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."
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
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
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.
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