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?
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
Simple. It's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. Translated another way, those who pay the most in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions and protection money^W^Wtaxes get the most protection.
*sigh*
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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
It's not even about contributions. They have money, therefore they are afforded respect and deference at our own expense. They're "good for the economy". They don't have to give much of the money away at all, just show it off, much like a peacock's feathers, or my preferred analogy, a baboon's ass.
Anything that's Good For The Economy is what Must Be Done. All other pursuits, goals, and ideals of this country are secondary to The Economy.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
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
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...
You're not missing anything.
The government doesn't even pretend to be on the side of the 'little guy' anymore.
They used to at least give lip service to the idea, but now they don't even try to hide their kleptocracy.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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).