Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands

Posted by kdawson on from the smackdown dept.

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primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms.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.

53 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, RIAA by Himring · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hey, RIAA by BeansBaxter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would think the RIAA might be a little nervous about paying legal fees to all the wrongfully accused however. It might make their selection of random file sharers a little more difficult. The way it should be handled I think.

    2. Re:Hey, RIAA by sconeu · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Or, as Heinlein said over 60 years ago,

      There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit.

      -- The Judge in "Life-Line"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Hey, RIAA by Workaphobia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Correct, but as someone a few posts up said, politicians can take on this role. Lessig demonstrated in Free Culture that, throughout history and today, industries will seek to artificially preserve their irrelevant business models via the courtroom and our Congress.

      And for the past decade or so, they've been succeeding.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
  2. Sadly.... by 8127972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... 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.
    1. Re:Sadly.... by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would not be so sure about that. If this decision withstands the test of time, many lawyers will be willing to take on at least some of the cases, since the salary will now come out of **AA's pockets. The obvious outcome will be that more people will engage in illegal filesharing (seeing that it is possible to go to court and win), while **IA will have to pay considerably more for its "war on piracy".

    2. Re:Sadly.... by pdboddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite the contrary, this is setting precedence, and there are a number of other cases where RIAA is not only in danger of losing, but also in danger of having to pay lawyer fees. Think of how many cases they have filed, knowing they can't win all of them but hoping the defendants will cave to pressure and settle. Now imagine these defendents standing up for themselves and going to court... RIAA *could* end up losing quite a bit of money, quite a few lawsuits and what remains of their tattered credibility. It will also give pause to other companies pondering this sort of litigation.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    3. Re:Sadly.... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      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.

      Bands make money from touring. DRM is evil. You can make unlimited copies of a song for no marginal cost. I only listen to independent bands anyway. Live music is better. The president of the RIAA has a monocle and stokes a cat all day. Ogg Vorbis is a good name for a file format. Micropayments are the future. Outmoded business model.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    4. Re:Sadly.... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. It's a shame that people are trying to undermine the successful and legitimate efforts by these businessmen to successfully lock up all major distribution channels, radio stations and to have laws passed to extend their copyrights indefinitely or as jack valenti said, "forever plus one day."

      It's just wrong that corporations should not be able to force artists into contracts which deny them any profits after millions of dollars worth of sales. If this goes on, we might see the destruction of copyrighting sequences of notes and see entire new genre's of music like blues which shamelessly infringe on the same set of riffs for different songs.

      A unique combination of generations of producers, lawyers, organized criminals, and the congressmen and senators that they bought have worked hard to create a virtual monopoly. Where is our respect for all that work?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re:Sadly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The president of the RIAA has a monocle and stokes a cat all day.

      If cat-stoking is as illegal in the US as it is in Europe, this might just start a case worth watching.

    6. Re:Sadly.... by teflaime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One point...Most bands really do make their money from touring, not from their records. In fact, if you pay attention at all, you hear horror stories from everybody who isn't a corporate rock fuck about how if they had to rely on album sales they would starve to death.

    7. Re:Sadly.... by Mr2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I tried to stoke a cat once, but I couldn't figure out which end the coal was supposed to go in.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    8. Re:Sadly.... by radish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just wrong that corporations should not be able to force artists into contracts which deny them any profits after millions of dollars worth of sales.

      Show me one example of a record company holding a gun to a band member's head to make them sign a contract.

      Nope?

      Then the artists have nothing to complain about. They were offered a contract and they took it, if they didn't read it properly, or better yet have it read for them by someone competent, it's entirely their own fault. The work I do for my employer generates a lot more income for them than they pay me - but that's exactly how companies generate profit for their shareholders. I wonder what would happen if Linus turned around tomorrow and said that he'd changed his mind about using the GPL for Linux and would actually like $1 a copy from everyone currently using it? The collective "WTF??!?? STFU!!" would be deafening. He chose how to license his work, and just like the anecdotal starving musician he's stuck with that decision.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    9. Re:Sadly.... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's said multiple times in each RIAA/MPAA story: civil suits do not have to pass the reasonable doubt test. They only have to pass the preponderance of the evidence test. This is because the reasonable doubt test would rarely even apply in civil cases, and when it DID apply, it would be an almost insurmountable barrier. You'd get nasty people causing damage to other people and getting away with it without compensation to the victim. It's just unfortunate that corporations and individuals are considered to be on the same playing field when it comes to courts.

    10. Re:Sadly.... by DarkSarin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there wasn't a gun involved, but there might as well have been.

      If you are trying to make a living by writing and selling music, then you have essentially three choices--market it on your own, make it free and try to make money touring (if you can get noticed); or you might be able to secure an independent label contract, market it essentially on your own, and hope to make money touring; or, if you get lucky, you can get noticed, sign a major label (read: RIAA) contract, and be stuck with whatever terms they offer, because while some people are good enough to have multiple labels clamoring over their stuff, this is unusual. Instead most bands are lucky to have any label be willing to sign them and there are always others willing to take your place.

      The result is that RIAA labels, in effect, have huge amounts of buying power when it comes to negotiating artist contracts. These contracts are typically draconian in nature, and leave most bands actually losing money for a while, although the label is raking in lots of cash.

      Now, if you go with an independent label, you just have to HOPE that you get famous and make money. The same is true of no label deals, and in all cases you are expected to tour relentlessly and hope for the best. NPR did a fluff piece on the Dresden Dolls a while back that talks about how the band was making less money than the people they had to hire to make the tour work! Sad.

      The point is that being an artist isn't easy, and the RIAA does NOTHING to make it easier for the vast majority. Only a very few actually get deals that reward them in line with the amount of CDs they sell relative to the amount of work it requires from the artist.

      I have no expectation of free music, but I DO expect that the price I pay get passed mostly on to the artist with only a small percentage going to the label and distributors (including the retailer). This isn't what happens, and I know why people are pissed.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    11. Re:Sadly.... by MetalPhalanx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you might have missed an important sentence in the GP post... the one that explains how the corporations can hold a gun to a band member's head. I'll point it out: (emphasis mine)

      It's a shame that people are trying to undermine the successful and legitimate efforts by these businessmen to successfully lock up all major distribution channels, radio stations and to have laws passed to extend their copyrights indefinitely or as jack valenti said, "forever plus one day."

      In the days before the internet, the record labels made life for independent artists as hard as they could, to force them into restrictive contracts. Good luck trying to get any air time on a significant radio station as an independent artist. And the strange thing about bands, is that while you can make money touring, you first have to gain a strong following. To do that, people have to hear you. If you can't get any air time the only way to do that is tour with other bands. But chances are, unless you're very original AND very good, most people will not remember your material nearly as well as whatever song that one of the labels has playing on the radio every 20 minutes all day long. NOT accepting a contract with a record label was a death knell for almost any band. Of course, there is always the possibility of arguing for a better contract, but it's not likely to be improved much, unless you really are very good and very original.

      Of course, now with the internet their efforts to lock up the major distribution channels are starting to fail, so they are flailing wildly in an attempt to gain control over this new and unexpected threat. So far, they seem to be having some trouble, and I hope it continues that way.

    12. Re:Sadly.... by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The RIAA and MPAA individual members have all, without one single exception, lost at least one suit, filed by an artist or multiple artists, where the corporations were caught concealing the true status of profits, under-reporting gross or net take, and/or over-reporting expenses, billing for expenses not actually incurred, double, triple, and even quadruple billing. In several of these cases they have committed such large numbers of 'convenient mistakes all just happening to fall their way' that the judges deciding those cases have freely used terms such as "egregious", "willful" and even "rising to a level that is undoubtedly criminal" in their decisions. Last I heard how the law is supposed to work, contract fraud is supposed to be illegal, even with no armed force involved.
            Yes, you could possibly justify an anti-trust argument, but how about this broader one. If artists are still entering into contracts with a group of companies that have all been caught cheating on contracts, there must be some unfair advantage to keep them doing it. Whether it's a monopolistic trust that leaves them no better options, or the group otherwise enjoys selective immunity from paying the full price of their contract violations is irrelevant. The government could vigorously prosecute where conduct crosses the line to criminal accounting practices, lieing under oath, and so on, and this would help a great deal whether there is a proven monopoly or not.
            Sure, some of it, at least a little, can be blamed on various artist's stupidity. Put a clause in your recording contract that says there will be bowls of all green M&Ms available at all times on the soundstage, and you can expect to pay very dearly for it. Fair enough, but not nearly all the artists are that stupid. Which seems more likely, that there are so many artists too stupid to realize the risks, or that many of them do know they are going to get screwed, but feel like all better alternatives are closed off to them, and hope to be the one who isn't screwed too badly.
            Prior post amounts to saying "show me a successful white collar criminal who turned to blue collar methods when they didn't have to, or agree I'm right!" I'm rather surprised you're rebutting only one part of it and letting the rest stand.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    13. Re:Sadly.... by ffflala · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're laboring under the assumption that it is in fact, some inherent quality of the music that most greatly influences the music on which you are willing to spend money.

      A few years ago I saw an estimate that around 100 CDs were being created per day, every day. It seems like a fairly conservative estimate. Assuming that's in the ballpark, in the time it takes you to listen to one CD, around 3 others will have been created. And you can't listen to music 24/7.

      Distribution power has tremendous influence on what music will sell. Great distribution power --physical sales and the airplay, good PR, and buzz needed to push those CDs to the register-- requires a lot of capital. It is the exception for heavily marketed product to completely flop: even the worst will go gold if it's crammed down enough throats (thanks, Clear Channel!) I'm not talking postering, I'm talking about pay for play.

      The reason you buy bands --the reason you may even identify with them-- is because you found mention of them in the first place. In a world where you're exposed to thousands of advertisements every day, it is far more likely that you came across them in an ad of some sort; or at least the person who told you about them did.

      So your expectation for all your money to go to the artist, at least in the case of the RIAA label bands, is misplaced. Don't fool yourself -- most of the capital that gave them the huge sales did not, in fact, come from their musical efforts. They simply have the gratification of being the faces of the advertising campaign that is their latest CD.

    14. Re:Sadly.... by shark72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The situation you describe also applies very well to writing software, building houses, selling ice cream, and innumerable other professions. Try to go it alone, work with a small company, or work with a big company. Each have reasons that make them good, and bad. This is part of doing business in modern society, no matter what your business is. Why would ye olde Invisible Hand make an exception for the music industry?

      "I have no expectation of free music, but I DO expect that the price I pay get passed mostly on to the artist with only a small percentage going to the label and distributors (including the retailer). This isn't what happens, and I know why people are pissed."

      Why would you expect that? When you put together the end-to-end costs of recording, producing, marketing and selling a CD, the studio time (including the paying of the session musicians) and the royalties (in which the songwriters, composers, and featured performers are paid) are but a small percentage of the cost.

      You probably already know that retail margins are anywhere from 10% (Amazon) to 50% and more (Best Buy, etc.) across all categories. Music is no different. If this is truly pissing you off, how do you cope with the anger of paying 10% - 50% markup for everything you buy?

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    15. Re:Sadly.... by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, that's how it used to work before music went digital. Record labels were abusive back then, too, and we still see the occasional case of some formerly well-known but now downtrodden artist suing a label for unpaid royalties. Not only are the contracts pretty hardball on artists at the time of signing, but labels also have the ability to illegally drop their end of the contract if the artist doesn't take off -- if you're not selling albums, you certainly don't have money to hire a lawyer, do you? Anyway.

      The industry of identifying and distributing recorded music no longer requires the billions of dollars currently invested in it. Recording is cheaper than it's ever been -- not that that was responsible for most of the markup in the first place -- and the problem of distribution is more solved than the RIAA would care to discuss. If it weren't for the RIAA's additional efforts to stifle online and independent radio, and other forums for finding new music, that source of value in the industry would also be considerably leaner.

      Now, identifying who's good and who sucks has value. We're used to seeing creative content spoonfed to consumers by some industry, since that's how music, movies, and print publishing have always been. But what about websites? The Web is a content industry that sprung up without an industry to be its cheerleader: You wouldn't expect a WWWAA to select the "best" websites for us, advertise them, and tack on a commission for the service -- and still be the primary way to access web pages. You can use a search engine, can't you?
      It should and will be the same with any digitized content, eventually. A combination of Musician's Friend and Google can effectively replace 95% of the existing recording industry.

      However, musicians still often seem a little obsessed with the glamor of the old way. It's not as fun to tour in a beat-up van for years and know you'll never be on Cribs. That's not hot. We like watching a few lucky musicians become stupidly rich, then maybe realize they don't actually have that much in the bank and go broke 3 years later. The old content industry is much better at delivering tabloid material and meteoric rise-to-fame, crash-and-burn stories, the ones that let one-hit wonders live like Al Pacino in Scarface for exactly 18 months, nail twins, and burn their own mansions to the ground. That's why I learned guitar in the first place. It's probably why most people pay attention to popular music. We'll have more independent music in the new digital era, but we won't have the flagrant, unsustainable insanity that piques the public interest. E! will die.

    16. Re:Sadly.... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you even read the first paragraph of the GP? You know, where he pointed out that the record companies don't just ask for artists to sign contracts that some might consider unfair (arguable whether they are unfair or not, conceded). They ask for this, and then they turn around and commit contract fraud by lying to the artists about how much money is really being brought in, etc. Whether the original contract was fair or not, and whether you think contract fraud is fair or not, the law of the land says that contract fraud is no bueno.

      The fact that people still sign contracts with these companies is very suggestive that perhaps they feel that there are no alternatives. It suggests that people are resigned to getting screwed over, not necessarily on the contracts themselves, but on how closely those contracts are followed. It suggests that people feel like there is no alternative but to idly sit by and watch the law be broken. I say that this is a very bad thing indeed.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  3. Nice to see... by Churla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  4. Finally! by Lockejaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    It's about time we started hearing this sort of thing again.
    --
    (IANAL)
    1. Re:Finally! by pdboddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      They make their money by making people buy one cd for the car, one for the computer, one for the portable cd player, and download mp3s for their iPod/mp3 player... The sort of thing the copyright laws were supposed to prevent.

      --
      Julie Moult is an idiot.
    2. Re:Finally! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, they are, and I include all copyright holders in this as well. Go out and try to find a brand new Travelling Wilbury's CD. You can't, and you won't be able to until sometime near the year 2100 when it goes into the public domain.

      Same goes for the original recordings of some classic albums. I don't want the greatest hits copyrighted from 2006, I want to buy a brand new CD with the same record that I grew up with. Take THAT Corey Hart, you stupid Canadian money grubber. You had what, two records? And one of them was a hit? I want to buy your "First Offense" CD, not the Corey Hart greatest hits. It's absurd that you've even got a greatest hits anyway, when "First Offense" had all of hits anyway.

      If copyrights were limited as they should be, Corey Hart would be in the public domain by now, or soon, and I could just get a copy of the CD from anybody.

      Right now, I don't have any way to get a legal copy of the CD I want to buy. Thank god I already have the entire run of "The Golden Girls" on DVD, or I would have to wait until the next century for my masturbation material.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Finally! by HeadachesAbound · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ripped from an email in response to a fax that I sent concerning copyright issues / problems. It may be a form response, but who knows, maybe somebody is paying attention.

      >>>>>>
      Thank you for contacting me regarding copyright protection. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

      Copyright protection has been central to America's prosperity and job creation. Movies, books, computer software, television, photography and music are among our unique American products and some of our most successful exports. United States industries depending on copyright protection employ nearly 4 million workers and produce over $65 billion of our exports ( more than agriculture and automobile manufacturing.

      Protecting content in a high-technology age is a new and daunting problem, and copyright protection is an important challenge as the broadband revolution offers even more far-reaching possibilities and opportunities. With new speed and interactivity, the entire store of movies, music, books, television and raw knowledge can be made widely available. I believe copyright protection is a foundation of innovation, and copyright law should work to ultimately protect the best interests of consumers. Intellectual property is the creative core of the information age, and I agree this is a pivotal issue for Congress to address.

      I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.

      Sincerely, Kay Bailey Hutchison

    4. Re:Finally! by Himring · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny? If only it were a joke. To me, John Fogerty being made to go to court to prove he didn't sound like himself (comparing new recordings he did to old when changing labels) is one of the prime examples of the insanity that is the RIAA....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    5. Re:Finally! by goodtim · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right now, I don't have any way to get a legal copy of the CD I want to buy. Thank god I already have the entire run of "The Golden Girls" on DVD, or I would have to wait until the next century for my masturbation material. I really wish there was a -1, Disturbing mod.
      --
      "Flee at once, all is discovered."
  5. Let me be the first to say by pak9rabid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yay for legal precedent

  6. Yay by jswigart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Another bit of a gut check for the Rectum Insertion Academy of America.

  7. Question by MicktheMech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Question by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, they're sealed - the RIAA won the fight to keep them out of the public eye, citing possible damage to other lawsuits in progress.

    2. Re:Question by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative
      They are presently confidential.

      But when the Court's final decision fixing the amount of fees is issued, the details will probably be in the decision.

      And if the RIAA appeals, then the underlying papers will be filed as part of the appellate record, and it is highly unlikely that the appeals court would keep them confidential.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    3. Re:Question by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative
      With each dilatory move the RIAA has made in Capitol v. Foster, it seems to be digging its grave just a little bit deeper.

      I can't for the life of me fathom what they are doing other than enriching their lawyers. Plus they're ensuring that Ms. Foster's attorney will have a nice payday at the end of this, which will enable her to help many more RIAA victims.

      They're turning a $55,000 attorneys fees award into a $150,000 award, and spending a lot of money to do it.

      Plus they're ensuring that their fee arrangements -- which they don't want people like me to know about -- will become public.

      Go figure.

      I've been in the litigation field for 32 1/2 years, and I can't imagine what they are thinking.

      But Capitol v. Foster has already given the rest of us a number of excellent judicial precedents, and it seems that more are on the way.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Question by ChronosWS · · Score: 4, Informative

      IANAL, but I would think the judge would then cite the corporation for contempt, which probably gives the judge a fair bit of latitude to make things happen. Corporations could also have their business licenses revoked, income could probably be taken by the government, etc. Remember even though corporations are considered legal persons, they still exist because the government and legal system lets them.

      Would be interesting to know what the full process is though.

  8. In legalese, "Disingenuous" means... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Lying Bitches"

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  9. Why don't "we the people" by Sodade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Why don't "we the people" by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need a blue-collar musician class.

      In older times, this was called a union. Its kindof a bad word today, but in order for artists to get around the RIAA and Tickemaster and any new incarnation of the same, a union may actually be something that can protect their rights.

    2. Re:Why don't "we the people" by Mattintosh · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Unions" are for laborers. Factory workers, service-job workers (bus drivers, retail clerks, etc.) should be in unions. (Or not, depending on how they feel on that issue.)

      "Guilds" are for artists and creators. Engineers, actors, painters, musicians, and even computer programmers should be in guilds, not unions. (Again, "or not" applies here.)

      Unions got a bad name from the corrupt officials in their organizations (past, present, and probably future). Guilds don't have that problem.

    3. Re:Why don't "we the people" by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thile we're at it, eliminate Ticketmaster.

      You spelled "Ticketbastard" wrong.
      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    4. Re:Why don't "we the people" by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Guilds" also evokes images of brave warriors, armed with magic swords and shields, courageously exploring dangerous dungeons full of orcs, trolls, and other denizens.

      If I join an engineer's guild, do I get to carry a sword around and wear chain mail armor made of mithril?

    5. Re:Why don't "we the people" by Khashishi · · Score: 4, Funny
      If I join an engineer's guild, do I get to carry a sword around and wear chain mail armor made of mithril?

      No, but you do get to carry a gold pen and you get to wear armor for your pocket.

  10. fscking A!! by VorlonFog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:fscking A!! by Mattintosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Too bad they're thoroughly incompentent in everything they do.

      FixVTS

      RipIt4Me

      Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA are a little vaklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

  11. I felt a disturbance on the net... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...like a thousand record company executives suddenly sending each other whiney e-mails.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Judges, no... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... but politicians can. How much does a Senator or Representative go for, these days?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  13. Unequal income litigation by iamacat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Unequal income litigation by DDX_2002 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Should there be an award of costs if you sue someone and lose? Damn straight, that's how the British and the Canadians have always done it and it really cuts down on frivolous litigation. Costs in those systems aren't anything near actual solicitor-client costs, but they're high enough to make people think twice about wasting the court's time and the defendant's money.

      As to damages based on respective income level, dear god no. That change would completely and utterly overwhelm your first point - if McDonalds injures me to the tune of an actual loss of $1 out of my pocket, I shouldn't be able to claim $1000 just because they're a big company. That creates an enrichment in me and a huge incentive to sue big companies over frivolities. Conversely, if someone backs into Bill Gates' car, he should get less than the cost of fixing it why, exactly? If I have a $1 loss, it is perfectly reasonable to say megacorp defendant who caused the loss need to pay me $1, my filing fees and a reasonable amount on top of the real loss for my discomfort/trouble/pain/annoyance, but as a matter of legal and economic theory, I should *never* come out ahead by suing. A lawsuit is not a jackpot and god help us all if it ever becomes such (though many would argue the US is already there). Now, having said that punitive damage awards do happen- those enrich the plaintiff and are economically questionable, especially on the scale sometimes seen in US courts. But the theory is, megacorp can afford to lose $3 to cause a $1 injury if they actually make $3.25 by doing it or if they only get caught at this one time in ten, so sometimes you need to put a thumb on the scale, as it were. Punitive damages are intended to send the clear message not to do the complained of act again and avoid hundreds or thousands of other people having to sue to make the same point. They are also meant to be rare and in Canada, actually are.

      --
      MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
  14. Finding common ground in a new age by Borland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    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 .doc, .avi, .mp3, or other format and choose the correct interpreter in addition to the language barrier.

    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.

  15. Hurrah! Perhaps the tide will turn! by HikingStick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...
  16. Try Thinking Next Time. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Try Thinking Next Time. by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Funny

      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. Since when did having an ISP connection... nay, even a computer become a requirement for being sued by the MAFIAA?
  17. Funny accounting..... by tinkerghost · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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'.