that Christians are an extremely rare people in the corporate entertainment media.
Few people (especially Christians) dare mention this. A few years ago, Dolly Parton let it slip, and she was viciously pounced on and denounced as an ANTI-semite by the media.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html
December 11th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
If she gets her trial by jury, this ties the hands of the goverment and corporate america both, if the court overules the jury hopefully that will unlease the fire storm of protest accross the nation
December 11th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
I’m not hopeful myself. why did her lawyers back out to begin with?? We’ve heard all this posturing from her lawyers on this site and others and now they’re cutting her loose on her own?
No matter how right she is, going it alone with a group of vicious attorneys who know how to play the system isn’t very comforting. I pray for the best.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Oh my - realizing the effects from this one trial WILL effect every future case after it I’m nautious that no representation will be used - free or otherwise… There has to be at least a probono attorney that will take this case, somewhere.
Nothing against Patti - she’s the 1st in this kind of trial (not the 1st person using p2p to go to court though) and I’m impressed she’s standing up to them as someone needed to at some point… I’d just hate to see what happens to future cases if she loses to a court of her peers…
Patti, if you’re able to adress the jurors - a suggestion, that the judge will not like… Remind them that jurors are in place to question laws on the books, contrary to what the judge says, the Constitution differs - Most judges remind jurors that they are only to weigh the case on the current laws on hand but thats not the bredth of their jobs - they have to decide if the laws are reasonable for the case at hand and their decision MUST be one they believe is just and not just legal…
I’d word it a tad different (and as I’m not using a spell checker today, I’d prolly guess I have a few mis-spells lol) but you get my point.
I’ve stood up on many venues for p2p - as I’ve been using/hosting/contributing to its development since about 1996 and watching p2p become illegal instead of ‘fair use’ as our Gov’t gets their pockets lined at the price of our freedoms makes me want to change Countrys, at times.
We all have a lot riding on this case - granted we’re not Patti but as people with rights disappearing every day, we’re all going to be impacted in a large way no matter which direction this case goes.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I am afraid I agree with this post, no matter how much I wish Patti well. This really smacks of back room manuevers, out of site of public and legal oversite. While it is nothing more than supposition, how important would this first case be to the RIAA and cohorts? Do you not think it possible that big money talks to get one’s legal representation cut short, with time of essence in such a case?
The cartels have been well known for dirty dealing and it would not suprise me in the least that they have gotten to her defense.
With this one being a landmark decision I would imagine that leaving it to chance as evidently the “Betamax” case was, could leave the cartels reeling with a decision that could be a thorn in their side for years.
The judge in this case has made comment of wishing to see someone take on the cartels in just such a postion as Patti. One can never be sure of how a judge would see such a case. Patti must put up the reasonable, intelligent, hard working, mother image; whether this is true or not. (understand that I know nothing of this lady or her personal life and make no accusations or anything of doubious nature) It is well known that the cartel is throwing money at this like there is no tomorrow in an all out effort to avoid a simluar outcome as was the Betamax case. Mostly the judges aren’t overwhelmed by the power of the lawyer battery that the cartels are throwing against Joe Citizen. But they can only rule on what is presented in the case, no matter their perferances or personal viewpoints in such matters.
It is my fear that Patti will be thrown adrift in an unfamilar sea where the lawyer rules as the preditor. This is a very important case as it will set precedence in future cases to come. Even the requirement of proof of this infringement could be most important to future cases. At the least it should provide information into the ways and means of how the cartels come about coming up with their victims. As such this will provide fodder for those that use p2p services on a regular basis.
I do wish Patti the very best, even if this comes at such a sorry time of the year for the family. That has to be one of the most heartless and cruel Christmas gifts anyone can recieve. Again the cartels are doing their upmost to place burden on anyone that would dare to stick their heads up and say, “I’m not guilty”. Now I realise that the cartels can’t set the date of the hearing into this matter but no time is a good time for a family barely making it. I can not believe there are many mothers of 5 out there taking home the bacon, that are in 6 figure incomes. Below that standard of income it does place an true burden on the ones tagged to be victim.
My sympathies to Patti and I truely hope next year is a better Christmas season than this one will have turned out to be.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
There is a way to help.
Spread the word, every decision that every participant says or makes will be forever recorded on the Internet. Available for future generations.
The judge’s grandchildren will then ask their fathers, “was grandpa the judge who helped decided correctly for the the victim? or “was he the crook who sold himself to the devil?”.
And for the plaintiff’s lawyer, will they as a friend, a retired and very prominent lawyer who said in his speech at my father’s funeral, “my greatest shame in life was to have been a lawyer”. Or will they hide and change their names? Ther fate will be sealed with this case. They will regret to the last day that they worked for a record company, for the money.
Remember the Internet.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 12th, 2005 at 12:51 am
I’m wondering if members of the public are allowed to attend. Some of us would like to show up and give our support. If we can find out the time and location of the court that would be helpful.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:56 am
She’s must have payed out all the money she could, had to let the lawyers go. We need a system that provides a person who can not defend theirselves with matching funds on the same level of the opposition lawyers.
December 12th, 2005 at 1:42 am
I feel for her, i really do. If i had a dime to spare i would gladly give it to her.
MP-A
December 12th, 2005 at 5:11 am
So you’re suggesting the actions by Organized Music against P2P companies and individuals involved in downloading are part of a wider Jewish conspiracy and it’s all somehow linked to lobbying that took place against Mel Gibson’s film? If that’s the case, isn’t it funny how many activists (especially in the academic area) who support the rights of these poor people are Jewish … or doesn’t that count if your post is motivated by simple blind hatred.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Sure you’ll be able to help. This post was meant to say, in effect, that a fund-raising campaign is on the way and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear. But I’ve just revised the article. Have another look. Does that do it for the moment? Thanks.
Cheers!
December 12th, 2005 at 9:47 am
The best case scenario as I see it, is that Patti wins and OM get stuffed. As much as I would dearly love to see that happen however, I am painfully sceptical about the outcome. Patti is just one strong woman against a massive business and a questionable judicial system whose raison d’etre is to line their pockets. It goes against reason to assume that there haven’t been payoffs and dodgy dealings somewhere along the way for OM to achieve what they want to, in what will be a high profile and landmark case.
There are only 10 days left until Patti has to stand up for not only herself, but also everyone else who has been victimised, and who potentially could be victimised by OM’s morally reprehensible extortion racket. That’s a lot of people. At the last count, the official figures were somewhere around 9 million around the world. If we all pitched in a buck, that would more than cover Patti’s costs and any potential ruling against her, and give the p2p movement a fighting fund for any future defences.
The faster we can get something in place to financially support Patti in the event of things going against her, the better. I would dearly love to see her win this, not just for everyone else who has a vested interest, but just for the joy of seeing an innocent Mum stick it to ethically twisted corporate America.
In the worst case scenario, if it does go against her, [and heaven forbid] and if the judge were to award a fine and costs, how great it would be if Patti could be in the financial situation to say, “Will you take a cheque?” and walk away from the Court with her head held high!
Come on folks, when the time comes, put your money where your mouth is and help Patti out!
December 12th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Here is an idea that will break up RIAA. I will start by using it myself in my lawsuit against Sony for infringing our music.
My lawyer has just requested the discovery phase of our lawsuit aginst Sony for massive and intentional infringement (to save money in royalty payments, a form of theft) start. About time! The lawsuit was filed in February of 2001.
I will ask my lawyer to bring into the lawsuit as John Doe of all the Sony employees that worked in the factory that worked on each of the 16+ infringement recordings unlawfully made by Sony. I am talking about production line operators, the ones that operate the machines that make the cd’s, the ones that make the cd jackets, the ones that do the shipping, etc.
Sony should implode when their hourly paid employees are sued.
My theory here is that Sony employees are just as responsible for infringement as anyone that shares or copies for non commercial purposes.
If it is expected of downloader that they know the copyright laws and that they know the copyright status of the works they copy, and are somehow guilty if they do not or act as they do not, then the same logic shall apply to production line employees of the record companies.
Patti Santangelo, if it were true that she copied any songs without the authorization of the copyright owners is just as guilty as John Doe, who infringed the rights of my family when actually making or shipping the infringing CDs.
The principle: Equity in Justice.
If Santangelo is found guilty of infringement no one will want to use the Internet hereafter.
If Sony employees are declared guilty of infringement sure no one will work for Sony, or any record company, hereafter.
To be just with the Sony employees, whatever damages they have to pay must be paid, surely by Sony.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 12th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Sorry, but forgot to include others that work for the record companies and should know the copyright laws and the copyright status of everything they sell: Salepersons and the distributors and their salespersons.
Actually these salespersons have a higher responsibility of knowing the copyright status of everything they sell than a downloader, because they make a living from their selling and make money from their transactions, where as downloaders (unless proven otherwise) make no money. They only enjoy the music.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 12th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Sorry, but forgot to include others that work for the record companies and should know the copyright laws and the copyright status of everything they sell: artists.
Of all the unlawful records made and distributed by Sony one stands out because it sold overr a confirmed 4.5 million copies by about 1999. Surely sales are now over 5 million copies. The most succesful latin song record ever made by Sony or any other record company. The record is Sentimientos (Feeelings) by singer Charlie Zaa.
Surely Zaa has made at leat a few million dollars off this record, that has produced sales of over 75 million dollars at retail level.
One would then expect that Charlie Zaa would have a greater responsibility than Santangelo to make sure that the songs copied were being copied in a lawful manner and with authorization from the copyright owners.
I will also ask my lawyer to bring Charlie Zaa into the case.
FYI: This is a Charlie Zaa’s page:
http://www.furiamusical.com/charlie_zaa.htm
The infringing Sony record (Sentimientos) is being sold here right now, five years after Sony was sued.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 12th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
If a jury is allowed to hear her case, she might win. However, it is a judge who decides what evidence is allowed to be presented. It is a judge who can rule to admit or suppress evidence. I found this out when I went in front of a judge for a speeding ticket violation.
The judge not only would not alow me to present all of my evidence, he also threw out all precedent and case law I presented. In fact, the judge, Robert Pell of Panama City is not even a real judge, but rather a “hearing officer.”
I wonder what type of kangaroo court Patricia will be subjected to. Most juries are blindly obedient to the judge’s instructions. If a judge tells them to not consider a peice of evidence, most of them will not consider that peice of evidence. If a judge tells a person presenting his or her case that he or she can not present a piece of evidence, then that person risks a “contempt of court” charge if he or she continues.
What is needed on the jury is a group of people who understand their powers as jurors. I recommend that anyone who has not done so to visit http://www.fija.org website to learn of their powers as a juror. I know if I were to hear a case where the defendant was constantly shushed by the judge whenever he or she tried to present the case, I would vote not guilty.
Court have long ago become arena’s for the rich and provide little justice to the poor unless the poor person has a lawyer who think he or she can make money from representing that person. If were to lose a case simply because I did not have the funds to present the case in court, I would probably go Heemeyer on the court house, RIAA, or associated buildings. There is very little justice for the little man and things will continue to get worse until the peopl become ready to do something about it.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Well, I am Jewish, but I agree with the post above your that Hollydud is virtually devoide of Christians. I will also say that Christians that tend to speak their minds about the media are usually label by the same as anti-semetic. As a Jew, I realize that there is indeed an attack on Christianity in general. While I believe that it is wrong to persecute someone for their religious beliefs, I also believe that Corporate Christianity is largly at fault for allowing the situation to become what it is today. An example of this is the fact that the Christian Coalition supports the (porn and violence spewing) entertainment cartels when it comes to persecuting file sharers. As a Jew, I did not see anything terribly anti-semetic about Mel Gibson’s Passion….. In fact, isn’t Mel Gibson working on a movie about the holocaust? What I see this as is the government-cartel alliance keeping dofferent groups at odds with one another. If we ever come together, we could do a lot in forcing justice back into society.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Protest does absolutely no good without action. If the judge overrules the jury or does not allow Patricia Santangalo to excercise her right in court, the judge should be lynched.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
I agree with you on this post. When telling potential jurors about their powers, you might want to direct them to the Fully Informed Jurors Association’s website ( http://www.fija.org ). There are many good article here explaining to people why the jury system was put in place and what their poers are.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Here is an anecdote:
Here in Puerto Rico a jury awarded a songwriter/singer $7+ million dollars in damages because his song was recorded without a license and one word was changed, a moral rights violation.
Read the NT time article here:
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n24/4SaleLatinMusic-en.shtml
In my case, a publisher stole over 500 songs belonging to my family, 80 of which were copyright registered in their names. The damage awarded to us? $16,000 for the infringement of one of the songs. The case was heard by a judge.
As you can see , juries do make a huge difference.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 12th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
The excess donations received should be used to file a lawsuit against RIAA and the RIAA members and all their executives.
New York is a pefect place for that, because it is a punitive damage state. RIAA can be shreded to pieces by a jury, for their legal tactics against music file sharer, inocent people.
I am sure that no American jury will like what they see… a bunch of foreigners criminilizing Amercan youth and mothers. Of course, a judge couldn’t care less. They are not into human problems.
I hope the RIAA lawyers read this and tell their customers the risks that they are taking by continuing their legal tactics. If they (RIAA) are smart, they will drop everything and simply go home, to whatever country that is.
Another good reason to make donations to the cause od Santangelo.
I think Santangelo may be a Saint and Angel in disguise. Her name says it.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 13th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
I agree, Rafael, but people must be educated as to what to expect and what to do when summoned for jury duty. A jury needs to reconize when evidence is being suppressed, when the judge is abusing his authority, and what can be done about unjust laws. If I were to be sitting on a jury and had to decide a case where the defendent was guilty of violating an unconstitutional or unjust law, I would vote NOT guilty regardless of the evidence. The power that a juror has is the last piece of power the government has not stolen from the people. Even the election system is rigged, and thanks to computerized voting, companies can easily throw the results of an election to the highest bidder.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:52 am
It’s good there’s a fund raiser on the way. Maybe some people would also like to attend the court hearing on December 22nd as well to show support.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Judge: Son, you admitted to your FBI agent father that you downloaded 10,000 mp3 songs onto his computer. I hope that you understand that your father had to report the facts at the office. Had he erased the songs he would be found guilty of destroring evidence. Because what you did, copying songs to your father’s computer was intentional, I have to double the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song, to $1,500. This means that you will have to pay the record companies 15 million dollars. I am sorry but while this breaks my heart, asking a 12 year old kid to pay 15 million dollars, that is the law and I cannot do anything about it, just like your father had to inform on you.
Defendant: And how much is 15 million dollars? I only make 2 dollars a day selling newspapers. How long do I have to work to pay the money?
Judge: Hmmm… 15 million divided by two… about 20,000 years.
Defendant: That sounds like a long time. Don’t you have a heart?
Judge: I just do my job, like the FBI does. We follow orders.
REMEMBER NUREMBERG
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
December 17th, 2005 at 5:15 am
I would place a dontation link for Patti as i did for Hurricane Katrina victims and the clickthrough was very high.
I wish patti had a public donation fund setup.
December 17th, 2005 at 11:54 am
On behalf of all of the Katrina victims, I thank you. We got the fringes where I live. 130 mph winds, power out for 9 days, and various and sundry other minor things. Luckily, we weren’t hard hit and did just fine, unlike those a bit farther south than we. Still have a roof over the head, still have food, so this one is far more lucky than others and isn’t complaining in the least.
Still I did want to say that there are those far less fortunate than we. Those that lost loved ones, lost everything to their names they had, and those that were just plain unluckly to maybe not have enough to buy a ticket out ahead of time and were forced to stay (and some of those lost their lives). It is through the donations such as the one here that help has filtered through. Make no mistake that the government has helped but that help will end far sooner than it takes to fix what is now missing in the wake of the hurricane. Missing homes are one thing, when it looks like the bomb went off where you stand it is another thing. Hard as heck to get back on your feet when the grocery store you bought food at is gone, the utilities you got are gone, and the job you depended on to pay for everything is also gone.
Again, my humble thanks for those that can’t say that for themselves.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Here is the problem:
according to what I’ve read here before, she did say that someone (her daughter, i believe) must have done it. Was she on something??? How stupid it is to say something like that, she just admitted that the alleged crime has indeed taken the place. How does she expect to have the case dismissed???
“Yes, officer, my daughter killed that man but no one told her it was illegal. Can we all go home now?”
No court would throw out the case because of what she deliberately put herself into. I certainly do not agree with **AA tacticts but if you get caught, either deny everything (and there are a lot of ways to prove your innocence) or pay up if you are so dumb to admit it. Now, if I were the jury, I would’ve fought for the “guilty” verdict all the way only because she was foolish enough to speak when she wasn’t spoken to. I do hope she is going to be cleared of everything but it feels like a lost cause to me.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:48 pm
I think it’s pretty clear what tactic the RIAA will use in this case. Imagine what would happen if a mom knew nothing about, say, automatic weapons … that she was “weapons-illiterate” … but decided her kids might enjoy having one to play with. They are going to paint a picture of Patti Santangelo as a mom who “chose” to give her children access to something she, herself, didn’t understand. In short, they’ll imply she was a “bad mom” unwilling to spend the time it took to understand the tools she’d placed in her children’s hands.
If there is a jury trial, and during “voir dire” (jury questioning prior to trial), you can bet that industry lawyers will exclude anyone who admits to using a P2P application to download music … insuring the jury is made up of toadies who buy the current media spiel of “RIAA is good, P2P is evil.” And sympathy for a “bad mom?”
Patti Santangelo’s fight is a noble one and I wish her Godspeed. But nobility and 10 cents still won’t buy you a cup of coffee in any town … or courtroom.
January 14th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Regarding Patti’s legal defense fund, see: http://www.northcountrynotes.org/goliath/
There is a paypal buton. See also:
http://www.p2pnet.net/goliath/
where there is a script you can add to your website. Bless you for your interest and help.