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?)
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.
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
They can only sue you for what the law allows them to. You could make an argument that $750 a song, when the songs are sold for $1, is cruel and unusual punishment. No idea if this would work, but you could definitely argue it.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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
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!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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:
You obviously don't steal many Twinkies (or at least you don't often get bust for it).
Apparently neither do you.
If people just get fined retail value when they steal something, then there is no punitive/discouragement factor.
You are absolutely correct. A punishment component is both reasonable and required.
So for stealing a twinkie, $1.00 for the twinkie and $750 punitive fine is a perfectly reasonable judgement. However, if you stole a case of 100 twinkies instead of just one, what should your penalty be then? Would it be say, a single conviction, with a judgement of $100 for the twinkies plus $750 punitive fine or maybe even $800 or $900 in punitive damages? That seems fair to me.
Or would it be 100 convictions, each with a separate fine of $1 + $750 resulting in a $75,000 fine for stealing 100 twinkies.
THAT is how copyright infringement penalties works. There is a statutory $750 fine for each work that is infringed. The courts can't lower that amount, that minimum is right in the law.
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).
Yes. But their isn't, and the courts can't apply that scale even if they wanted to. The law requires that they be charged $750 per title infringed. Of course the RIAA is willing to 'settle' for far less... their 'good guys' after all.
But in the final analysis, a law that requires $375,000 in punitive damages for putting a few dozen cds on a web server, when the songs can be bought on itunes for $1 each is massively excessive, and that excessiveness can render it unconstitutional.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Unlike the Soviets, the Republicrat Party has convinced the citizens of the USSA that their vote does indeed count (at least the 45% of the citizens of the USSA who actually go to the polls). And they have convinced the 45% who go to the polls that the 55% who don't are apathetic. Well actually they are, who cares which one wins when neither has our interests at heart?
The corporations, each and every one of them, finance the USSA's elections 100%. Each corporation "contributes" to both wings of The Party.
When that great American corporation Sony can "donate" to both major parties of an election, it doesn't care who loses, Sony wins.
Shortly after they start snowball fighting in hell there will be two laws passed.
-mcgrew (splitting my vote vetween the Libertarians and Greens. I won't waste my vote on someone who not only doesn't represent me, but represents those whose interests are diametrically opposed to mine).
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."