Slashdot Mirror
Mom, and Now Judge, Stand Up to RIAA
Nom du Keyboard writes "First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing. Now Judge McMahon doesn't seem to be letting the RIAA have it all their way either in this case. Godwin's Law summarizes the rebuke of Judge McMahon to the RIAA lawyer now that a court case has been filed. A transcript of the entire court appearance is also available."
I think it's about time that someone is standing up to the **AA's in the world!
There's no place like localhost
Good this is getting ridiculous. Law suits should not be a legitimate business model.
Download Wars: Episode V - The Mom Strikes Back
Yes, but it sure didn't take that long to slashdot the server...
Oh well, what the hell...
Runaround Suits
I've always said that the Recording Industry Association of America and its member companies are perfectly within their rights to sue those they think are infringing on music copyrights through peer-to-peer file-trading of songs. At the same time, it seems obvious that the RIAA should pick the lawsuits prudently, based on solid evidence, so that when the cases are publicized it will be clear that the defendants deserved what they got.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening, however. Instead, the RIAA notifies potential defendants that they are subject to a lawsuit that may result in hundreds of thousands of dollars of liability, and then gives them the option of settling the claim for only a few thousand dollars. It ought to be needless to say this, but sometimes an innocent defendant might still opt to take the settlement, because the risk of going to court and losing is so great.
Occasionally, however, you find a defendant who is troubled enough that he or she is willing to stand up to RIAA regardless of the risk. That seems to be the case with Patricia Santangelo. I urge you to read the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's court appearance here. It is fun to read, and it has made me an instant admirer of Judge McMahon, who refused to be a mere conduit steering Ms. Santangelo to the RIAA's "conference center" (which should properly be called a "surrender center"):
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
When you can download the audio off bittorrent?
McMahon, Colleen
;)
Born 1951 in Columbus, OH
Federal Judicial Service:
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on May 21, 1998, to a seat vacated by John F. Keenan;
From http://air.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2799
Way to go Clinton
*quickly ducks*
It was on MetaFilter several days ago... it's an ongoing thing though, so Slashdot isn't really "behind" on this one.
...but the judge said "So let's set another conference date for July 8th at, 9 say, 10 a.m. And hopefully you will have an attorney by then." She had 60 days to find a somewhat competant lawyer...
It's like a drama... so what happened after the sounding off? This was not a court case, this was a pelimnary hearing... nothing was decided (though the sentiment of the judge was obvious).
Seriously, it should be either *AA or ??AA. **AA is completely reduntant...
The RIAA might lose one to a determined defendant who attacks what at this point must be a kind of system the entertainment corps set up to sue individuals.
Good for her and everything, but "the tide" is not shifting to the RIAA's disadvantage.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think it's important to point out from the transcript that the mother blames Kazaa for this happening.
MS. SANTANGELO: Okay.I think my biggest issue is, honestly, not with the record company as much as it is with this company called Kazaa that allowed them to do this in the first place. I really can't believe it. And I just, obviously, in the last week, started studying about it, you know. I've never really looked into it before, but --
THE COURT: Yes, that, I can well understand.
MS. SANTANGELO: -- that it could even be allowed to do in the first place. It's just mind-boggling.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
Someone at the EFF or something should help this lady. It shouldn't be difficult to get her a civil trial attorney that wants to do this pro-bono.
It's refreshing to see this type of thing after all the crap of the past few years. Maybe if all those people that settled with the RIAA and forked over their savings to get off the "hook" would have fought them in front of a sympathetic judge things would be much different now.
...armed with a soccer mom at our side, I seriously doubt any branch of the government will take our opposition seriously. Because the **AA's buy the politicians, but they still have to sell them to soccer moms.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Honestly, I think the RIAA is afraid of one of these going to trial because they know the evidence is shaky. That's why they try to push the settlements so hard.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village." They will try to steer this to an out of court settlement so they don't have to go through the public spectacle of being refused a virgin and the people seeing that the volcano didn't erupt.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest and quietly convince her to go to another village. You threatened it, she said she doesn't want to leap, so bring it on and stop pussyfooting around."
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
19 And that's most likely why I was never notified by AOL
20 or any of my -- the companies that I have online service with
21 that my children had downloaded anything.
Yeah.... that'll happen.
They need to drop this one as soon as possible - there's no way they're going to "win" - they either lose the case or financially wipe out a single Mom of five kids for something about which she may not have had first-hand knowledge.
The ACLU does do a lot of things for legitimate causes, you just don't hear as much about them. For some reason making sure kids have decent bathroom facilities at a school doesn't catch as many eyes as fringe blacks wanting reparations or queers wanting to get legally married.
It seems like a hard thing to prove in court. Isn't the threshold "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a crime, and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil cases?
Maybe it is time to chance the threshold for guilt from preponderance to "highly likely".
What happens if someone has a wireless router in their apartment and the neighbor downloads music using it?
What happens if a community college with a wireless lan network has students download music?
What if a parent has their childrens friends over, and the kids download music?
There are thousands of ways music can be shared, where the person who owns the IP address will have no knowldge of the downloading.
And what if someone masks their IP address on the P2P networks? How hard is it to use a proxy? How hard is it to find a hack? The RIAA might see my IP address, but how can they prove it came from my IP?
Does the defendant have to prove innocence here?
Is the IP address infallible?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
An even cheaper way to f*ck over the RIAA is to just not buy any CDs.
Your method of the free distribution of CDs still gives them a target to attack and a scapegoat to blame for all the ills of "sharing" music.
The RIAA is interested in just *one* thing - money. That means they want everyone to buy their own copy of every CD or every downloaded song because that way they get even more money. Your demonstrations of "non-compliance" are irrelevant to the RIAA borg.
The solution to the RIAA problem is to remember that as a consumer in a capitalist society, you simply *don't* buy a product you do not think is value for money or is being sold by a corporation with dubious business or political motives - no matter how much you personally may *want* that product.
Do that and you start denting the profits of the record companies who, in turn, stop financing the RIAA because they're not achieving anything.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
My defense is that my computer was infected by a trojan horse for many months without my knowledge :P
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
lives in the same world as you.
I know many peopel who don't knwo what kazza is, or more importantly, how it works.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I have mod points, but there's no -1 asshole option.
So back in your face fuckwad...
Why don't you pull your ass out of your world of warcraft fantasy world, turn off the computer, walk outside and TALK TO PEOPLE.. you might just find that very few people care that much about computers, software and gadgets and of those few that do, maybe 3% have any real understanding of "what it's all abut".
And just how much time do you think a single mother of 5 has to devote to figuring out all the nifty shit a computer can do when she has work, bill, and five pesky kids to watch over and feed? Hell, I bet she uses her computer to do her taxes, pay bills and chat with family when she has time to use it at all.
So to you and others like you, wake the fuck up and get out more because you're a borderline sociopath who's clearly lost touch with the real world.
Only one thing to say: RIAA: 0wn3d by the law!
Pull my dongle!
Apparently she's gotten herself a lawyer
Just from the address I'm assuming that they're doing this Pro Bono for herI checked out their website and found this gem
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is great arguing by the entertainment corps.
Defendant uses the Kazaa search engine, which furnishings the software, which allows the defendant to upload other users' files.
Do you see how they put her in the wrong immediately by spinning the definition of Kazza? Now I'm not saying Kazaa is solving world hunger, but this is expert stuff.
The captured materials in Exhibit B shows that the defendant had uploaded at least 1,641 files.
This is like asking a witness, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
From there, the RIAA's has a tough road ahead because the judge identifies almost immediately with the defendant and assists her in a few different ways.
MR. MASCHIO: Can I be heard for a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: You can be heard all you want.
OUCH!!!
Here's where it gets really ugly for the lawyer.
MR. MASCHIO: That's okay. We would just like -- we think it's appropriate for her to say, yes, I did this or, no, I did not do this under oath. The other thing is that --
THE COURT: First of all, you didn't file a verified complaint, and she doesn't have to file a verified answer. So she doesn't have to do anything under oath.
MR. MASCHIO: Well, okay.
At this point the lawyer is a spineless mass on the court's floor with grey matter seeping out of his ears. RIAA didn't file properly and have a lawyer in there that thinks this will go over his way just because he's the RIAA. Love it or hate it, courts have these procedures and you pay dearly if they aren't followed.
Here's the quotes around questioning the whole IP address/ account name as incontrovertable evidence.
MR. MASCHIO: They wouldn't have brought the action, your Honor, if they hadn't verified that very carefully.
THE COURT: Well, we'll see, won't we? We'll see. And if what she's telling me is wrong, I won't be very happy with her.
Now, if she is lying, she's in BIG trouble. Let's hope she's truthful and the entertainment corps can't prove a lie.
This next part is hilarious and starts by the judge telling the lawyer to give his business card to the defendant.
I'll give her my card, but our instructions are for these people to deal with the conference settlement center. They had discussions.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Your instructions from me, the Judge --
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: -- are that, if she appears with a lawyer, her lawyer will deal with you.
MR. MASCHIO: Oh, absolutely, your Honor.
THE COURT: Otherwise, you take your action and you file it in front of an arbitrator.
MR. MASCHIO: No, all I was suggesting, your Honor, is that, if she doesn't come with an attorney, that the more direct way of doing this -- and this is just to facilitate things -- is to deal directly with the conference center.
THE COURT: Not once you've filed an action in my court.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay.
THE COURT: You file an action in my court, your conference center is out of it. They have nothing to do with anything.
MR. MASCHIO: Okay. I'll give her my card.
THE COURT: If you are here, you are here as an officer of the court. You're taking up my time and cluttering up my calendar, so you will do it in the context of the Court. Maybe it will be with a magistrate judge, but you will be representing your client, not some conference center. And if your people want things to be done through the conference center, tell them not to bring lawsuits.
That lawyer was SO unprepared it is hard to believe. I really should have gone to law school because I know I can run rings around jokers like this.
Now, let's hope she's smart enough to get someone willing to invest the time and effort to make her case a test case. Either that or counter sue.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Here you go.
So the judge says: "okay, big boys, bring on the lava. Don't try to lure the virgin into the forest
Better yet, what she said was, Don't expect me to lure the virgin into the forest. Once you've brought her to me, she's under my protection, I decide, not you and your gang hidden away in the forest.
Infuriate left and right
Homosexuals sue to get married, which is an act under GOD and not man.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. And here I got legally married by a district magistrate and didn't even know he was working for God. And all those papers I filed, did they go to God too?
Is God responsible for insurance coverage and cost differences based on marital status of a household?
Marriage is not only a religious institution. Historically, it's been used as a way to determine inheritance, cement alliances, transfer property, and establish responsibility and rights for others. Saying it is only a religious institution is a fairly narrow view. It can also be legal, cultural, societal, economic, and religious.
Now they want people to "expire" just for copyright infringement??
Say you download 4000 songs, get sued by the RIAA, settle out of court for 2000 dollars. 50 cents a song, half of what you'd pay on itunes.
Actually, it almost looks like it is. The music industry guys seem to have dropped the ball big time with this one.
A little digging turns up a load of links to the various litigation documents, courtesy of defence lawyer Ray Beckerman's blog. If you read the defence's revised reply memorandum of law, they make a convincing (to me as a non-lawyer) argument for what appear to be two open-and-shut claims, which basically mean the plaintiffs have failed to make a case for the defendant to answer. If the court accepts that argument, presumably any of the the other stuff doesn't matter, because the music industry didn't file it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way.
Interestingly, just before the conclusion, that defence memorandum reads
That sounds to me like not only are they trying to get this initial case dismissed, but also they're trying to block any attempt to bring any directly related case in future. I don't know how the appeal rules work if the court finds for the defence in this case, but given the defence's argument and the judge's apparent contempt for actions that don't give the defendant a fair chance to defend herself, it sounds as though this one's going to stop as dead as any music industry case ever can.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's what preview is for, huh?! Attn: Slashdot, it's 2k5, how about editing posts as long as there aren't yet replies?!
---
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
a harried, overworked stressed out recently divorced soccer mom and mother of five comes into a courtroom and she says she doesn't know what the hell is going on
you think she's stupid?
i think she's innocent
innocence has a funny way of appearing stupid to cynics in this world, you know?
but more important than that should be to you is this: it is upon this poor woman's back that an EXTREMELY cynical enterprise, the RIAA lawsuit mill, might actually be broken
so don't look your gift horse in the mouth
you should BLESS this woman and THANK her for being technically clueless!
there is a certain amount of knowledge in this world that is assumed to be necessary for you to survive: you have pay your taxes, you need a driver's license, etc.
but i hardly see that what you are saying is true at all: that the knowledge "p2 is bad" is common or even necessary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since IANAL, I can't answer that, but let's look at the transcript. The judge tells the defendant to try to find a lawyer, and allows time for this, squashing the plaintiff's attempt to get material from the defendant under oath before the legal advice is available. Then she tells the defendant she wants her to fight the case, and tells the plaintiff's lawyer that he has to present his case in court now they've started a lawsuit. Throughout, the judge is fairly clearly in favour of the defendant getting a fair day in court.
The one thing she doesn't do is give any indication of whether she thinks the defendant should actually win the case, and to my legally untrained mind, that seems to be the only thing that would have been inappropriate. In fact, I find it rather reassuring and highly appropriate that a judge was heavily in favour of a defendant fighting against a fair case in court, and not being intimidated into doing things that aren't in their best interests without the benefit of counsel.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So, lets say I go out and buy a DVD movie...
And I go out and buy a CD of music...
Then I go out and download every scene on that DVD from KAZAA or (insert your favorite file sharing thing here)...
Or I download every song off the CD from (share system)
Have I broken the law?
How do they know that I didn't buy it, how do they know that I don't have rights to make copies or download copies of something I have purchased...???
Hmmmm...methinks that something is smelling, and it wasn't beans and cabbage...
--E--
If you don't "settle" and it manages to go to trial, and you lose, what happens if you don't pay? I mean, I'm not up on the current law on that but like, remember that one case where the guy owed like $15,000,000 for like 3 songs or something stupid? What would they do, garnish his wages? Force him to pay it each week?
I'd just refuse. I mean who has the money to pay that kind of fee, even if they chose the settlement.
I just cannot see them putting some poor guy in jail...
"I murdered my family, friends and over a dozen people up and down the coast line. It all ended when the cops found me in the street pissing myself while eating shit out of a dog food can. So, why are you here?"
"...uh..I downloaded some Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan songs off the Internet"
Sure, they'll probably put them in the most lax prison there is, minimal security and whatnot. But still, prison for downloading music? Why should "the rich" be the only ones entertained? By rich I mean, those who can afford to drop $15 for a CD, or $25 for a DVD? I know guys who can't afford gas for their cars! And they don't drink or splurg their paychecks on stupid shit. They pay rent, little food and gas to get to work, and they still have a hard time affording GAS.
World's going to hell in a handbasket
Aw Frell this
Actually that is a bad thing to do because of something called a default judgement. If you don't defend yourself in a civil case, the plaintiff wil win. IANAL but I have first hand experience in the type of case that would happen if you just ignored the court.
A business contract was breached by an ex-affiliate of my company. We filed suit, defendant avoided being served but was eventually served. Sanctions issued to defendant (basicly a an order for him to pay) for serving fees and lawyer's billable time. You don't pay, you get a default judgement against you. Defendant failed to show up for oral deposition (kinda like a hearing), again sanctions issued against defendant for lawyer's fees. Defendant didn't pay, motion for final judgement submitted. This case has been going on for quite some time now, but the end result will be a win.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
From http://www.stereophile.com/news/082205riaa/ ...
I wonder what the markup is on commercially produced CDs and DVDs ... 8000% ??
Such ... irony ... the recording industry complaining about the high price of pirated content ... cannot ... suppress ... gales of laughter ...
Last time I looked gay people were suing to get the right to get married CIVILLY - they're suing the state, not the churches - I believe they should have the same civil rights to marry as us straight people do - If they start suing churches I'd get upset (1st amendment and all that)
Like or not there are two sorts of marriage - civil and religious, the state only recognizes the civil ones, though it allows religions to perform them on its behalf (not so in all countries where people are required to have a civil ceremony and may have an optional religious one afterwards). If you go to church and have a marriage ceremony done by some random cleric and haven't done the right paperwork you're not married as far as the state is concerned (for example if you're already married and marry a second wife without divorcing the second one in a splinter-LDS sect's ceremony that does recognize plural marriage the state doesn't recognize it no matter what your god thinks).
The religious marriage is between you your church and your god and is no business of the state. Likewise as someone who was married civilly, not in a church, my marriage has nothing to do with you, your church or your imagined god - on the other hand the IRS cares a lot ....
Besides there are churches that are prepared to marry gay people (I've been to 3 gay church marriages in the past few years), MCC is one, I'm sure there are lots of others
but at a personal rate, which is half his normal rate.
He expects the courts to order the RIAA to pay the bill wheh they loose;which is not uncommon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
One day isn't bad. Heck, a few days isn't bad. The reason I read this website is to get news about a fairly wide range of somewhat technical-oriented subjects that interest me.
The benefit isn't necessarily timeliness, it's relevance. Or rather, how relevant the news is to what I'm concerned with.
I checked out digg.com -- it looks like a useful website but there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of overlap between their recent news and Slashdot's recent news. The Slashdot news seems to be more along the lines of what I'm interested in.
I suspect that's not the case with you. Thanks for the link though.
Kevin
Yes, but the current proceedings will have very little if anything to do with the final outcome, so really, this is all just a bit of masturbation going around about whether it's good spin or bad.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Actually recently there seems to be a trend to remove the word "marriage". As marriage came from a more religious belief and the "license" is a governmental hold over from the middle-ages (to keep the people in check"). A couple of states use the words "civil union" instead of marriage in situations, and leave the marriage part to the religious institutions.
I tend to agree with the thought that they are two separate things, the civil/legal aspect of joining resources, etc and whatever your beliefs are. By doing so it truely keeps the separation of church and state, if your religions allows to marry 20 women and 20 goats, well you can go do that; the state wouldn't have to give you the benefits but you could be "married" under whatever you believe. Today because in most states still the civil/religious parts are tied to gether, it's more of a government enforced religious mandate (for example if you allow/disallow gay marriage, because marriage basically came from religion, the government is then forcing itself onto the church doctrine)
Is it that hard to believe that a computer with Kazaa on it exhibited signs of viral infection? It's completely plausible that the machine was "slowing down" for no reason she could figure out and her ex took it to see if he could get it fixed.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
As an example, Ben Franklin was an inventor, yet he was an opponent of "intellectual property." Out of all the things he invented (the Franklin stove, bifocals, etc.) none of them were patented.
Not necessarily. In my experience, most people who download music would have just done without otherwise.
You seem to have some problems constructing a logical argument. Specifically, you tend to assert that A implies B, even when it doesn't. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies so as to actually be able to convince thinking people. Pay special attention to begging the question.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Funny, they have no trouble calling it theft on their website
The law they are using is even call the "No Electronic Theft Act" or NET Act (does every goddamn law have to be a stupid acronym?)
"I forgot my mantra."
From the transcript (emphasis mine):
... The defendant was served on April 25th, and her time to expire does not --
[RIAA]:
[Judge]: Her time to answer.
[RIAA]: -- time to answer does not expire until May 15th.
Ahh...so just suing people isn't good enough...now we see what they really want!!
It is when the looters are shooting at the rescue workers - they called off the air-ambulances when one of them was shot at.
In Soviet Russia you own your cat
I just wish Slashdot stopped posting summaries like that. We're adults; we don't need rhetoric spoonfed to us.
First there was the mother, Patricia Santangelo, who has refused to roll-over to RIAA demands to pay their extortion fee because they claim to have identified her IP address as involved in Kazaa file sharing.
"Extortion fee?" They identified an IP address from her computer that was infringing on their copyrighted materials, and so they legally went after her. I don't see "extortion" thrown around when people are demanding to sue companies that violate the copyright of the GPL.
I just think people use the RIAA as a scapegoat too often just to justify piracy. Five years ago, Slashdot, editors included, were ADVOCATING that they go after individual downloaders and lay off the companies like Napster. Five years later, they're doing just that, and suddenly that's wrong too.
"Sufferin' succotash."
After reading this I expected to read that Judge McMahon had called the RIAA lawyer a Nazi.
Copyright infringement doesn't fit into the legal definition of theft. Black's Law Dictionary defines "theft" as "[t]he felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it." This is essentially the same as common law larceny. "Infringement," by contrast, is "[a]n act that interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a patent, copyright, or trademark owner." This is clearly something quite different than theft. Also, don't forget that theft is a crime, but most small-scale copyright infringement is not. The words "theft of intellectual property" have indeed been used by courts to describe copyright infringement, but only very rarely. Westlaw turned up only 18 uses of this term, and mostly in unreported cases. I really don't think it's that common in IP law, except maybe when used by attorneys representing the recording and film industries, who are trying to influence the public lexicon by conflating the two legal concepts.
I'm an author too, I write software. I'm an intellectual rights advocate as well. I advocate considerably shorter copyright terms and an entire restructuring of the patent system. Copyright is completely broken by the existence of copyright terms lasting for life + 75/95 years. Copyright should last a maximum of 28 years. Given the extremely efficient means of distribution and production that we have today as opposed to 200 years ago, I would even support shorter terms. Special interests and politicians like Sonny Bono have stolen what rightfully belongs in the public domain. In doing so, they have created an environment where the people at large see no reason to respect the system. Because the system is so imbalanced, people feel no shame infringing on an author's copyright. Who here would refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" to their child in public on grounds of infringing Time Warner's intellectual property?
Additionally, they've created an environment where innovation is no longer possible. An author cannot build on the work of others because once written, the work is monopolized perpetually. Due to the system we have now, innovation is dragging to a halt. The systems that made this country mighty are now killing it. Look at how horribly broken the patent system has become. Numerous 'businesses' exist solely to patent everything thinkable and sue anyone who dares to create. Empty shell companies do nothing but collect 'Intellectual Property' and sue others who attempt to make an idea into reality.
The fundamental reason for copyright, patents and the whole morass of 'intellectual property' is to encourage innovation and progress, not to impede it. The only way to restore intellectual rights is to restore balance to the system. Even if they weren't suing grandmothers and children, I'd feel no pity for the RIAA. They and their lobbyists have only brought this upon themselves. Massive and flagrant infringement is the symptom, not the disease.
. . . And while recording artists are treated quite poorly in comparison to authors and actors, every time some music is pirated, it IS money that would have otherwise gone to the artist (and a lot more that would have gone to the recording studio, of which quite a bit should be going to the artist instead in my opinion, but that's another issue).
Oh boy, I don't even know where to begin with this one. Let's start with the 'every time music is pirated bit'. Are you talking about piracy (the wholesale duplication of materials for illicit sale) or are you talking about file sharing (which doesn't invlove any money in the first place)? It is utter nonsense to say that that every song swapped is money that doesn't go to the artist, since there's no money involved, and a song copied does NOT equal a song not sold.
I like to borrow CDs from my local library. Does it mean that I've deprived the estate of Otis Redding $50 because I borrowed the box set? What makes you think I would have bought it? Do you think Otis Redding is unhappy with me? How much of that non-existent $50 that I didn't spend would have gone to his estate anyway?
As far as payments to recording studios go, you apparently don't have much of an idea how the business works. A top producer can get a couple points on a record. Top shelf session musicians can get a point or two also, but in both cases it is a trade-off -- lower rates up front in exchange for the possiblility of fat royalties. The studio itself (and the recording engineer, mastering engineer, and musicians and producers without big time clout (or who choose) get a daily or hourly rate. These are not really excessive and are negotiated well in advance. Tour musicians don't get any points but are paid a daily rate.
This works more or less the same way for actors. I've got a buddy who had a supporting role in City Slickers, for example. Apparently the studio didn't think the film would do much, so they offered the actors generous (relatively) royalty deals so they wouldn't have to pay so much up front. It makes me feel good that every time that film comes on TV now (which seems like every other month) my buddy gets a check.
Your beef is more with the labels, which are run like a cartel, not the recording studios, which are run more like dentists' offices or car repair shops. If you don't pay your mechanic, your car doesn't leave the shop, and if you don't pay the recording studio, your master doesn't leave.
The problem in music is how this particular equation works. When an artist gets a major label contract, that sack with a $ on it is a loan, not a payment. Worse, the label decides how the money is spent, not the artist. Further, the artist is responsible for paying back everything that is spent out of future royalties, after the recording studios, sessions musicians, producers, engineers, video directors and crew, radio promoters, roadies, truck rentals, venue rentals, caterers, etc, etc, (and I mean etc) are paid. The labels have ways of working this so that the contracted artist is never quite out of debt.
There was quite a bit more I wanted to say on topics of 'ends not justifying means', particularly where the ends are so inexplicable (why do companies that sell music not want people getting exposed to music?), and about wondering how you, an author, intend to make people want to buy your work if they've never heard of you or read you before, but I've spent long enough on this already.
The Anwser is the ACLU (Score:0, Troll)
People are going to mark this as a troll.
Wow, he actually got modded Troll!
On one hand he said he was going to get modded a Troll, meaning they HAD to mod him up, but on the other hand there was the bible thumping and the homosexuals / blacks / atheists / muslims / homosexuals / blacks rant. The mods must have has a really hard time struggling over that dilemma.
P.S.
You forgot the jews, japs, and hispanics.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
They do have the same rights to marry as us, a gay woman could marry a gay man at any time. And who is to say they can't set up a covenant between themselves and wear the rings and all. Oh wait, they want the marriage benefits? Hell, so do I, but I don't expect to be allowed to marry my roommate, though he's a swell chap.
I think the notion of rights is a little out of context here. Why shouldn't I have the right to marry multiple women concurrently. Why shouldn't I be able to marry myself and get those marriage benefits?
The institute of marriage has, in my mind, has proven itself as a beneficial structure to society, and perhaps deserves those benefits. To cheapen marriage in the name of "equality" is to jeopardize the entire structure.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
It's a good thing that the judge was sympathetic towards the defendent, because the RIAA representative was being very forceful about trying to put her at a disadvantage. The lady was basically defenseless, and the plaintiff was attempting to guide the case in a direction that isn't necessarily legal (but not illegal, if you catch my drift). Without the judge to back her up, the RIAA would have made her tie her own rope, and not before suggesting that she still might settle with them outside of court. This sort of pressure was obviously designed to scare her into settling with the RIAA and paying them money she does not legally owe. I feel some kind of bully mentality here (intimidate the victim into not making an appeal to authority), and it's kind of scary to see a very polite man in a suit radiate such a sinister aura. Maybe I'm just afraid of lawyers. ;-)
It's quite questionable in my eyes whether or not she can be held responsible (and I speak merely from common sense, not legal precedence), and it seems to me that the RIAA's open-and-shut tactics, not to mention the eagerness to settle, suggest that they feel some anxiety about how strong their case is and whether or not they could win it. Call me blind, but I think this is a battle the RIAA would rather not fight, and that's precisely why the judge is eager to make it happen (you'll notice that he gives the defendent quite a shove in the right direction).
...with decades of provable payola, collusion to fix prices, accounting tricks to make hundred million dollar movies always look like losses, screwing talent out of any decent cut, and etc that someplace sometime some DA might apply RICO to them, because it sure fits. They should be the last people pointing fingers and accusing someone of being a crook.
No. It doesn't. Automated file sharing has been around for over 10 years and the media industry still turns a profit every year.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Heinlein put it best.
------
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Cory Doctorow might disagree with you. Much of his success is arguably down to releasing his books under a creative commons license for free online.
In his speech Ebooks: Neither E, Nor Books he points out that releasing free electronic copies of books has been shown to increase sales dramatically. In other articles he's written on BoingBoing, he argues that the best thing an author can get is exposure and word-of-mouth advertising; and releasing your books free online is a very good way of achieving that.
Cory Doctorow is also a representative of the EFF, if memory serves, and is certainly very critical of the RIAA. Nor is he alone in his views. Protecting your rights is all very well, but if giving up some rights means that more people know of your works, you'll make more money in the long run.
But you are completely ignoring the history. The government took a religious concept and ran with it. Marriage was an act of ones religion (which includes Hindus, Buddhists, etc) then government took that religious item and incorporated it in itself. Marriage is clearly an act of ones religion, the governments civil bonds are something added after the fact. Because of this, marriage in a legal sense is *not* faith-neutral, it is biased to one particular religion. When the government took the religious edicts of a religion, than picked only one religion to use as their law basis they blew your argument completely out of the water.
Don't you see the elegance in what I'm saying? You are basically saying we should oppress the church to keep the church from opressing the gay community. Why the hell don't we just divorce the religious concept of marriage from the government completely? That way if your religion says you can marry an animal you can, heck it's your religion not mine but you don't have to expect the state to allow a legal contract between your dog and you, you can go shouting through the streets you are married to your dog skip, but you won't have a binding legal contract between your dog and you. And with bigamy, if your religion supports it; what the hell why not, it's not the goverment's roll to determine your religious doctrine for you; but it is their roll to determine what is a legal contract. Go ahead and get married to 50 women at once in your church, but just take one in front of the government to mingle your assets, etc with in a civily binding contract.
It is not impractical and pointless, it is the most elegant solution I've seen put forward to remove history's error when the government took a religious concept and incorporated that into their laws. You want to be a polygamist, be a polygamist under your religion I don't care, just don't expect the government to allow a legal contract simply because *your* religion says you are married because it's not a marriage it's a civil union.
Firstly from my standpoint he seems to approach everything with an attempt to appear almost as benevolent as a mother of 5, hence setting the tone of voice accordingly and the non-aggressive approach.
Secondly, the complaint didn't follow due process, why is this? Many here ridicule it, but I suspect it is part of the strategy, in which its ultimate goal is to make an agreement in court between plaintiff and defendant to sort the matter outside of the court, more specifically at the conference settlement center. It would serve several purposes which make sense, court and judge keeps their schedule open and plaintiff has a very good chance of a settlement that fits their agenda. That the plaintiff representative suggest she meets at the conference center without an attorney, to "facilitate things" nails it for me. A good settlement early is a hell of a lot better than a long drag in court; they have a lot to loose here.
I am the author of the blog "Recording Industry vs. The People", and one of the lawyers representing Patti Santangelo and other victims of the RIAA lawsuits in the New York City metropolitan area.
There is, rightly, a lot of concern on how regular people can handle the economic imbalance in these lawsuits.
And there are in existence certain tools: (a) the copyright law's fee-shifting provisions, (b) Federal Rule 11, which bars lawyers from signing frivolous litigation documents, and (c) the willingness of some lawyers to take reduced fees, or to do some work without a fee at all.
My reading on the internet over the last several weeks, and especially of this thread on slashdot last night and this morning, gave me an idea for another possible tool.
I decided to try something a little innovative this morning, and added 'pay-per-click' advertising to our blog, http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com, and to its companion site hosting the litigation documents, http://info.riaalawsuits.us , with all proceeds from the ads to be used to help defray legal fees and disbursements of our clients defending the RIAA litigations.
I've never seen or done anything like this before, so I don't know how it will work out, but just thought you guys -- who have been fabulous in your passionate, thoughtful, and sometimes even scholarly exegesis of the Elektra v. Santangelo litigation documents -- would like to know.
Best regards,
Ray Beckerman
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The second conference actually took place on August 5th.
I appeared for Ms. Santangelo.
The RIAA plaintiffs were represented by MaryAnn Penny of the Cowan Leibowitz firm in New York City and by Timothy Congrove, a partner in Shook Hardy & Bacon, in Kansas City, Missouri.
Mr. Congrove participated by telephone, rather than in person, and he spoke for the plaintiffs.
The judge concentrated on the dismissal motion and asked Mr. Congrove to justify his position. Mr. Congrove said he would be citing cases in his brief on August 8th, but the judge wanted him to cite his cases then and there.
The first case he cited was a case we had ourselves cited as a reason for dismissing the complaint.
He made his arguments, and I made mine, and the judge had many piercing questions.
She indicated that she would decide the motion after all the papers had been submitted.
I am attempting to obtain a transcript of the proceedings, and when I do will post it at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com./
Thanks for your interest.
Best regards,
Ray Beckerman
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I would say that Maschio came quite close to being in contempt of court here. The Court had to go out of its way to censure him.
This is typical of the attitude that the RIAA has towards the courts. they expect the court to, in effect, rubber stamp the RIAA's private laws and fines.
Maschio quite brazenly tried to reverse the courts decision that council for both sides discuss the matter, instead insisting that Santangelo be dragged into the RIAA's private interrogation chamber, so that they may have their way with her. Maschio tried this no less than three times. If the judge was not so lienient with him, he would have been considered to be in contempt.
It's clear that simply going before a court to force someone into private arbitration is a waste of the courts time, and the judge made that clear. Hopefully more judges will beging to realise they are being taken for granted by large corporations.
May the Maths Be with you!