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 $150,000.00 per musical work copied.'" Update: 06/22 18:55 GMT by KD : The lawyer in question has retracted his analysis and now says no laws were broken, probably.
It's about time the RIAA took a stand against these music thieves. A colleague at my work who is known for having copied music went on a shooting spree. If the RIAA had dealt with him, I would not have had to step over bodybags on my way to lunch.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
1.8 million dollars in damages for a 18 dollar CD? Methinks the lawyers calculators have too many places on the left side of the decimal place.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Um... get real. The person is obviously more pissed at the RIAA than anyone, and just trying to point out that there is a privileged class in this country that the RIAA doesn't go after.
This space available.
It's not about hated their dad. It is about whether the RIAA is selectively enforcing their copyrights; and the Bush twins are high profile collateral damage. I don't know about copyrights, but if you know someone is infringing on your trademark and you do nothing about it, you lose that trademark. The lawyer is letting them know about an infringement of copyright.
It has nothing to do with their Dad - it has to do with their visibility, due to their dad's station in life. If this were 10 years ago, he'd make the case against Chelsea Clinton.
It's about:
- media attention
- pointing out the absurd damages the RIAA claims
- pointing out that they don't go after those who are likely to be able to defend themselves
This guy's on our side.I'm curious - if the RIAA decides not to prosecute, does this somehow weaken their future cases or set them up for government sanction? (I know, copyrights aren't trademarks).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
who in the hell do you pull for in this one?
Hold on - I think slashdot is b0rking them...
/ 06/copyright-is-dead.htmll ogspot.com/2007/06/copyright-is-dead-part-2.html
http://the_scrivener.blogspot.com/2007
http://the_scrivener.b
Yep, it is. There should be an underscore between 'the' and 'scrivener'. slashdot seems to be filtering that out for some reason, so I'm posting as "code" - you'll have to cut'n'paste links.
Have fun,
Nathan 'Nato' Uno
http://web.unos.net/
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
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?
"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.
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
However, pretty much everyone allows underscores in machine names now, so I'm patching Slash to allow it.
Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did not work for.
Being poor has nothing to do with that, unless you think that I should be eager to grab for what another person has labored for. Which, having not the attitude of a thief, I do not want to take. I am poor, not desperate.
Any part of that you don't understand?
Yeah, it's funny how that works. It's almost as if people can't process anything like: "while I don't agree with their competitors, I believe that person/company/ideology/etc. is behaving evilly." Exactly when did criticizing one group automatically mean you were working for the other side?
Conservatives have a tendency toward ethical blindness when it comes to the pracitcal human consequences of certain ideological fixed-points, like for example their belief in the awesome awesomeness of free markets as applied to everything under the sun. Many conservatives have the self-awareness to admit this is a weakness of their ideology, and some even attempt to address it. Damn heretics, I guess.
Liberals, if you want me to criticize those that I often criticize on a daily basis, have an insufficent appreciation for personal self-possession and responsibility, and tend to believe that underwriting centralized, highly inefficient bureaucracies is somehow a good way of providing services in the public interest. See? I can criticize yet another group I don't belong to. I am versatile.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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.
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?