Thursday, November 02, 2006

RIAA Now Sues Patti Santangelo's Children, Says AP

Associated Press reports that the RIAA has now sued two of Patti Santangelo's children:

New York Times
Washington Post

Additional coverage:

The Journal News (Timothy O'Connor)

We have not yet confirmed that the case has actually been filed. When we do, we will post here the applicable documents. We are initiating coverage of this case as "Elektra v. Santangelo II".

Commentary & discussion: (questioning whether RIAA leaked the story to the press before filing any lawsuit)
Digital Music Weblog
Ars Technica

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


twoticketstoparadise said...

I think the copyright laws are unconstitutional, and an argument can be easily made that a person does not have a right to license or control property, or what happens to it, once it is sold. (Or even if it is not sold, but received form somone who is not the creator.)

Secondarily, the right of free speech is protected in the right to create songs, poems, etc., as expressive of culture and political opinion. If the State does not have a right to control free speech, then why would a private individual or compay be given this right?

The livlihood of artists does not and should not merit special protections and privileges by the government. If all men are equal, then the labor required to screw the door on my car should be re-compensated everytime I open and close it. It is preposperous to claim that invention or creation would cease without these special protections. And, these special protection are in effect a government-issued monopoly, forcing the consumer to not only endure the monopolistic price but also pay taxes to protect the monopoly. This situation is very akin to the trading monopoly on tea that the Crown wanted to apply to the colonies. It also serves the large consolidated business and puts smaller businesses at a disadvantage.

Lastly, the arrangement between the recording industry and the artists is itself unfair, and the recording industry is itself attempting to form a monopoly by acting as a gate-keeper to the content on the public airwaves. Thus the FCC is well within its right, in the best interest of literacy, communication and democracy, to alter the selling of licensing of the public utility airwaves and opening them up more directly to the artist and creative community without costs. It is the costs of licensing that is driving the need and desire for profits from the content creators and advertisers.

Nobody is being served by this arrangement, which is immediately clear in the fact that the alleged formula of supply and demand is not working. The Napster experience proves that there is far more demand than what people can afford to pay. There is also no shortage of content. What we have is too much power concentrated because of the need for profit in the act of communicating. This silences a diversity of opinion rather than encouraging it.

As lawyers, I know you are defending victims of bad laws and how they apply to individuals. But why not spend some time challenging the bad laws themselves in court while you are there?

Steve Consilvio

raybeckerman said...

I have no indpendent confirmation that the case has actually been filed. When I get copies of the filed documents, I will post them in the same post.

CodeWarrior said...

Simple statement.
True and to the point.
RIAA (and their toadies and lackeys) = BASTARDS !


Legit Freebies Guy said...

Keep up the good work and fight for stupid cases like this!

Alter_Fritz said...

Codewarrior, regarding your statement; maybe it is time to update litigious bastards so that google will produce more correct results when searching for litigious bastards?

Alter_Fritz said...

google thinks the same as Code:

define:bastards = Bastards can refer to a group of people who have done something displeasing to the general public.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray, guess what!
My opinion is that this was just a sharade initiated by Smelling pool of broadcasting corporations L. Gabriel because he likes to state to judges how full of inaccurate informations your blog is.
Now you are reporting about a case against children and if it turns out there is no case so far then he could claim this inaccurate thingy at least one time validly (sort of ) :-P

P.S: Even if that's not the case at least your second link is a bit "snafu".
Correct would be:

raybeckerman said...

Dear Alter_Fritz. I never said there was a lawsuit. I said the Associated Press reported that there was a lawsuit. I said that I could not independently confirm that any suit had been filed.

You're right, though, that it might have been a trap they set for me. Only I didn't take the bait.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray, of course the body of our posting is factual correct (as they are always since I saw the first one from you)

have you forgotten?
"RIAA-Richard" seems to be not the most skilled reader at least when it comes to non-physical text in a small fontsize on a computermonitor.
Remember the thing with the 60+ screenshots of your blog? Seems to me he could understand it only after printing it out and then choosed not to claim that they are proof for inaccurate blogging.

I guess when it comes to more complex text then a fox news headline, he is lost ;-)
Now see your headline again: RIAA Now Sues Patti Santangelo's Children ;-)