Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its 'reconsideration' motion in Capitol v. Foster as 'disingenuous' and 'not true,' and accused the RIAA of 'questionable motives.' The decision (PDF) reaffirmed Judge West's earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees." Read more for NewYorkCountryLawyer's summary of the smackdown.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.
The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true." This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly.
Judges can't fix your flawed business model and/or lack of innovation....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
.... I suspect that this will not stop the MAFIAA from making the lives of millions of Americans miserable. They'll just blow it off and it will be business as usual for them.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
It's nice to see a judge finally start applying some "put up or shut up" logic to this mess. Actually this looks more like a "Put up AND shut up", but I'm willing to run with that as well.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
(IANAL)
Yay for legal precedent
Another bit of a gut check for the Rectum Insertion Academy of America.
Maybe I missed it, but if the RIAA complied with the order to show their attorney's fees, does that mean they're available in some accessible court document somewhere?
"Lying Bitches"
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
New York Country Lawyer? Is that some sort of pre-hyperchicken?
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Revoke RIAA member's corporate charter? Invalidate their predatory contracts with artists. Thile we're at it, eliminate Ticketmaster. This leaves room for a non-profit system for promoting and desseminating music. We need a blue-collar musician class.
It's about damned time. Now how and when can we get Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA to back off? They just killed the open-source FixVTS website, and gagged everyone involved. Just like they did with RipIt4Me a month ago. Way too much open-source innovation is being squashed, and it's a crime they're quashing any discussion of it, too.
...like a thousand record company executives suddenly sending each other whiney e-mails.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
... but politicians can. How much does a Senator or Representative go for, these days?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000008LOV/ sr=8-1/qid=1177445909/ref=olp_tab_new/103-2954490- 8100607?ie=UTF8&coliid=&qid=1177445909&sr=8-1&sell er=&colid=&condition=new
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
We need a reform whereby when litigants have dramatically unequal net worth, the plaintiff is required to reimburse defendant's lawyers up to the amount that they themselves spend on legal services. The plaintiff can then argue for whatever damages they can convince jury the defendant can pay based on their income level. The same should hold true in criminal cases. When prosecutor feels the crime is grave enough to justify calling dozens of expensive expert witnesses, surely the suspect should be given a chance to prove themselves innocent. Justice shouldn't depend on your bank account, especially since we all know how many rich guys are crooks.
because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works
That should read:
because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching those in the general public who may own stock in corporations that control access to creative works
The RIAA is a cure that is worse than the disease, piracy, that it fights. Frankly, I hope they do end up paying out the ass for their McLawsuit business model. That said, it always seems that arguing fairness on digital media is like arguing abortion: It is difficult to find middle ground, let alone win, an argument with a true believer.
.doc, .avi, .mp3, or other format and choose the correct interpreter in addition to the language barrier.
My own stance is often conflicted on digital media. I've never deluded myself into thinking I'm striking a blow for justice by downloading a game, software, song, show, etc. gratis. But the often clumsy DRM does sometimes make me regret a legitimate purchase. With BT games, I can take my machine to a LAN party without bringing a single disc. With a legitimate game, I'd either have to bring the discs or patch it as if I had obtained an illegal copy. Hell, I wanted a few songs right away to exercise with, so I downloaded the MSN service and bought a few bucks worth of songs: Easy as pie...until I restore my system, or until MSN folded into URGE without properly supporting legacy customers.
Even this far into the Internet age we still haven't developed proper analogues to physical media. You can loan a book to a friend; the only DRM is the security sticker removed at the store. How do you easily loan an audio book to a friend, without making it easy to endlessly provide perfect copies? The business model needs updating, but to what? As it stands, we are buying encrypted paper books that can only be read with a cipher key licensed to an individual.
But even that metaphor breaks down easily, since paper books employ near-universal formats that anyone literate in the language can read. Since the format is interpreted by the human mind, not a computer, any irregularities in the format (i.e. manga style graphic novels) can be adapted on the fly. We don't have to consider if a book comes in
Ease of use is key to adoption, but what is the balance between business and consumer? Is it fair that iTunes limits players or is it fair to demand that iTunes support an open format? Damned if I know the answer.
I'm just glad to be reading another piece of good news in the whole fair use / RIAA abuse spectacle! Thank God for a judge who was willing to look for precedent, and was not simply willing to let yet another case go by that would have kept the thumb screws down on yet another defendant.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
You don't just count the people being sued, you have to also consider the great many Slashdotters who believe that any expectation that you pay anything at all for any media that can be digitized equates to misery.
It's more like the 125 million US citizens with an ISP connection that might be wrongly accused and threatened with the loss of all their life savings.
That they be denied the ability to obtain, free of charge, the latest pop music in a format that not only plays on any conceivable device but was also developed by people who share their particular political and philosophical leanings with regard to software....that is truly misery for them.
Yes, I'd like my music to play on restrictionless devices. If you like having to beg permission to play and copy your files or keep running your OS. I'm not sure why anyone would prefer that but to each his own. Perhaps you would like one of Mr. Gates' bed o'nails and pillow full-o-thorns to sleep on?
Bands make money from touring. ... blah blah blah
You don't have a real job do you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why would a lawmaker want to pursue such a reform? Wouldn't that just piss off almost all the lobbies and people with enough income to make good use of a tax deduction?
I'd love to see such a reform - but who would support it financially?
Not to imply that our laws are written within a corrupt framework; well, perhaps I do suspect that.
Also remember that both the movie & record distributors have been caught repeatedly doing some very funny accounting in reguards to what makes a 'profit'. Most of the contracts issue an advance followed by royalties after a net-profit has been gained.
ISTR that a producers new Ferrari was once considered an 'expense' in calculating net profits. For a modern example of this look no farther than New Line Cinema & Peter Jackson - LOTR1 is showing $100M+ discrepency in the audit. That's a lot of money to be 'disputed' as an expense - like 2 more movies. Worse, although it's in the contract, NL is trying to bar Jackson from auditing the books on the other 2 movies. We are talking potentially 1/2 of $1B in profits being swept under the table & hidden from the 'Artists'.
The monitor is missing!
"DRM is evil."
DRM by itself? It certainly isn't in the consumer's interest, and ultimately is bad for everyone in the long run. But from a practical standpoint, there's nothing wrong with it. But you add the might of the government to enforce DRM schemes and turn entire classes of citizens into criminals solely to enforce profits and I think you are creating something evil.
If you're a record company, movie company, or any kind of media company, I think you should be allowed to put a lock on all your stuff. The minute I buy it, though, I should be allowed to get around that lock without the threat of financial ruin and incarceration.
But we're all guilty of this sort of stuff. Everybody wants the government to interfere where it really has no business and in the end, we've got the government involved in a lot of stuff that benefits no one but tiny groups of constituents. Like today, the FCC said "congress should regulate violence on TV, for the sake of the children" (no joke, go to the washington post). And most comments are in favor! But then you gore their little ox ("the government should ban SUVs!", "you can't smoke in the privacy of your own home", "You must immunize your daughter for an STD!"), then government is bad. We're all hopeless addicted and everytime we ask the government to intervene in private disputes ("My neighbor must not cut down his own tree!") then we're begging for bad results every day.
And we're all guilty of this. Every one. Everybody wants a nanny to make things better and smooth off the edges. I think it will take a revolution at this point to fix thing. But we're all too busy. Even me, I just bought a big screen TV and I just want to be left alone to watch it. I'm just as guilty.
It's important that we consider carefully the effects of [issue]. With my carefully worded statement I assure you that I'm on your side on [issue], no matter what it is.
You have to consider that [the business interests opposed] have a great deal of money and are willing to fund my reelection so I can work on this urgent issue for you. Remember that their great business is what provides [jobs to thousands of impoverished Pakistani factory workers/drugs for washed up one hit wonders/hope for world peace/progress on global warming].
I believe it's important to consider [issue] in the light of both [voters, businesses] like yourself and [prev. alternate]. I'm sure I can count on your support.
My staff enjoys sending out these boilerplates and hope you will invite them to send you one on every topic you desire, so you can compare them to each other and gauge our sincerity. If you would like to donate $5,000 or more to my election campaign, I would love for you to attend a dinner in my honor where you can hear me state my nebulous position and have some terrible chicken.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
OUCH!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
So why not do away with artificially propped up labels and artists and over marketed crap altogether? How many thousands of leisure products (books, movies, albums) get produced that end up getting recycled at best, or landfilled at worst? Let em fail if they aren't worth listening to.
Art for arts sake is a dead concept for most of the crap I end up chucking in the bin after 10minutes/50 pages/2 tracks. How much bubblegum can the world actually chew?
> The Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme
> Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because
> copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the
> general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly
> important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated
> as clearly as possible.
Actually, the purpose of "copyright" is to give someone (or some organization) exclusive rights, for a fixed period of time, to produce copies of something for the primary purpose of making money by selling those copies.
Personally I think that copyright for recorded music, film, or images, should be based also on availability for copies to be purchased by the public.
Thus, if something is out of print (so to speak) - no matter how long it is out of print - then the copyright holder should not be able to sue for infringement of copyright if the copies were distributed during the time the said item was out of print.
I think that is fair and reasonable. After all, if they intended to make money by selling copies then they would have copies available for purchase.
I also think that copyrights for recorded music should only apply for 25 years from the date of the first release.
That gives the producer of the recorded music more than enough time to make their money from selling millions of copies, and then that gives all the rest of us the right to enjoy the best of those recordings without the expense of royalties or copyright fees.
Of course if someone, for example, re-released an old recording after having, say, cleaned up the recording by substantially removing noise and other recording defects with the resulting work being technologically a much improved product over the original then they should be able to benefit from the results of their work by means of a copyright.
The whole issue has nothing to do with artists and everything to do with corporate business. One small change in copyright law would completely eliminate much of this. Rewrite the law so that copyrights cannot be sold or inherited and instead reside with the artist for the artist's lifetime. Artists can license rights, possibly even exclusively, so a corporation can make money if so inclined, but the license cannot be perpetual. Allow no organization to own a copyright, since by definition organizations are incapable of creative work - a business or arganization can fund it, but because a business is a fictive individual, bar it from ever being able to claim a copyright. Better yet get rid of the idea of applying the same rights to corporations that individuals have.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
... pity it can't be applied to the RIAA. Shame, really.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Halen As one of the first major bands with a full stage show to appear in many smaller cities, Van Halen had an extensive set of technical and logistical requirements including power availability and stage construction details that a venue had to comply with. Many venues in these markets had not previously dealt with such a large-scale show, and were not equipped to handle Van Halen's massive stage and light show, sometimes resulting in damage to the band's equipment and the venue, once nearly killing a roadie setting up the instruments. The band's demands were not limited to technical issues: their now infamous contract rider specified that, among other personal needs, a bowl of M&M candies, with all of the brown ones removed, was to be available in the band's dressing room. According to David Lee Roth (from his autobiography, Crazy from the Heat), this was not due to an antipathy for brown chocolate candy, but rather was listed with the technical portion of the contract in order to check up on whether venue management and technical staff were correctly reading through, checking, and honoring the technical and safety provisions set in the contract. On arrival, if brown M&M's were found in the dressing room, then the band had reason to believe other parts of the contract were also not being fulfilled, and subsequently, every line of the contract was to be double-checked, to ensure safety prior to and during the show. Some shows were canceled because of a venue's inability to handle the band's stage or equipment safely.
The RIAA's motives are not "questionable," in that there is no question about what those motives are:
1. Ever-increasing profits at all costs.
2. Protection of their predatory, exploitative business model at all costs.
3. Complete market domination for 1) and 2) above.
4. Total control over the distribution of music.
Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
They are not even honest enough to stay bought.
The USA has the best laws money can buy.
Guilds go way back. They were not just for wandering itinerants.
I recall that Leonardo da Vinci was refused entry into the his father's guild (for accountants) because Leonardo was a bastard (he was born to an out-of-wedlock mother). So Leonardo joined the Guild of St. Luke (the guild of artists ). The rest is history...
Wow, coming from Van Halen. I must admit, it's a brilliant idea. I wouldn't have thought of this as a litmus test. Then again, I niavely assume that people read my documentation before bothering me about design decisions...so, the fact that I wouldn't have thought of it doesn't say that much.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.