Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Asks RIAA To Investigate Bush Twins
tanman writes "After reading an article in the Miami Herald that said "[President] Bush's twin daughters gave him a CD they had made for him to listen to while exercising," a Florida lawyer calculated statutory damages of $1.8 million and has sent a letter to the RIAA asking that they 'display the same vigor in prosecuting this matter and protecting the rights of your rights-holders that it has displayed in enforcing those rights against other alleged violators.' From the letter: 'This is a serious violation of copyright. As you know, whichever of your member organizations that are right[s]-holders for the copied musical works may be entitled to statutory damages of $150,000.00 per musical work copied.'" Update: 06/22 18:55 GMT by KD : The lawyer in question has retracted his analysis and now says no laws were broken, probably.
It's about time the RIAA took a stand against these music thieves. A colleague at my work who is known for having copied music went on a shooting spree. If the RIAA had dealt with him, I would not have had to step over bodybags on my way to lunch.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Nothing to see here AND two of the three links are dead... Fastest I've ever seen the US government react.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
After that, let's go for what's-his-sellout-bitch-ass from Metallica who admitted in an interview in the 90s making a mix take for a friend in the 80s. After the whole "napster bad" incident I lost what little respect I had for them after the black album, and would love to see them burn for their overall hypocrisy.
FIRE BAD!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1.8 million dollars in damages for a 18 dollar CD? Methinks the lawyers calculators have too many places on the left side of the decimal place.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Um... get real. The person is obviously more pissed at the RIAA than anyone, and just trying to point out that there is a privileged class in this country that the RIAA doesn't go after.
This space available.
This is like a while back President Bush said he had the Beatles on his iPod, when there was no legal way to get them on there. Sure, It's funny, but thats this isn't gonna change anyone's minds and there is no way the RIAA is gonna after him. Policians and celebrities don't have to play by the same rules as you and I, whats new?
Dumbass. It's got nothing to do with hating President Bush, and everything to do with showing everyone how stupid the RIAA is and how awful they've been to their own customers.
The Bush part is just a bonus.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
It's not about hated their dad. It is about whether the RIAA is selectively enforcing their copyrights; and the Bush twins are high profile collateral damage. I don't know about copyrights, but if you know someone is infringing on your trademark and you do nothing about it, you lose that trademark. The lawyer is letting them know about an infringement of copyright.
Oh my. This is hillarious. Get them off to dubai with the haliburton execs to avoid prosecution.
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be particular about who it makes friends with.
It has nothing to do with their Dad - it has to do with their visibility, due to their dad's station in life. If this were 10 years ago, he'd make the case against Chelsea Clinton.
It's about:
- media attention
- pointing out the absurd damages the RIAA claims
- pointing out that they don't go after those who are likely to be able to defend themselves
This guy's on our side.I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Copyright and trademark are entirely different things. IANAL but I'm quite certain that at least in the USA you cannot lose copyright by not prosecuting cases of infringement. Trademark on the other hand, can be lost if it isn't "protected".
who in the hell do you pull for in this one?
If there ever was a slashdot story/thread that would make the RIAA look like the, "good guys," ... yup, them going after President Bush,... that would do it! :-)
I'm sure the RIAA doesn't have any major problems with Mix-tapes, and have usually tolerated peopel giving these away. It's indiscriminate sharing of large numbers of files on P2P networks they sue over and the Bush Twins haven't been doing that.
The lawyer in question was found to be 'unreachable', although he did leave a forwarding address....in Cuba.
Copyrights don't work the same as trademarks in that they do not require an active defense to continue operating. But from a moral/political point of view, it is wrong/unwise for the **IA to be selective in their pursuits of 'violators' of their clients' copyrighted works, and doubly so in the public eye (as public officials are "role models", and also a generally privileged class).
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
So these are the daughter's of the president and their gift to him is a home made mix CD? Looks like someone forgot about Father's Day and had to think fast! In any event, while most the links are dead, how do we even know what was on the CD? Who said the music on it was actually copyrighted?
I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).
Maybe not under the law, but certainly in the public eye. The continued behavior of the **IAs requires legislative support for their preferred notion of how copyrights ought to work; if people get actively pissed off enough (and seeing el presidente and spawn get away with something that they can't is sure to do just that) the legislative support (and the favorable laws that accompany it) may evaporate. Of course, targeting politicans' daughters may make it evaporate as well. Oh well, guess they are screwed. If, you know, the media reported on media matters so that anyone would ever know about what is going on. Which will roughly be never. Hmm. I guess they aren't screwed after all.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
http://www.campchaos.com/blog-archives/old_cartoon s/napster_bad/
Can't Gonzales just fire this guy for "performance reasons"?
Burning a mix CD? For a Father's Day gift? Isn't that the college equivalent to macaroni art!?
but these poor women have had poor parenting. these teenaged girls have had poor parental guidance and roll models. it's easy for YOU who have had parents that imbued you with some intelligence, a sense of decency... would you laugh so hard if YOUR dad was GW Bush? i don't think so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe they'll be let off, like that record exec's son, with a stern talking to by their daddy. Any other person sued by the RIAA that wants to take that option too?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's a non-issue if they used a "Digital Audio Recording Device" and the CD-R was a "Digital Audio Recording Medium." I have such a device and use the slightly-more-expensive "music" CD-Rs when I make CDs for friends/family/myself (i.e. to have copy in car). I am exempt from infringement actions (I can't be prosecuted/sued for copyright infringement) for such activities. If they, like me, acted within the Home Audio Recording Act there is no story here...just FUD.
Think deeper!
Not hate Bush, hate RIAA.
It's like handing someone a pizza and telling them to deliver it to someone living in a van in the middle of an auto salvage yard, filled with dobermans and other junkyard dogs.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
You take the one on the left. I'll take the one on the right. Be sure to "hit" yours hard.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Keep in mind that the money-whoring, RIAA affiliated, Sound Exchange collects royalties on all songs broadcast by all artists -- even the ones who don't want royalties collected, and don't want to pay the high fees demanded by Sound Exchange just to get their money back. For a small artist it costs more than you'd recover, but then SE just keeps the money for itself. Talk about ripping off artists!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That's right. But you can lose your right to collect statutory and even actual damages in certain cases. There is a certain doctrine of law that says that if you don't do something to mitigate your own damages, then you can't collect because you allowed the abuse to occur. How and when you are unable to collect statutory damages is, of course, something decided in court on a case-by-case basis.
IANAL.
My blog
"There is a common practice in law these days called "selective prosecution"..."
You make it sound like this practice is considered legitimate by the Courts. In fact, if you can show evidence that you are being arbitrarily prosecuted and there isn't a legitimate justification, it is grounds in some courts, to have the entire proceedings Stayed as an 'abuse of process'. You must be harmed to bring a civil action. If you have no problem allowing others to infringe on your copyright, then there is reasonable grounds to believe it isn't really a harm. Under English Common law the Court has the power and responsibility to prevent any abuse of the judicial system. Treating individual offenders differently simply because they are a celebrity or politician or the President's daughter (etc) is such an abuse. In fact, not prosecuting the President's daughter may almost be seen as some kind of a bribe or attempt to improperly influence the Executive Branch.
A plaintiff with limited resources is justified in selectively prosecuting simply because they can't possibly go after everyone at once so have to choose their battles. This is not considered arbitrary, but it is a rational, and necessary evil. But the RIAA can hardly claim they lack the resources to prosecute the President's daughter when they are going after John Doe's, who for all they know, are dead broke.
Now perhaps this selective prosecution takes place behind the scenes where no one is looking. (I think we all know it does). But the courts have no power over what happens outside the court room where there is no evidence. It falls upon witnesses to bring evidence forward.
In this case there is evidence. The president himself has publically stated his daughter is guilty of making and distributing pirate music CD. I think that is actually a criminal offense now, is it not?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
"I forgot to mention in my last letter that this "George Bush" is a single paraplegic grandmother who is raising her own grandkids with her social security checks."
There, *now* they'll be interested in pursuing this one.
Do you have ESP?
You didn't even read TFA, did you? It says "Lawyer Asks RIAA To Investigate Bush Twins". Evidence generally does not preclude an investigation.
The lawyer is not reporting a crime. He's reporting suspicious activity which may be a crime, and calling for an investigation.
This has the potential to be a much more viable case to than having nothing more than a file and an IP address, which the RIAA regularly pursues.
Caption under the photo at the start of the article:
If I had been the plaintiff in that case, I would have sued for "promise of breeches".
Beef.
The attention-whore Florida attorney...
Hold on... has Jack Thompson moved on from gaming?
Careful now, all of you Slashdotties are going to be grossly guilty of hypocrisy if you don't support the twins right to make a mix CD. Unreasoned Bushy-hate should be no substitute for doing the "right thing". (That is, if you consider making a mix CD the right thing.)
For all you that feel making a mix CD is piracy, by all means, proceed to bash.
In other news:
The Bush Administration has stated that they know of no connection between these and the lawyer's actions regarding the twins.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
"digital audio recording medium," as defined by the act, only refers to _audio_ CD-Rs. These are special recordable CDs made to work in audio CD recorders, which will not record onto standard data CD-Rs (audio CD-Rs will also work in standard computer CD-R drives).
These audio CD-Rs are a bit harder to find, and a bit more expensive than standard data CD-Rs, because you indirectly pay a tax on them to the recording industry (it's collected at the wholesale level).
So, the Bush twins _might_ not be subject to copyright prosecution. OTOH, they do have GW's genes, so they're likely too stupid to know all of that, and probably used data CD-Rs, opening themselves up to prosecution.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
President Bush said he had the Beatles on his iPod, when there was no legal way to get them on there.
"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html
Tweet, tweet.
I am poor, I do not own a gun, I do not drive an SUV, I do not support Bush and I'm GLAD that Paris Hilton is getting a good taste of the judicial system.
Can you move back to the part where you explain why you are conservative? Particularly re: the part about being poor?
Not a liberal here. Just honestly curious why anyone believes in an ideology whose corporeal manifestations try very hard to deny you are worth the time of day, never mind any more substantial consideration.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Actually, the president is explicitly forbidden from pardoning himself. If he could, that would mean he'd be able to do anything and everything.
True, it just happens this was reported on the Bush twins. It would be no different if it was John Kerry's or Al Gore's children. But then again, John Kerry doesn't listen to any music until he's taken a straw poll first to figure which song he should listen to. And since Al Gore invented music, he might be able to show prior art to anything the RIAA sued him for. I kid! I kid!
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It shows to everyone what the bully truly is about: cowardice. All the bully can do is glare at the tormenter.
In the case of the RIAA, they are faced with a lose-lose-lose situation: even if they bring a case, and even if they win it, they lose politically. If they lose the case, they establish a bad precedent for themselves. Public humiliation is the least damaging of their options.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
C'mon... at least Capone was competent.
He was probably more charasmatic too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Read section 1008 of the "AUDIO HOME RECORDING ACT" Here; (pdf file)
The senate report on the act specifically cites making copies for family members as "non-commercial uses", and thus not an infringement.
My view on this is that the Lawyer was simply blinded by his extreme hatred of all things Bush and/or republican. This goes beyond bias this is pure unadulterated blinding hatred on the part of the lawyer and is propagated by other liberal Democrats that simply cannot get over the fact that George Bush beat Al Gore almost 8 years ago. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or President Bushes daughters. Headline should read; "Lawyer Blinded by Hatred Asks RIAA To Investigate Bush Twins"
Everyone reading this knows this to be true yet I am sure this will be modded down as "flamebait" due to that same ongoing hatred, simply because it reads to favor the Bushes when in truth it only reads as facts.
You be the judge.
Read it again and try to find bias on my part.
Don't confuse fact with bias.
No, the reason liberals offer money to the poor is that those at the top are more vulnerable than they think. Welfare is for society, not the poor. We did have this little thing called the great depression that happened before we had welfare. Every time someone loses a job, they no longer contribute to the economy. A little help up from the government helps the economy from spiraling down -- money, no matter where it comes from, gets spent. . .and that my dear conservative friend, keeps other people working. Yes, some people abuse the system, but that is far outweighed by not letting hardworking people on hard times fall thru the cracks. Why is that so hard for you people to understand? Not that you or anyone will read this comment, by an anonymous coward, buried in a dead end thread -- but what the hell.
The retraction is wrong. The exemption under AHRA only applies if a SCMS-supporting device is used. I don't think those can make mix CDs.
Here's the original, for as long as it stays up.
Yahoo's cache of retracted blog entry.
mccarthyism and the early salem witch trials ended when high profile people (read: close to the heart of those doing the prosecutions) were targeted as communists or witches. Hit the president's daughter and senators feel that they might be next and enact laws to save us all.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
I wish the RIAA would go forward and try to litigate the President's daughters. All of a sudden the President's attention would be very quickly and precisely to act against any current and future RIAA litigation by basically saying, you're a bullying group with no legal authority don't do this type of thing again or be disbanded. If only...
In what universe?
If you go by the legal definition, which is the context of this article and the RIAA's entire existence, then you are absolutely... wrong.
"Personal use" does NOT apply to giving away to others.
As I and most other understand, you are thinking in the "wishful", not "legal", contexts. In your mind, such copying should never be a problem.
But that is not the context of this discussion, so your argument is specious.