Slashdot Mirror
US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."
As well they should! It is well known that pirates are destroying the Intellectual Property of our Great Nation. They avoid detection using illegal hacker tools like poxie servers. They try to impose their communist agenda by using European software like Linux and satanic browsers like Firefox. Also, the DOJ is under grave pressure from activist judges who don't like the fact that Alberto Gonzales is a Mexian immigrant. This should give the lie-beral Democ-rats something to think about!
"Who can resist the union of the two towers." --Saruman
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Is it now the responsibility of the RIAA / US DOJ to show that the $750/song is constitutional? Or is it the defendant's responsibility to show it is unconstitutional? How would this work?
Unless you're an executive for a major coporation of course...
This is disgusting. The RIAA goes around harassing random people on the net (with no real evidence to show they were filesharing) and demands an outrageous amount of money per song, and the government continues to *HELP* them do this?
ARRRGGHHH!!
Hello politicians:
We voted for you.
You work for us.
We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off.
These thugs are harassing people YOU represent and you are letting them.
Stop being corrupt money-grubbing assholes and help us.
(of course I'm not so naive to think politicians will ever actually listen to us, but one can dream right?)
Why do you assume the justice dept will be on the RIAA side or even choose to intervene at all?
The docs state the 60 days were not apposed by the defendent.
The old music business model is over RIAA... Yes, I know that for a while you made allot of money by forcing overpriced albums down the throats of the consumer who never wanted just albums, but it is over now... Technology and communication has destroyed you business of "we make our money by making it available to you" type distribution model... To fear to bad, as most software companies are realizing the same thing... The key thing to remember, though, RIAA, is that no matter how hard you sue, or the sheer number of people you sue, nothing will change this fact..
:-)
OK. There.. You now you know it... Now you can start the process of acceptance and healing..
How funny that our tax dollars are being used to help a beligerant corporation make it's case, but why doesn't the common citizen get such help?
Maybe I'm missing something here...
Blar.
I've read the links, and it's still not clear to me exactly what the significance of this is. Could someone please translate this from legalese to English please?
The RIAA is simply WayStupid idiots. Or not actually: No other business entity on the planet could operate the way they do, except a government agency. And that my friends is what scares the shit out of me!
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Just as the Plaintiff is required to notify the court and the DoJ
from the Plaintiff's answer and counterclaim:
"Rule 24(c) further provides that "[a] party challenging the constitutionality of legislation should call the attention of the court to its consequential duty" to notify the Attorney General of the United Sates under 28 U.S.C. 2403. Defendant Boggs therefore is submitting concurrently with this Answer a Notification to call the attention of this Court to his challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c)."
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sorry guys, but I agree with the judges. There is nothing in the constitution that says the RIAA can't sue you for however much they want to. It doesn't mean they'll get it (that amount is up to the judge) but there is no way its unconstitutional. I think they should charge people $1 per song, thats how much you can buy a fucking song for on iTunes. If I steal a box of twinkies that costs $5, and people see me do it and they go and steal another 99 boxes, I don't have to pay $500 to pay for them all, just the $5 for the one I stole.
-Bill
Surely theoretically, if the RIAA sues someone, and taht person had never bought an album, then there is good reason to beleive the person would never buy any of the songs, so the RIAA has lost nothing, and therefore has nothing to sue for.....?
dood...
.. no goatse, but not hawt either....meh!
i just wnet there
You know the REAL problem here? Is they DON'T work for you, and they don't really CARE what you say you want. And the kicker is, they will likely STILL get reelected.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
on used CD sales than on piracy. Why put all this effort into lawsuits that make them even more unpopular and give people a rationalization for piracy?
'Nuff said.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
If you read the motion in question, you'll see one thing this is not is Big Evil Government joining forces with Big Evil Recording Industry.
/. editors), that this is utterly routine and has about zero bearing on whether or not he'll win the case.
The background is that, as part of his defence (and a counterclaim), the defendant in the RIAA suit has said that (1) not only is he innocent, but (2) the act of Congress establishing the basis under which he was sued is unconstitutional. That's certainly going for the Moon.
In any case in which a Federal law might be declared unconstitutional, not surprisingly the Federal Gov't takes an interest, and might decide to defend the constitutionality of the law. Should they succeed, that does not mean the defendant loses, of course. It only means he can't get a bye, in the sense that the very law under which he was charged vanishes.
The only thing unique about this case is that the Federal Gov't asserts that it did not previously receive sufficient notice of the case to have time to decide, in the routine way, whether or not to defend the constitutionality of the law in question. So they filed a motion with the Court asking for 60 days to think it over. This motion was unopposed by the defendant, who apparently realizes (at least more so than certain credulous
I mean, unless you're so naive as to think that the argument in Court will go like this:
RIAA (pointing skeletal finger): You broke the law, fiend!
Defendant: Did not. And besides, the law's unjust and should not exist.
Judge: Really? What makes you think so?
Defendant: Well, I...
Uncle Sam (interrupting): Hold on thar a gosh-darned minute! I say that law is fair!
Judge (bowing to Uncle Sam): Well, in THAT case, it must be. Defendent, you lose.
Defendant: Curses! If only Uncle Sam hadn't known about this trial...
RIAA (twirls mustache): Ha ha ha!
They can have the DoJ, but we get the DoD.
Lawyers and motions are countered by M-16's and airstrikes
If people just get fined retail value when they steal something, then there is no punitive/discouragement factor.
Need/want something? Try to steal it. If you get busted then you pay the ticket price and mutter something about bad luck. Clearly that won't work.
There needs to be some sort of punitive damages to discourage further activity. $750 per song is probably a bit steep, but charging any reasonable flat rate per song is probably a crazy way to address the issue. Perhaps they should fine $1 per song plus some punitive damages ($500 for up to 10 songs, $1000 for more).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This is a great resource but it's all a little heavy going.
It there a site that summarises the key points for the benefit of the stupid?
It wasn't the plantiff (RIAA) that called in the federal dogs, it was the defendent. I'm reading through the defense's response and counterclaims right now. The issue is that the law requires that the Feds be notified about an accusation of an unconstitutional claim. The dependent therefore demanded that the government intervene to decide on the RIAA's claimed price of $750.
FWIW, this document is wonderful reading. The lawyer is throwing every book on his shelf at the RIAA, and when he runs out he heads over to Barnes and Noble and keeps chucking. He's got everything from Lachs, Estoppel, Waivers, Unclean Hands, Racketeering, Statue of Limitations, Failure to Mitigate, Copyright Misuse, Failure to register copyrights, Failure to prove copyrights, Failure to provide notice of a subpoena, insufficient service of process, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and good God my fingers are getting tired.
If this document is any indication of the caliber of lawyer Mr. Boggs has hired, than I'd say the RIAA will soon be running away at top speed with its tail between its legs. Huzzah!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.
"You work for us."
They only work for voters and supporters. The best way to get your opinion heard is to vote and contribute to campaigns. BTW, contributing to the opposing candidate works too. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. If you say "I will support your opponent in the next elections." they can check if you have ever supported any candidates before. If not they will treat it as an empty threat.
"We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off."
Have you actually told your congressman this? I email my congressman regularly on issues that are important to me. I hope you do as well.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
That is not how this system works.
The RIAA campaigned for laws that were in the best interest of their respective shareholders. Copyright laws were passed. The RIAA issues lawsuits based on those laws. The Department of Justice carries out the letter of the law. There is no reason to complain about entities that continue to function as they were intended.
Personally, I would be displeased with actions of the RIAA if I was a shareholder. I do not believe that I ever will be, however, as the standard business structure of this industry does not seem to be viable.
IANAL, so this may be a stupid question...
Could someone file a class-action against the RIAA and/or Mediasentry since apparently everyone in the US is at risk for their extortion practices? The class would be everyone in the US, or everyone in the US with Internet access, who has NOT been targeted by the RIAA... Since the RIAA's tactics are becoming public knowledge as people have defended themselves and counter-sued, and since Mediasentry amounts to nothing more than a bunch of computer hackers, would this be possible? The goal here would not be to extract $$$ (although that would be a nice benefit), but to get an injunction against their practices. (Can an injunction be laid against someone to prevent them from filing more lawsuits?) What about trying to have the RIAA declared to be a malicious litigant ? (I believe there's a better term for this but I can't remember...)
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
/. is linking to an 'article' that is like 5 words longer than the quoted text. Would it, maybe, be useful to have a link to something that actually says What Does This Mean To The Average Slashdot Audience? Mini-rant off. Thanks for letting me vent.
If only I had mod points for both you and the post above right now.
What happened to by the people for the people? Now it's by the people for the Corporations? WAKE THE F UP!
You word a story one way and next everyone is pissed off that the Government is in the Pocket of the RIAA, word it another way and suddenly the Government is only doing their job.
The fact is, that even though in this example, it seems as the Government is purely acting on protocol, there are Many examples where the Feds look at the RIAA more as another Agency in the Government than as just another Company, that in which it is at the end of the day, a Company that is Lawsuit Happy, and abusing it's Carte Blanc because no one with the Appropriate Power to do something to at least appear their on the side of the People, are not about to lift a Finger.
I would love to know the machinations that got the DOJ on _this_ case.
1. It's likely we'll never know because few, care enough about their government enough to pay attention. They are marginalized as "special interest groups."
2. Still. Who calls who(m?) in this situation.
Similarly, I'd love to know who called who(m?) when the whole RIM patent case was in-process to have the patents in question magically invalidated.
End Note: grammar nazis, please do the following:
1. correct my usage of who/whom in this post. I'm too lazy to look it up.
2. Provide rules for proper usage.
3. Provide handy shortcut for remembering proper usage.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I agree with you. It's all explained in the Godfather novel.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
So your suggesting that since the RIAA is bribing officials we should offer a counter-bribe?
Great idea!
I think it is an extremely important challenge. The concept of "punishment fitting the crime" is more than just an ideal to be upheld in American law, it is actually part of the Constitution. You know, the whole "nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," thing. Seems pretty easy to argue that the statutory fines in copyright cases are excessive in relation to the actual harm. Would be the same kind of deal if a simple speeding ticket for going 5 miles an hour over carried a $5,000 fine or something.
I'm glad someone is finally pushing the issue of the excessive fines. Actually what I'd really like to see challenged is copyright lengths themselves. The Constitution has something to say on that as well, specifically "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Not hard to see how current copyright lengths violate both the "to promote progress" part and the "limited times" part.
This
I understand; Slashbots are supposed to react to both the RIAA and politicians with knee-jerk indignation, regardless of how little they understand the matter at hand.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Have some balls. Go to opensecrets.org and see which party the MAFIAA has in their pocket.
Hint: it ain't the Republicans...
What are the odds that "may" will turn into "will"?
In favor:
[X] RIAA has friends in congress.
[X] Lobbyists have a lot more "access" than the ordinary Joe or Jane Doe,
[X] Politicians know their RIAA reps can score them some good "juice" and will keep their mouths shut
Against:
[_] Politicians care about voters
[_] Politicians understand concepts like "fair use"
[_] Prosecuters are immune from political pressure.
Looks like 3-0 in favor of the RIAA from here ...
After all, do you really expect politicians' common sense will prevail in the face of free booze, sex, drugs, and power, if people are dick-headed enough to do this? (NOTE: NSA - Not Safe Anywhere)
Kevin Smith on Prince
I believe there was something that NYCL or another mentioned that I can only paraphrase badly (so look it up yourself / get a lawyer if it's important to you), but there was some federal case or another in which they decided that any penalties in excess of 100 times the actual damages were presumably unconstitutional per the cruel and unusual punishment part (eve if they'd be more 'unusual' than 'cruel'). And because these are *statutory* damages (i.e. amounts written into law because real damages might be hard to prove in court) that could make the law itself wrong.
So that might well give them a leg to stand on in court. Of course, I seem to recall that the RIAA has been recovering significantly less than that (settling for only a few thousand dollars even when many songs were traded), so I don't know how that all works out. That's what you hire a lawyer for, because I'm not one and you'd be crazy to use this half-remembered anecdote as legal advice.
Good thing they're spending time and resources on this and not investigating the Secretary of the Department of Justice for lying through his teeth.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
750 bucks per song is totally reasonable. if kids wernt out STEALING the songs that the company paid to make, then they wouldnt have had to create the RIAA, and hire all its employees. plus they hadda build buildings to house all the riaa stuff.
but what i dont understand is why shoplifters arnt sued by, say...hienze for stealing that 1.50 bottle of katsup for 1000 dollars.
why isnt ford sueing car theifs for a few million? or marvel or DC comics sueing for a few 1000 for eachh commic book?
the riaa will die, the giant companies will fall, just sad to know it will be after my lil life is over
Yes we voted for them, but we are a mindless mob, who votes for whatever we are told by the talking box... And what does the talking box tell us? why whatever the person with the deepest pockets says of course. It's a shame there's never a good choice at the ballots, just a bought and paid for republican, and a bought and paid for democrat, take your pick. I'd love to win an office with no illusion of being re-elected, so that I could do what I felt was right vs. what I felt would get be re-elected via large contributions to afford the advertising.
and I understand that what I feel is right won't be what someone else feels is right... shame a single vote doesn't count for much anyway, either in elections, or congressional votes.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
Not a bad idea.
Instead of asking for donations for ads in the Times, you could all pool your money and buy a legislator.
Buy enough of those and you could form the "Geek Caucus".
No sig
Suing Apply now saying they should be paying his publishing company and not the record labels only: http://news.com.com/Report+Eminem+sues+Apple+for+c opyright+infringement/2100-1030_3-6199888.html?par t=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
"All the publishers are rankled that they have to go after the record labels to collect their fees," Sloan said. "Sometimes these fees may not be accounted for properly. The publishers would prefer to collect directly from the source instead of the labels."
Let me fix that for ya...
This is disgusting. The RIAA goes around harassing random people on the net (with no real evidence to show they were filesharing) and demands an outrageous amount of money per song, and the government continues to *HELP* them do this!!!
Of course.
Hello politicians:
They bribed you and they bribed your opponent. The fix is in, whichever one of you loses, the corporations win and ZorinLynx and mcgrew and all the other serfs who have nothing to offer you except one puny little vote each lose.
You work for the corporations who bribed you with campaign contributions; contributions that nobody who isn't eligible to vote for you should be eligible to make.
We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off, but we know damned well it's We, The People who you will tell to fuck off.
These thugs YOU represent are harassing people who actually have NO representation and you are letting them, of course. That's what they paid you for.
You might as well continue being corrupt money-grubbing assholes. "The root of all evil" is, after all America's National Religion.
Carry on with your treasonous, corrupt ways. Meanwhile some of us will stop wasting our votes voting for someone who supports those whose interests are counter to ours, stop voting for either wing of the Corporate Republicrat Party and start voting third party.
-mcgrew
well I don't know how I managed to type Apple as Apply twice... long day at work I guess.
Congressmen do not read their emails. *maybe* a staffer will read the email and send a form response. But if you think sending emails makes a difference, then you're living in a fantasy land. Campaign donations can make a difference, but only if you making large enough contributions to get invited to some of their fundraising dinners and get some face time. If your congressman does not recognize you on sight, your not making any difference in their policy decisions.
I disagree. My father was a career politician. I know some congressmen. It is true that they do not read all their email. A staffer reads it and gives his boss an overview of what the level of interest and opinions are. I know they are getting read, because I always get back a policy paper on the subject I wrote about. Sure it is a form letter. I do not expect any more than that.
My point is that if you are not participating in the process, you are wasting your own time groaning about the results.
Everyone keeps saying that money controls the politicians. The only reason that is true, is because they can use that money to change public opinion. If we had an informed active electorate, the politicians would have to listen. If you are not trying to be part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
"We voted for you."
Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.
I really hope not. I was under the impression that my voting record was private.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Are you kidding?
You and I common Citizens are only allowed to live free because of our >50% probability of making rich people richer. Our society is set up so that as soon as it looks like we are not going to be a net positive benefit to the wealthy/powerful we are conveniently found violating some law and thrown into jail.
In the US they can't determine who you voted for, only whether you did or not.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The point others have made is that stealing 1 Twinkie results in a fine of $500, and stealing 50 twinkies in a box results in a fine of about $600. However, the RIAA argues that pirating 1 song is a $750 fine, and pirating 50 songs is a $37,500 fine. When there is less liability in stealing CDs from a store than sharing them, it hardly encourages proper behavior.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
These cases should never have gotten past the John Doe/Ex Parte stage. You know, that point where the RIAA goes to court in secret, files a case they never intend to pursue, and sues dozens of John Doe IP addresses just to force ISPs to have to release private identity information that they can't get otherwise. These cases should be opposed at that point on all of the following basis -- as well as other's I can't even think of. For a good starting point, however, attack the RIAA at this point where their case is the weakest on the following points:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What the RIAA is claiming is not actionable under current law.
Using unlicensed investigators in the state where the defendant resides. Media Sentry is not licensed to perform investigations in most states, and some right-minded states have laws against this. In short, any evidence provided is tainted.
The illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated defendants. This has been ruled against already by a federal judge in Texas.
The requirement to turn over identity information as justified by the Cable Act of 1984. A judge in a case against one of the colleges shot this one down, pointing out that many of these systems aren't actually cable networks, and that even if they are, that the requirement to turn over subscriber information means only to the federal government itself. The RIAA should be suing under the DCMA, which only allows them to issue take-down notices. In short, there is no law supporting the turning over of subscriber identities to the RIAA in the first place.
John Doe defendants may not reside in areas under the jurisdiction of this court, and as such the court has no right to reveal their private information. Any information turned over by an ISP should go directly to the judge, and he (she) says absolutely NOTHING about any identity outside of its jurisdiction.
The whole John Doe process from the beginning is a fraud on the court, because the RIAA has no intention of using the information gleaned in the instant case. Once they have it, they instead take it and attempt to extort money from thousands of people with threats, lies, and intimidation. The courts should be no part of this. All identity information revealed should only be allowed to be used in the case it was revealed as part of.
The RIAA's contentions of continuous and ongoing copyright infringement are not at all supported by the facts, which show only a snapshot of a single instance at one point in time. This lie was uncovered when the computer in question actually was destroyed in a fire MONTHS BEFORE the RIAA contended that the infringement they'd detected was still ongoing. This was an apparent fraud to get around the statute of limitations, which would have expired otherwise. The RIAA should be SEVERELY sanctioned, and all their cases thrown out of court, over this contention. At the very least, they should have to prove more than once instance with the same user before being allowed to make this bald faced lie!
The RIAA's arguments of irreparable harm have been ruled as exaggerations by one judge recently, on the basis of that they are easily compensated by money. In short, another exaggeration that rises to the level of another bald faced lie!
The RIAA's dogged contention that identification of the Internet account holder leads inevitably to the identification of the copyright infringer is deeply flawed. As such, they end up extorting and harassing many innocent people. Better evidence must be provided before subjecting ANYBODY to their "driftnet litigation process".
The RIAA is yet to present any evidence to show that their evidence collection methods are flawless, while there are many examples of them suing the wrong people based in this collection method. In short, they haven't provided sufficient good evidence to be allowed to continue with what they're continuing with.
The RIAA's belief
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The troller gets 4 points for being funny, and the guy complaining about the troll gets a troll moderation!
It kinda works out, because the troll WAS funny, and the complainer could have put little more effort into his post. -1 is fine, but it should be -1 overrated IMHO.
Blar.
The United States Department of JUSTICE is getting into the act? That'll help things for sure!
Not to troll, but honestly, how the hell can anyone take *this* DOJ, of all DOJ's, seriously when constitutionality is at stake? Oh right, because a bunch of lawyers *weren't* fired for not going with the neo-Con flow of things....
Your voting record is private in the sense that no one can tell who you voted for.
However, at least in the state I am in (and I imagine most others), the government has full access to who votes and in what elections. It keeps track of the last ten or so elections (state primaries, presidential, etc) and whether or not you cast a ballot, along with your basic personal information. The government certainly has access to this information, and provides it to parties that request it for a fee.
It is useful in checking to see if the employees taking off for voting are actually voting, registered voter statistics, party affiliations, etc.
zero points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
A. The RIAA sucks. B. The MPAA sucks. C. Bootleg as much as possile. D. Remember, counter sue for invasion of privacy.
Bush fired a few Attorneys. Clinton fired ALL of them.
In a civil case, there is no "statutory damages". In this case, there is. So therefore, the use of statutory damages either makes this a non-civil case (the judge isn't free to decide because GOVERNMENT force is in effect) or should be ignored.
PS When the recoding industry were fined, did they lose ALL their ill-gotten profit and a fine on top, or were they fined a small segment of their profit illegally obtained?
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 9 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Let us pretend for a moment that it's constitutional for them to be suing for this much. Does that even matter?
:P
If huge corporations are allowed to get away with bending the law for their own nefarious purposes, why can we the people not bend the law for our own GOOD purposes?
Since when does law = correct? My point is, even if it's legal for the RIAA/MPAA to be suing for 1,000,000 dollars a song in damages based on what I believe would be a simple technicality, that does not make it right or correct.
They're wrong simply because they're dirty and don't deserve the money, regardless of if it's legal for them to sue for that much.
Yeah yeah, I'm walking a thin line through a gray area here. Does anyone disagree with me? It's just a damn piece of paper, right?
Oh wait, that's what assholes say to get their way. Fine, let us, the GOOD people call it "just a damn piece of paper" to get OUR way. I'm sick of these fucking politicians and crooks sucking money out of our pockets by breaking the rules that they're supposed to be there to enforce, let's get them back.
If that doesn't work, well.. That's when the 2nd amendment comes into play.
As it turns out, Attorney General Gonzalez won't have to decide whether or not to intervene in the case after all.
It appears that the case has been settled.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You may have voted for them, but it's not you who is paying them. Voting Demoblican or Repucrat is throwing your vote away. Vote for a third party instead.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.