Slashdot Mirror
EFF Jumps in Against RIAA for Copyright Misuse
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Only if they lose.
(Hope hope hope...)
New punctuation update "~" (no quotes) at the end of a line to indicate sarcasm. ~
Wonderful letter, but now lets hope the judge thinks so too.
NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phone, please. We have an RIAA related legal item that needs translation. Thank you.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I don't know if I can really assist. I'm a native Legalese-speaker.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
In the unlikely event that the RIAA is found guilty of "misuse of copyright" (not that they aren't; I just find it unlikely that the case will get that far) what's the worse that could happen to them? Would it be just a monetary penalty, or does the copyright owner (I would assume the record company) stand a chance of losing the copyright?
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Of course, the question gets murkier since they in theory could lose their patent/copyright if they abuse it too much - or at least the ability to enforce it at all, which would spell the end of the RIAA if I read it right. And get more than a few companies and artists mad at them in the process.
Ok that's funny. =)
But hey - since I have your attention I'd like to say thank you for all your posts here on this topic. It's enlightening to read your take on things. Even if you are native-legalese.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Well, they had to give the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves with first. If the RIAA did only once or twice, the RIAA could say it was a simple mistake and/or blame it on the lawyer. With many cases in many states, it establishes a pattern. They don't do their homework. They sue people without cause. They do it often.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Get convicted of abusing copyright, the work becomes public domain.
That would stop them from using thre current techniques, and put more focus on people who are mass producing unauthorized works. NOteble becvause those people, when caught. have a ton of physical evidense that can be used against them.
In reality, they will probably be sued for damages.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps you can help someone who's trying to learn it now.
We just finished covering copyright in my IP survey course, and while we covered misuse as it applied to patent law, we didn't for copyright. Is there an existing doctrine that my professor didn't get to, or is this extending the idea of patent misuse into the copyright sphere?
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Thanks, Weasel. Much appreciated. (I say this at the risk of being modded down for having nothing interesting to say.).
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It started in patent misuse and has expanded into copyright law. The EFF's brief gives a pretty good explanation of its current status in copyright law.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It seems like with the tides turning against the RIAA and its members (Sony, Universal, EMI, Warner, et al) that their next act of massive dickheadedness will be to lobby Congress, under cries of massive copyright infringement destroying their industry, that music will die as long as this loophole exists of being able to play host to illegal activity, so long as you aren't aware of it, with no penalties for not taking any preventative measures. Of course I don't think that will kill music at all but the RIAA has a little more sway than me with Congress. :)
So how long until the owner of an internet service account becomes responsible, no matter what, for what happens via their connection? When incompetence and ignorance are no longer valid excuses? It honestly looks inevitable to me, because it's not like the RIAA is just going to roll over and I hardly think free distribution (aka free advertising) will appeal to them if they haven't gotten the clue this far.
audioLibre - freedom of music
i'm not a legalese speaker myself, just a close follower of the latest legal setbacks for the riaa:
the riaa's legal tactics against casual downloaders are not surviving closer scrutiny, and this latest legal tidbit from nycl is but another hole in a growing number of holes that the legal system is poking in the riaa's legal tactics
nycl, a question: if i were to go online now and, using a well-known, well-trafficked file sharing site, downloaded a well-known track, and this were to attract the attention of the riaa driftnets, is it safe to say that i could survive the legal attack using one or a number of the new legal routes around the riaa's tactics you have brought to slashdot's attention?
or, more succinctly, is the era of the riaa driftnet over? or merely hinted at?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If the RIAA did only once or twice, the RIAA could say it was a simple mistake and/or blame it on the lawyer. With many cases in many states, it establishes a pattern. They don't do their homework. They sue people without cause. They do it often.
More importantly:
- They continue to initiate new suits doing the same thing after it has been established that they're doing things wrong, and
- they admitted in public that they knew they were hurting innocents and that they considered this collateral damage legitimate.
I suspect that these were the last two ducklings that had to fall in line. Once they were in position the EFF could fire their shot the next time a case got to the stage that exposed the target.
Danger danger, Will Robinson! Mixed metaphors off the starboard bow!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The RIAA is merely acting as an agent for others (the labels) who hold the copyrights.
If the RIAA is found to be abusing the legal process, forbidding them from continuing to prosecute copyrights would not touch the rights of the actual copyright holders, it would merely that they either act directly themselves, or hire a new agent.
I have not idea how likely such a decision would be, but to me it would appear just.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...and I'll say it again. Take that you fuckers!
We have an RIAA related legal item that needs translation.
... Does anyone speak jive?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Their purpose is much like the president of the universe. It's purpose is to draw the negative attention away from the record companies.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
...they considered this collateral damage legitimate.
Aah, the old "Timothy McVeigh" defense.
And last I checked, nobody, not even Congress has any love for the RIAA. They get complaints by the hundreds or thousands I bet - each and every single Congress Member - about the RIAA.
r tact0201.htm
All of which are helpfully read by some unpaid staffer and promptly placed in the "circular file."
Meanwhile, those members of Congress do seem to be listening to the entertainment companies that sign the donation checks -- or did you forget about all the Senators and Representatives who signed on to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act?
When push comes to shove, unless it's immediately preceding an election and it's an issue that's being widely covered by the media, cash talks and bullshit -- which includes pretty much anything not written on check paper -- walks. Politicians only care about two things: how they'll get re-elected, and how they'll get paid. And it's going to take a lot more publicity than we have right now to turn digital media into an issue that drives votes, like abortion, gun control, or taxes.
Want some names? Dianne Feinstein, for starters, is practically the film and recording industry's representative to the Senate. [1] She's personally cosponsored more pro-industry, anti-consumer legislation than anyone else that I can think of, and she gets re-elected, year after year. Orrin Hatch is another one, on the other side of the aisle. Ditto for Ted Stevens -- the man's a borderline retard, but he brings home the bacon to Alaska, and that's all voters there care about.
Until you can get enough interest to knock some of the politicians who are obviously in the pocket of the industry out of office, nothing's really changed. They'll appear to clean up their act for a while when they know their offices are on the line (in theory), but once back off the hook they'll just go back to screwing the public like they always do.
[1] Here's one sample that looks like it was probably drafted by the RIAA itself; the "ART" Act from 2005: http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-piracy-a
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
IANAL (though I did take a couple of courses in intellectual property while getting my multimedia arts degree), but it sounds to me like you're confusing copyright and patent somewhat. What it MEANS to be in the public domain is that there is no copyright/patent/etc claims on the work in question. I know wiki is a horrible thing to cite, but this isn't a paper and I'm lazy tonight, so two relevant sentences from the top of the wiki page on public domain:
Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction.
and
If an item ("work") is not in the public domain, this may be the result of a proprietary interest such as a copyright, patent, or other sui generis right.
What it sounds like you're thinking of is how patents are designed such that people will tell the world about their invention, in exchange for the security that others can't just run off and produce that invention without the permission (usually at a price) of the inventor; as opposed to keeping all inventions as trade secrets, which then die quiet deaths if the inventor is unable to bring it to market himself.
The closest analog to that in the realm of copyright is simply not publishing your creation, which is kind of pointless unless you're only creating it for your own enjoyment. Even then, copyright is automatic, and if you show a friend your awesome painting that you've never shown anyone. and he snaps a nice high-res photo while you're in the bathroom and runs away to publish his photo, you have grounds to sue him for copyright infringement, even if you never registered your copyright or any such thing.
You are right, at least, that the record companies do not "own" the works in any sense beyond the right to say who can make copies of them. So all this nonsense about you buying a license to use their music is just that - nonsense. The only licensing going on is their licensing of the distributor to create the CDs. Once that's done, you're buying a physical disc on which is a legally-made copy of some music, and you're free to do whatever the hell you want with that, aside from make further (unlicensed) copies; though even then there are fair-use exceptions.
Of course if you happen to be a lawyer or something and it turns out I'm talking out my ass, please feel free to correct me, but as far as I understand intellectual property law in America, that's how things work.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You seem to be confusing copyright and patent law.
Copyright is automatically owned by the creator (or whoever the rights are sold to). There is no need to apply for copyright; it is automatic. The work is not public domain until copyright expires. There is no obligation to publish a copyrighted work. If the artist chooses not to sell their rights, they still have copyright. Copyright grants a time-limited monopoly on making copies of the work. You cannot violate copyright if you have never had a copy, even if you accidentally produce something very similar. You can say the same things as someone else's copyrighted work, and that work will be your copyright. It's all about a particular expression of something.
Patent law is all about making knowledge about methods of doing something publicly available as a condition of acquiring a patent, in return for which a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that idea is granted to the patent holder. You have to apply for a patent; it is not automatic. You can violate a patent even if you have never heard of it before, or you expressed the ideas in the patent differently. The concepts in the patent are what matter, not their mode of expression.
The RIAA should be harassed just for their use of evil analogy, and the hypocritical corporate use of frivolous nuisance suits as a tool to effectuate their will upon society. From the EFF amicus brief:
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
You are incorrect. The lawsuits are directly controlled by the RIAA. Matthew Oppenheim at the RIAA is the liaison to the outside lawyers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If by "being in the game" you mean representing defendants in litigations, I am presently handling 6 contested litigations.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yes they are trying to use dirty legal trickery to torture his family, to punish him for having hired a good lawyer and pushed back.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful