Slashdot Mirror
Felten Suit to Continue
MadCow-ard writes: "C|Net has an article on the EFF pushing ahead with the countersuit to open the way to Dr. Felten to publishing the SDMI hack. RIAA has back peddled from their original threats, and now claim "hey, we never were going to sue him, so lets just drop the whole thing". It seems they prefer scare tactics to going up against free speech in a court room. Fear has more leverage because 'anything' could happen. The best part is the EFF and Felten are planning a victory dinner at $250 a head!" The recent legal filings are available, if you want to read the maneuvering. In a nutshell: both the RIAA and EFF think the RIAA made a mistake by threatening Felten, and want to negate it or capitalize on it respectively.
Hmm. So the RIAA now says they never intended to follow through on their original legal threats against Felten, then?
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
If i am correct, then why isn't the EFF going after the RIAA for *that*? Seems the results of a suit finding the RIAA guilty of trying to use 'we'll sue you' scare tactics against an individual without the ability to defend himself could be far more damaging in the eye of the public media than forcing the RIAA to allow something they now claim they'll alow anyway, and could maybe end with some punitive damages that could fund the EFF..
Oh, hell, why not go against the RIAA in court for BOTH?
What am i missing/confused on here?
I'm sending it to the RIAA so they can continue to innovate.
From0 10 626_amended_felten_complaint.html, Declaratory Relief (Second Cause of Action):
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/20
F. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
G. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
did anyone else notice the url ended with sue-bastards2.html? not that we're resorting to childish name calling or anything of the sort... but... well, i guess we are.
oh well.
--
--
RumorsDaily
Courts typically eschew resolving disputes when there is no dispute. RIAA messed up big, no doubt, but their statement that they have no intention to sue, if credited by the Court, is sufficient to permit dismissal.
Why? You can't sue because you are merely apprehensive of being sued under a statute. Unless you are affirmatively fearful that the other side intends to sue, and they are refraining from suit as a tactic to get the benefit of the threat without risking adjudication, a Court is free to refrain from taking up the cause.
No doubt, EFF will do a job in this case, hitting RIAA over the head with their rather amazing history of conduct, and perhaps raising the criminal risk card from Las Vegas. But so far, these facts still look 50-50 in terms of going forward in an action for a declaratory judgment.
Now, I'd expect EFF to offer RIAA to dismiss if they sign a general release and consent to publish the article -- thus, RIAA would have to concede, or look bad before the Court.
But these guys are all represented by awesome lawyers. It will be very interesting to watch what they do.
I may be an off topic troll but what the hell:
"When it comes right down to it we as citizens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative. The government budgets XYZ for a year - lets say $3T. The government collects $4T. It follows that we should refund that extra $1T to the people who paid it. By the way, it also follows that if we only collected $2T that we should all get an additional "gap" tax bill at the end of the year, to cover the deficit."
Well, commies like me will tell you giving huge chunks of change to incredibly wealthy people even while their overall share of the tax burden is decreasing is unfair. Wrong even. I'm a big believer in the estate tax, for example. It typically affects only extremely rich people or moderately rich people that are astonishingly stupid (or unlucky) when it comes to tax planning. There are other mechanisms for dealing with the 9 or so farmers affected. The beautiful thing about the estate tax is that it, like property tax, is a tax on wealth. Being rich is a cool thing and fun and, take alone, morally neutral. But passing that wealth along as a means of entrenching power? The hell with that. President Tinybrain, err, Bush is the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush III. He in turn was freakin' Queen Elizabeth II's 13th cousin twice removed (check it: http://www.genealogyspot.com/know/president.htm). Whatever happened to that work hard, self-made man stuff? (To be nearly fair: Bush the Elder is not a moron. He worked damn hard and definitely bettered the Bush family fortune and prospects by his ventures into the oil business. This was an independent step for him. At worst he may be an evil CIA spook who should have been fitted with a radio collar for surveillance purposes. But at least he actually went out and did stuff unlike his useless kid.) Maybe Tinybrain would be a better prez if he'd had to work for a living?
Cynical and bitter lovers of freedom and democracy like me will tell you that offering a tiny bribe to people who are more likely to have not voted for you than not is a cheap way to distract them from the coup you accomplished last fall. We will also point out that had you given the money "back" in the form of credits on payroll taxes (the largest category of taxes for most people and tremendously regressive [not that that is always a bad thing; c.f. my estate tax rant above]) you would have helped far more people than this did. It apparently wasn't a question of "your" money as it was "some of your money." Of course then you wouldn't be able to reward the people that helped overthrow our government.
But most of all, pragmatic people like me will tell you that flushing the surplus we have now so we can borrow it back later (plus more to pay the debt service!) is astonishingly short sighted. The heart of my beef with your post is your take on the budgetary process.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
At first, I was thrilled with my IRS refund because $300 is a lot of money to a guy who had no job for two months.
But now, I'm thinking that this money was intended to serve others. It was set apart to serve causes higher than myself, and now I have the chance to actually choose where that money goes. I don't have to worry about it going to build bombs, or how much overhead the government bureaucrats will take from it.
I can take this money and choose whom it will serve.
Perhaps what we all can do, those of us who find the tax cut irresponsible, is to use our power of choice to send the money where we think it will be valuable.
Right now, the EFF is doing the right thing. But they can't do it all for free. Perhaps it would be best if I were to send my $300 refund to them?
What do you think? What are you going to do with your IRS refund?
And when you call, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE BE POLITE!!! NOTHING will turn them off more than being an asshole!
Say "please," "thank you," and "may I," and the world will be your oyster.
I know donating some cash to the EFF would do some good. This seems like a perfect case to push for a trial. The MPAA needs to lose some to let it know it cannot push around some of our scientists without getting stung!
If you have not already done so donate some currency to their cause (our cause).
Actually, in many states, it is. It's called barratry. For example, in Washington State:
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.