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.
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
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've already hornswoggled you, I see. The way copyrights work is that the work immediately becomes public domain, and in return for this, the artist (and, through later legislation, whoever the artist sold the rights to) gets a time limited exclusive right to control copies. What the *IAA wants you to believe is that they own the works.
The artist can retain ownership, but then he would have to not claim copyrights, and instead distribute copies of the works through other methods, like sales contracts. That gives him the right to go after copiers for contract infringements. But he can't have the cake and eat it -- either time limited copyright protection in exchange for making the work public domain, or ownership and no copyright protection.
And yes, the distinction matters. Because the works are public domain from day one, you are free to do what you like with them except copying. Cause you're the rightful owner. That's one right the *IAA wants to take away, with their fight for perpetual extension of copyrights and their talk about "theft" instead of copyright violation. You can't steal something that already belongs to you, but when they get enough people to believe they have ownership, including judges who grow up "knowing it's so", then copyrights no longer hold any meaning -- it's free protection in return for nothing. Which never was what was intended nor promised.
Regards,
--
*Art
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