http://p2pnet.net/story/7552

p2p news / p2pnet: The campaign to raise support money for Patti Santangelo is really cooking and as of 12:45 PM Pacific, had clocked up $$4,160.50 donations from 277 people through 15 sites,

The contributions go straight to Patti - no in-betweens - and are being used to help her take on the Big Four Organized Music gang, namely Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI.

Santangelo and other very ordinary people with very ordinary means, and even school children such as Britanny Chan, are being attacked with great malice by the Big Four with their bottomless pockets and limitless legal resources.

Patti is a New York mother who'll be the first of the more than 17,000 people sued to actually appear in a civil court before a jury of her peers.

As we say in our post about Brittany, the RIAA wants the world to believe its owners, the multi-billion-dollar Big Four labels, are being "devastated" by people who use the p2p networks to share music with each other online, that its artists are being neglected and that numerous support workers are experiencing extreme financial hardship as a direct result.

It claims file sharers - Patti, who's never used a p2p application in her life, is said to be one - are causing huge losses in sales. The convoluted reasoning is: someone on the receiving end in a file sharing exchange, would have paid $1 or more to buy the song from an online corporate music site supported and supplied by the cartel, or from an offline retail outfit, had she or he not downloaded it from a site not supplied by the Big Four.

But the bottom line, since that's what this is all about, is: none of these people are criminals, and none of them deserve to be treated this way.

The real criminals are the organized gangs and individual crooks who use the physical DVDs and CDs, made and marketed in their billions, as templates to create counterfeits and duplicates for sale on the underground markets and street corners of the world. The fact is: while the technically inept people who run the music and movie businesses are suing their own customers, the real crooks are not only getting away with it, they're prospering.

P2p technologies are solutions, not problems.

The Patti Santangelo story has created a lot of controversy around the world. It's been widely aired by the mainstream print and electronic media, the first case to get that kind of exposure since the Big Four Organized Music cartel's wrongly named Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) started trying to sue its customers into compliance with its owners' marketing objectives in 2003. Even the case of 12-year-old Briana LaHara, the first example of a deliberate, carefully calculated RIAA attack on children, didn't generate that kind of on and offline coverage.

And to be clear, although the RIAA is often presented in the mainstream media as a non-profit American trade organization representing a huge number of separate recording companies and labels, to all intents and purposes, it's solely owned and wholly controlled by Warner Music, the only US company, Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain) and Vivendi Universal (France).

Warner Music, Sony BMG, EMI and Vivendi Universal are using legal systems which are supposed to protect us to instead try to blackmail us into using the corporate music sites they supply and support. And media which are supposed to truthfully and accurately inform us are all too often doing the exact opposite.

We're just protecting our businesses against millions of potential thieves, say the labels. But that's not even nearly true. It's pure, unadulterated extortion on the grand scale.

Everyone who's downloaded from the p2p networks would gladly and willingly pay for their music, and hundreds of millions of people do - but not to the corporate labels. They refuse to be ripped off for a dollar and more, if the labels get their way, for digital files that simply aren't worth $1, or anything near it.

The labels should open their catalogues fully, charge fair wholesale prices and start working with their customers and p2p technology developers, instead of trying to crush them.

And as for Kazaa which, lest we forget, was one of, if not THE, applications which introduced spyware to the Net, it was a free p2p application seen by millions of people as a way to share something they loved with each other, not as a tool for crime.

The entertainment and software cartels, with Sony BMG, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI to the fore, have spent a fortune painting their customers as a poential thieves, out to rob them blind.

If we don't sue them into compliance with our bottom lines, we'll be ruined, claims the multi-billion-dollar music industry.

But Patti Santangelo isn't a thief. She's a customer. And incredibly, notwithstanding the terrible trials the music industry is inflicting on her and her family, Patti still went out and bought CDs for Christmas presents.

If you're still wondering whether or not to contribute, see what p2pnet's Alex H has to say on the subect.

Meanwhile, to make a donation now, click the Fight Goliath button below. And the snail-mail address is being organized.

And if you want to host a button on your own site, go here for the code.

To see Jason Rohrer's amount and site tracker, go here.

Below is the current (as of 12:45 mp Pacific) list of sites:

* http://boingboing.net $1130.67
* http://p2pnet.net $1071.48
* http://jasonrohrer.n3.net $1054.21
* http://www.fightgoliath.org $341.56
* http://www.downhillbattle.org $310.12
* http://www.p2pforum.it $57.27
* http://virtualturntable.fourstones.net $48.25
* http://www.yourmercifulgod.co.uk/ $28.23
* http://psg.com/ $19.12
* http://www.p2pjihad.org/ $19.12
* http://www.boycott-riaa.com $19.12
* http://www.pod2peer.blogspot.com/ $18.92
* http://blog.andrlik.org $14.26
* http://http://www.myspace.com/brizmo $9.41
* http://www.soundnet.co.uk/ $4.50


Cheers! And thanks. And all the best --Jon Newton
===============================

Folks, go to http://p2pnet.net/story/7552 for the embedded hypertext links and etc.

(Yes, I doctored the photo with the red slash as it appears on OUR pages.)

(...and, you "regulars" may notice I did the old "time-warp" to keep this thread on the front pages for a while.)

With the help of Capt-n-Jack working with the Dmusic techs (and with leflaw's approval), we might soon even get a direct "donate" button of our own here on Boycott-Riaa's pages if technically possible.

Come on people put your money where your mouth is and support this lady. I have been asking about this for weeks, and I'm glad the fund is happening.
I put my $ up - gladly.

I also gave money. I wish I could do more but even if we all chipped in 5 bucks she'd have plently to fight this battle. This is our chance everyone! Chip in whatever you can! Maybe this week instead of drinking Heineken you can settle for Bud and throw a few extra dollars her way! This is exactly what we've been waiting for. This is the perfect opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and take a stab at the riaa. Boycotting alone is not enough - one of these cases needs to go to trial. Lets do it!!!

Cough it up, folks. I gave her $20 and I support almost nothing, not to mention no visible means of income.

The RIAA is basically suing people at random, with no proof that the accused did anything in particular. Patricia is the first one to stand up and call bullshit on this economic terrorism and extortion.

If I were on the jury, "It must have been someone else," would be a winning argument, unless they've got photos or video.

Wow and THANKS George! You have always been one of our most cynical (and smartest) of anyone who haunts our halls. I am glad you are pulling for Patricia too enough to ask folks to "cough it up."

(You and me BOTH had always been against giving funds to those who were financially depressed and/or chicken-shit enough to simply beg for "settlement" money.

...but Patricia is FIGHTING!)

Thanks Mr. gdZiemann!

(BTW "Hero's Way" is very good! ...And the title is very fitting in regards to this thread/subject!)

FOLKS:

"against giving funds to those who were financially depressed and/or chicken-shit enough to simply beg for "settlement" money."

should read slightly differently...

I don't know how to best rephrase it right now, but I want the EMPHASIS to be on the "chicken-shit" part

...with a "too damn lazy and roll over rover" added in.

(My "dig" at the "financially depressed" only was meant to express my frustration at how those with lesser amounts of $$$ rarely stand a chance against BIG $$$ in these sorta situations.)

==============

Crulkypooplock Whock!

I am the WORST writer in the world.

I also gave $20. When we have a chance for a win against the RIAA, you gotta do your part. There's a time for rhetoric, and a time to put your money where your mouth is. For Ms. Santangelo to receive thousands of dollars of support has got to be very encouraging for her. She's got guts.

So how much has Dmusic officially contributed?

Well, surfside6, I located my Paypal password and contributed through the p2p site.

I just checked the counter. It's up to $ 3,485.00. http://www.northcountrynotes.org/goliath/

Well, surfside6, I located my Paypal password and contributed through the p2p site.

Kudos to you..

One more thing, will we be seeing leflaw doing anything for these poor victims? Or at least this one? Maybe a friend of the court brief? Maybe some advice? Maybe?

Ha Ha I got my $20 in too! Used the generated html to give boycott-riaa the benefit, go see for yourself:

http://www.northcountrynotes.org/goliath/

I forgot paypal takes 2.9% + 0.30 USD for the transaction though.

Thanks Capt-n-Jack!

I haven't spoken with leflaw lately (I think he's on vacation and/or busy with the Sony BMG suit and etc.)

I don't know if leflaw will (or has) personally donated or not. You'd have to ask him directly if he wants to do anything connected via Dmusic, but I want to thank Capt-n-Jack again for his efforts in association with Boycott-Riaa.

Folks, our own gdZiemann's http://azoz.com now has a link up to donate also!

==============

Help Patti Santangelo Fight the RIAA!

Remember when you were innocent until proven guilty? After more than 16,000 lawsuits filed by the RIAA, Patricia Santangelo is the first person to tell the RIAA to piss off. She's going to kick their ass. Without a lawyer.

"I did not ever download or
make available for mass distribution any music files"
-- Patricia Santangelo

========

(Thanks George!)

It was my pleasure! I just want the donate button here before I tell all my friends and mailing list members to donate. With a little luck, we can push boycott-riaa to the top of the list!

For her donations to get REALLY big it's going to require some big free publicity. Either on the P2P networks, blogs, or other forms of media. If boycott-riaa could get the word out to all the cable news networks and have them broadcast it...woohoo!!

We will do what we can Capt-n-Jack,

But what YOU have done already is as powerfully effective (or more-so) as anything Boycott-Riaa can do on our own as a "site".

Boycott-Riaa is NOTHING without the participation of those who participate.

Those of you who read us ...and especially those of you who make any sort of effort in any direction ARE the "force/power/magic" that pushes the agenda.

I hate to burst any bubbles or anything, but Boycott-Riaa is otherwise NOTHING but a silly little forum/blog. ALL our "power" or "authority" in the realm of public opinion and what-not resides with our readers and participants.

(Thus my applause whenever someone like Capt-n-Jack "takes action".)

EACH of us who CARE about our issues should make efforts in both bid or small ways to change the world for the better.

DON'T just sit on your asses folks! BE ACTIVE!

bid or small = big and small

(Edit button, NEEEEED!!!!!!)

Capt-n-Jack
Date: January 9, 2006 @ 2:21 AM
It was my pleasure! I just want the donate button here before I tell all my friends and mailing list members to donate. With a little luck, we can push boycott-riaa to the top of the list!

=========

Just have everyone donate via http://azoz.com (George IS one of the former admin/mod's of this site.)

Currently, the way the source-code/html and yada-yada is set up here, I don't have an effective way to "stick up buttons" or things on my own.

(It's part of the reason why I do "time-warp" tricks and other stunts with the threads and such.)

==========
...our site is rather antiquated at the moment. Once Dmusic gets THEIR new "facelift", hopefully BOYCOTT-RIAA is NEXT!

...and folks, it does NOT matter to us any hill of beans

if you wish to support Patti's fight against the RIAA with your $$$, DON'T bother about giving second thought to "which website" gets the "credit"

The ONLY contest that needs won in this instance is Patti vs the RIAA.

My name is Torrey Tellefsen. You may have heard of me because a week before Christmas, my home was searched and over 10000 DVDs were confiscated by local police, even though I was not charged with any crime (though an indictment will likely follow sometime in late January). I have filed a federal lawsuit against the local police for the unlawful search and seizure of my property. I will never settle and when the RIAA brings civil claims, I intend to challenge the copyright laws that currently exist in this country as unconstitutional, in violation of section 1, article 8 (where copyright is meant to promote progress, but copyright in our country instead seeks economic gain and prevents progress), as well as violating my property rights. I owned DVDs and made copies. I plan to argue that my ownership gave me the right to do with my property what I wanted and no federal law can take away those property rights (if the movie industry wanted to limit what i could do with the DVDs, they should have licensed them to me, not sold them). I gave DVDs away free at flea markets and supposedly am in violation for "distribution" in violation of copyright law. We will see what happens, but one thing you can be sure of, they will pay lots of money to prosecute and will get no money in return from me, other than what they have taken from me already.

Can you provide us with a link for your story? Maybe from your local news? I'd very much like to know more of your story.

Torrey, if either criminal and/or civil litigation comes about on this matter, it is good to limit your publishing about any facts about the case in my humble opinion.

Torrey sounds like a bit of a nutjob.:

really? U think it is hard to start a lawsuit? done it many times...get a law degree and you will be able to too...oh, and by the way, you don't think i got 44 college degrees, call 1929-437-2161 and talk to my local newspaper, the Morganton News Hearld. Was in all the newspapers in 1990-91 and was called the most educated man in the world..Name is Torrey Tellefsen...My fifteen minutes of fame...of course, you probably did not finish high school, and of course you do not celebrate christmas, easter, or believe in the Christ...You need to go back to Israel...Dont get lost in the fridge...I know how you love to eat...by the way, you should get a real job...all that time you volunteer with cases, must have a lot of spare time on your hands to be able to do that...collecting welfare? cheating us working americans out of taxes that could be better used on someone who tries to improve themselves?

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YbwsiQkdYD0J:www.casesladder.com/wwwbash/messages/292.shtml++%22Torrey+Tellefsen%22&hl=en

From that post I found the Morganton News Herald and searching that site I found this:

http://www.morganton.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MNH/MGArticle/MNH_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768862493

Note that in Torrey's post on this web site he says, "I gave DVDs away free at flea markets". However, in this news article it says, "He said in the suit that the property which officers seized represented his main source of income."

Bottom line - nut job.

"all that time you volunteer with cases, must have a lot of spare time on your hands to be able to do that...collecting welfare? cheating us working americans out of taxes that could be better used on someone who tries to improve themselves?"

Hilarious. He is berating someone for supposedly cheating on taxes while he is selling pirate dvd's at the flea market!

"I gave DVDs away free at flea markets and supposedly am in violation for "distribution" in violation of copyright law."

How much you want to bet that this freak is selling pencils for 5 bucks each and throwing in a free DVD? As if that scam will ever work. Ha!

More than enough said...thank you, mroop.)

Torrey Tellefsen, I don't pretend to know the facts and details of your case, but if you were selling (or, ah, ahem, "giving away") copyrighted content in the accused manor (beyond making personal copies for yourself and family), I have no sympathy for you.

Boycott-Riaa does NOT condone commercial copyright infringement.

...and CodeWarrior is probably right, you might want to not talk about your plight without an attorney by your side. You might put yourself in deeper water by doing so.

(Speaking of CodeWarrior,

folks, don't forget to bookmark and read/participate daily at http://boycott-mpaa.com )

ol' Code covers and reports on a lot of things I happen to miss!

Folks, from what I understand at this moment about Patricia Santangelo's plight at the moment is that she is STILL a NON-INFRINGER who is being brave enough to fight against the LIES she is accused of. She STILL refuses to "settle" and "make it all go away" for a fee (with some under-reported NASTY agreements attatched to the paper she would also have to sign as a part of the "release" from further reprocussions.)

Those who are NOT guilty SHOULD fight!

(It benefits not ONLY the lawsuit victem when they fight wrongful prosecution... It benefits SOCIETY!!!)

DONATE to this fund!

If Patti ever gets "weak-knees" and decides to "settle/pay-off" the RIAA, I will IMMEDIATELY let you all know! (She's not likely gonna "cave-in" folks, this woman is obviously fighting this thing on PRINCIPAL!)

DOWN with the RIAA extortionists!!!

The $$$ all goes to Patti directly folks! It does NOT matter which "site" you pick to donate thru.

(Go to Jon Newton's p2p.net, I think the fund is mostly/officially set-up via his site!)

NOBODY participating in this is taking any "cut" out of the donations (...well, except maybe paypal's normal transaction fee.)

This IS a legitimate thing folks!

There's mroop! Haven't seen you post in a while and I miss your rants! Thanks for setting us straight on Torrey he def sounds like a nutjob. Guys keep giving to this fund!! I'm doing 5 bucks a week..not much but I don't want to see this have a good start and then just sputter. Give what you can!! Lets help stick it to 'em!

Mroop nice to see you here.

Hey how about you and leflaw helping this woman out? I am not talking money, I am speaking of legal advice.

Also, How come we don't see you on the lawyers willing to defend against RIAA lawsuits list? Its strange that leflaw isn't there too.

Finally why doesen't this site not have a donate to the fund button? This domain states a stance against the riaa, maybe it could walk the talk.

surfside6, as I have been trying to explain all along,

THIS THREAD serves as that "donate" button.

(I can't figure out the html code to get it to work correctly with our site's code to put a button like the other sites/blogs have got.)

Capt-n-Jack tried to do it on our behalf and managed to get his own donation "counted" as a Boycott-Riaa donation... but I myself am STILL too inept to get a properly working button working here.

-------

Folks, just use http://azoz.com or any of the above listed sites to donate. It all goes to the same place (Patricia) anyways.

"independentm...

if you wish to support Patti's fight against the RIAA with your $$$, DON'T bother about giving second thought to "which website" gets the "credit"

The ONLY contest that needs won in this instance is Patti vs the RIAA."

I think we all realize the true nature of the battle IM, it's just that we actually end up looking kind of cheesy with only ~$20 in the pot! LOL Here we are, a website with supporters in direct conflict with RIAA, named BOYCOTT RIAA for gawdsakes, and all we can raise is $20? I think everyone who is here already knows that we've all given more to the cause but for the unitiated they may not ever venture here as first timers due to the obvious low interest of those involved here as proven by the low, low donation amount. Now, if we had a total of $5-6K on that list and everyone was going "wow, look at boycott-riaa. Who are they?" We might actually get some new interest/members/support. We're just trying to give the site it's due IM! LOL

You are correct, however, the only battle that NEEDS to be won right now is Patti's. That being said, I followed the yellow brick road and dropped a Jackson in Oz.

missed the whole point of my action. This is a civil claim, not a criminal claim. If I violated copyright, it should be the individual copyright holders suing me for damages, not getting the police to uphold their property rights. Imagine if you went to jail cause you were late for work (cause you caused loss of profits for the bosses). Imagine if you went to jail for taking too long a lunch break. why should alleged copyright infringement be different. It is a tort (against the interests of individuals--namely alleged loss of profit), not a crime (against the citizens of the US).
Why should rich movie industry or RIaa be able to use tax dollars and state and federal police to hunt down poor citizens, so they can sue them.
In addition, most people who sue have to prove actual, not alleged damages. What damages are involved in this case? The people I gave the dvds to would never have bought the dvds new. They would have waited until they were shown free on television.
As far as my source of income, I owned hundreds of legitimate dvds that were for resale. That was my source of income. I wasnt trying to make any money, just break even. Lost thousands on this enterprise, as no one wanted bootleg dvds unless I sold real cheap, cause they could get them free off the internet, wanted the real dvds, didnt have a dvd player, or knew someone else at work who sold them cheaper. The bootleg ones were thrown in free or given free as a tryout or traded for other dvds.

mroop, you must know someone who is claiming to be me. Identity theft?

I maintain sights and sounds can not be copyrighted. Once they are out there, they belong to the public domain. If copyright owners want to maintain control of their product, they should engage in licensing agreements and not release control of their product.
Case in point. I hear a song and memorize the lyrics and music. I then go to private parties or even a local bar and play songs I have heard, maybe for money or maybe for free. According to existing interpretations of copyright, I have infringed on the copyright and could face prison time. That is baloney.
I watch a movie and dont like the outcome or I read a story and dont like the ending. I rewrite the story or make a movie to my liking as to the ending. Existing law would say this is a copyright infringement, because it is a derivative of the original, even though the heart of the work (the ending) is different. That is baloney too. It violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which charges Congress to protect copyright (by offering registration of copyright and the right to sue for damages) in order to promote progress of the arts and sciences. by giving people who did not write the original work the copyright and by preventing derivative works without permission of the orignal copyright maker, we are preventing, not promoting progress. The Constitutional protections are not there to permit only a privileged few to benefit, especially for profit, but is meant to allow as many as possible to enjoy the benefits of the arts and sciences.

of course, none of my bootleg dvds were downloaded. I dont know how to do that. got bin files or rar files and could not convert to iso files to put on dvds.

However, another issue is how can the internet be regulated to prohibit downloading? If it is offered free over the net, how can it be declared to be illegal? Yet that is what is being attempted to be done by the federal government, which is trying to make it a federal crime. In addition, if the website orginates outside the borders of the US, how can the US claim jurisdiction?

Years ago, the way actors made money was in the theater. You paid to see them perform and there was no copyright worries. Even today, this is not an issue. Even if someone sneaked in and taped it, the real value was the live performance. the same with music concerts. The beatles did not copyright their songs, because they believed, as did most muscians at the time, that songs became the property fo the wind once sung. Only recently as the idea that these sounds and sights could be copyrights (the idea of intellectual property is a relatively new developyment), which explains how Michael Jackson was able to get copyright ownership of the beatle songs.
It is my opinion that the earlier idea is correct, that sights and sounds become public domain once released.

The police are saying I stole from the rich and gave to the poor. That is the crime. I didnt make any money from this venture and lost thousands. However, I claim I did not steal anything, except profits. The movie industry and RIAA is guilty of violation of Sherman anti-trust act, in that they have a monopoly that prevents fair competition. No way new DVDS should be selling for $14-$25, or CDs sell for $8-12, with the original artist only getting a small portion of that amount.
I bought DVDs and made copies. Seems to me, since the original DVDs were my property, that I should be able to do with my property as I want. If the movie industry wanted to prevent me and others from copying, they need to get us to sign an agreement not to make copies and to maintain ownership of the original dvds, which are given on "loan", rather than selling them to me.

When it comes down to it, all I did was sell dvds with marks on them. You can buy blank dvds anywhere. I put marks on them and sold them or gave them away.
I maintain this is no violation of copyright law. You cant see any movie with just a dvd, even if you have a dvd player. It needs to be attached to a television, or you need the special dvd players with screens included.
The point is my action, by itself, does not violate copyright laws. The person who buys the dvd from me may violate copyrigh law if he uses special equipment to make a movie, without paying for it. You might say I help him circumvent this payment. However, the point is my actions, by itself, does not violate existing copyright law. It takes two people to do it. I may be stretching here, but I also believe existing copyrights of sounds and sights are in conflict with personal property rights and the constitution, for reasons stated in the other threads above.

Existing copyright law says you can only get a copyright if you can touch or feel something. You cant copyright ideas, for example. You cant do this with sights or sounds either. They tried to get around this by saying if you store sounds or sights on a fixed medium, such as a dvd or cd, it meets the prerequisite requirement of be able to be touched (since you can touch dvds). However, several problems exist with this theory. For one, if it is the existance of the dvd that allows for copyright protection of a movie, or a cd to protect a song, if you sell that dvd or cd to someone, it is not valid to claim that ownership applies only to the dvd or cd, not the sounds and sights on that dvd or cd, since it is the dvd or cd that allows one to claim the movie or song can be "touched".
Another problem is the requirement that the sounds and sights be stored on the medium (such as a dvd or cd). the problem with this is technically, no sounds or sights are stored. Rather they are changed in form. Without this change in form, sounds and sights could not be played later, when they are again changed into sounds and sights by a dvd player and television.
Of course, the way for the movie industry to get around this is to claim a copyright on the dvd itself, the specific marks on that dvd, rather than on a movie that is "claimed" to be transfered to a dvd.

Shmoo, ninja said: "Now, if we had a total of $5-6K on that list and everyone was going "wow, look at boycott-riaa. Who are they?" We might actually get some new interest/members/support. We're just trying to give the site it's due IM! LOL"

I agree. We need a Donate button here! We need to get credit for the donations! Please! This is very important!
I donated through p2p. I'd be willing to make another contribution through this site. C'mon!!!

Doesnt help me to knock my ideas. Useful critique would be useful and welcomed. Could also help others who have similar problems. Maybe we can get dvd costs to go so low that we can afford them.

unfortunately (as has been stated before) you have been accused of breaking a criminal law (at least from what I can tell) the problem is that it is exceedingly difficult to convince a judge that they should let you off because you feel the law is unfair. they are going to tell you that if you want the law changed there are avenues to accomplish this without breaking them. from a personal standpoint I feel like anything that contributes to their losses is good thing but the fact remains that when you get caught they are going to want to make an example out of you.

on a semi related note if you are really pissed about dvd costs go to blockbuster and get the all you can eat movie pass and copy their movies. for the price of a few spindles of dvds you can build up quite a collection (or so I'm told - I'm boycotting them so I don't really know) as far as music goes, well the riaa crap gets enough press so I gotta tell you to go indie.

"Hey how about you and leflaw helping this woman out? I am not talking money, I am speaking of legal advice."

I'm not licensed to practice in NY or federal court, so I couldn't help even if I wanted to help.

"Useful critique would be useful and welcomed."

Here is some useful advice from an attorney, and I don't mean to be snide.

You are dead meat, bro. You are coming up with all kinds of wacky theories that will not fly if you try this in a court of law. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. You are going to get shut down and shut down hard. You will get through about half a sentence, opposing counsel will object and you will be told to cease talking. If you continue, you will be fined. If you insist on continuing, they will drag you out of court in handcuffs and bring you to a cell. Mark my words.

You have no clue what you are talking about whatsoever. For starters, copyright law is both civil and criminal, not strictly civil.

I could spend all night listing the fallacies and misinformation and just plain bullshit in your posts, but that would be pointless.

You probably don't believe me and don't want to believe me. But you will learn and you will learn the hard way. BS is for the internet. A court of law is not the internet. I think you are going to learn this in a most unpleasant manner.

Mike, you can easily create a link to donate for boycott-riaa if you wish. Go to the html generate link at the goliath page, type in www.boycott-riaa and click the button. Copy and save the text in a text editor (like notepad or simpletext) and save it as donate.html. Put the file in your Electric Gypsy folder or another folder at boycott-riaa and post the link at the top of this article. Vio'la instant donatation link (less the icon).

"The beatles did not copyright their songs"

LOL

Mike, when I said "link" above, what I mean is the "path" to the donate.html file. So in place of http://files.dmusic.com/music/e/l/electricgypsy/11x14poster[1].jpg it could be http://files.dmusic.com/music/e/l/electricgypsy/donate.html . Or put it in any folder on boycott that's users have permission to access, typically an index folder.

mroop, are you an attorney? then give me some pointers. Also, the part about the beatles not copyrighting their songs is something I read a long time ago when they explained how Michael Jackson was able to acquire copyright ownership to them. If you know something different, please tell me, as that is something I seem to have read years ago and my memory may be wrong.

I am an attorney. The only pointer I think I could give you would be to plead out with the best deal you can. This sounds like a criminal case to me. They might come after you on the civil side too. From what I'm reading, it sounds like they have you dead to rights - caught red handed so to speak. If you had the money, hire the best scariest criminal defense attorney you can find and have him cut a deal. Or hire a cheap attorney and let him cut a deal for you. I can't imagine they would send you to jail for something like this - probably probation and fines. If you go in there talking about the Constitution and your rights and so on, you are just going to piss them off and that will work against you.

Re: Michael Jackson. He doesn't own the copyrights to The Beatles. I believe he shares publishing rights with Sony/ATV. You can google and find all the info.

Your attorney will probably hire a psychologist type person who will interview you and write up a report to submit to the court. It will talk about your horrible childhood and how fucked up you are and so on.

You don't want to antagonize them, you want to express your sincere remorse and how your screwed up background let you into this unfortunate situation. That kinda thing.

davidlong33, mroop may sound to you like he's being a prick, but he is correct. From the info you provided, you seem to be in violation of criminal and civil copyright law. (It doesn't matter if you think the particular laws to be unfair.)

I strongly recommend you get a good lawyer and LISTEN to him. (And shut your trap here because some of what you are saying about your case might very possibly be used against you by the prosecution.)

=========================

Capt-n-Jack, I'm still working on it. This site's code (the parts that I have access to) is unlike a normal web-page. If possible, I will try to get this thread/string itself to behave as a page that will accept the code from there.

I plan to challenge the constitutionality of the digiletal milleneum act, which allows things that can not be copyrighted to be copyrighted, such a computer programs (which are algorithms, or mathematical formulas, so they represent "processes" and can not be copyrighted by their very nature), derivative products (which allows ideas o be copyrighted, such derivatives are based on ideas from the original), and movies (which are based on sounds and sights, which are not copyrightable).
I also believe fruits of labor are copyrightable, but fruits of technology are not, even though the digital milleneum act allows it to be. Fruits of technology involves the existance of something which would not exist, except for the existance of the technology. For instance, someone who does a live performance is allowed to profit from his labor (fruits of labor), but that performance is gone forever, once it is finished and the person has to do more live permances to continue to profit from his labor. However, it the performance is preserved by technolgy, it now becomes a fruit of technology and is not copyrightable. However, that person can still profit from it, but so can others who get legal possession or ownership of the physical product.