Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Trying To Avoid a Jury Trial
Joe Elliot writes "Faced with a jury trial set to begin on October 1, the RIAA has filed a motion for summary adjudication of specific facts: that the RIAA owns the copyrights to the songs in a file-sharing case; that the registration is proper; and that the defendant wasn't authorized to copy or distribute the recordings. If the judge rules in their favor, Ars notes that it may turn into a Novell v SCO situation where the only thing left to be decided are the damages. There are some significant problems with the copyright registrations — they don't match up. 'Thomas argues that since she lacks the financial means to conduct a thorough examination of the ownership history (e.g., track the ownership of "Hysteria" from Mercury to UMG) for the songs she is accused of infringing the copyright to, her only opportunity to determine their true ownership is either via discovery or cross-examination at trial.' Ars also notes that the RIAA's biggest fear is of losing a case. 'A loss at trial would be catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.'"
I'm going to voice my disapproval of this article without even reading what it's about, just because it was posted by kdawson. This seems to be the fashion around these parts.
What's fscked up about the justice system is that you probably have done something wrong; you just don't know what. And alternately, that you don't have to do something wrong to be arrested, tried and convicted. Or just, y'know, detained indefinitely.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Wont they of considered this possibility and have a defence ready?
Why would they of? (of what?!?)
Tagged.
Credit where it's due - you post some utter shite but this is a good and interesting story worthy of the front page. So thanks, and more of this quality please.
I can't ask the police to arrest you for trespassing on my neighbor's property
Well, you can ask...
Sender: RIAA (Registered Institute of ArsTechnia Arses)
:-p
FOR THE ATTENTION OF:
Keith Dawson
118-A Hollis Street
Groton, Massachusetts
Dear Mr. Dawson,
We represent Ars Technica, LLC ("Arse") and are authorized to act on Arse's behalf to investigate and take legal action with respect to the unauthorized dissemination of Arse's copyrighted material. It has come to our attention that you have posted a parapgraph of copyrighted material as detailed below from one of Arse's articles to the popular news site known as Slashdot as well as a link to the entirety of Arse's work on Arse's own site. The post in question can be located at http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/0156215 and is currently on the front page of your site located at http-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-org-slash. While we appreciate your interest in our articles, the copyright on the material posted on Slashdot is held by Arse and copyright law explicitly prohibits unauthorized display, distribution, referencing or thoughts of copyrighted works.
My client, Arse, therefore demand that you immediately remove the story from your site and help us avoid the dissemination of Arse's work in the future by refraining from linking to, viewing or having any thoughts about Arse or Arse's site.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation and I hope this violation can be promptly resolved,
Anonymous Arse,
Registered Institute of ArsTechnia Arses.
DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT:
1. The copyrighted work at issue is the article "With trial date looming, RIAA tries to avoid facing a jury" by Eric Bangeman posted on the Arse website at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070910-with-trial-date-looming-riaa-tries-to-avoid-facing-a-jury.html
2. Search Query: "Thomas is fighting the motion, saying that the plaintiffs need to prove two things: that they are the true copyright owners and that there was an act of infringement."
Infringing Web Pages:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/0156215
http://slashdot.org/
3. My email: riaa@arstechnia.com
4. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
5. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
7. My Copyrighted Digital Signature:
Wont they of considered this possibility and have a defence ready?
Why would they of? (of what?!?)
It's Mispeek:
"Wont" -> "Won't"
"of" -> "have"
"defence" -> "defense"
Welcome to MySpace English - mispeek.
Dekker Dreyer