RIAA-fighting Maine Law Professor Speaks Out

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an interview with Jon Newton of p2pnet, Prof. Deirdre Smith of the University of Maine says that 'our students are enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance'. The UM Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic is the first law school legal clinic in the U.S. to have taken on the RIAA, to have the opportunity for hands-on experience fighting the RIAA's effort to rewrite copyright law. Smith went on to say that the case is probably one of the first intellectual property cases the clinic has ever taken on, and that if it proceeds further, she expects to also 'draw on the considerable expertise in IP among members of our faculty and the Maine Center for Law and Innovation, another program of the Law School'. "

Comments

caveat

[User 956]

Prof. Deirdre Smith of the University of Maine says that 'our students are enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance'.

Of course they are. Just not personally.

RIAA fighting professor?

[rrohbeck]

Damn terrorists.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they hate freedom so much?

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is because they hate children. The thought of happy children listening to their wonderful DRMed music just drives these professors mad.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[mi]

Damn terrorists.

Interestingly, when I challenged an author of an equally stupid comment to substantiate their insinuation, that "the establishment" would label any opponent "terrorist", one of the replies tried to portray some legal challenges as a form of terrorism:

certain legal whores who allow or act to bring certain types of "private lawsuit"

So, ironically enough, somebody from the "burn the MAFIAA" camp is on record suggesting, legal challenges may be a form of "terrorism" (or something — the post is convoluted).

We are still awaiting the originally-requested examples from the other side — when was the term "terrorist" misused by the *AA (or, indeed, the US-government)?

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Opportunist]

Less misused. More inflated so it doesn't really have any meaning anymore. Everyone who commits a crime today that goes beyond petty theft is a terrorist. Someone running amok? A terrorist. Someone bullying is terrorizing. Nobody is afraid anymore, everyone's in terror. When you watch the news, you have to get the impression that under every other bed, a terrorist is lurking, and a splinter cell of Al Quaida is running the laundry on the ground floor.

When you keep plastering people with terror here and terror there, they will first be afraid, then notice that you're crying wolf, then they'll start ridiculing you by applying the term you wanted to use to frighten them to anything that is considered remotely "bad", in a mocking way of exaggerating, just as much as you did.

With "you", in this case, not necessarily being you, but whoever uses a far too strong and powerful term to describe something that's anything but as horrifying as it is being made.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[mi]

When you watch the news, you have to get the impression that under every other bed, a terrorist is lurking, and a splinter cell of Al Quaida is running the laundry on the ground floor.

No, you don't have to get this impression, and I don't know, why you would. Maybe some weaker-minded "sheeple" would get such an idea from flipping through the channels listening to each for no more than a few seconds, but that would not apply to anyone in this conversation, would it?

When you keep plastering people with terror here and terror there, they will first be afraid, then notice that you're crying wolf

Well, here we go. You seem to agree, that somebody somewhere has "cried wolf" a few too many times. If such is, indeed, your opinion, would you, please, substantiate it with a few examples of somebody being publicly suspected of terrorism without a good reason?

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Polumna]

When you keep plastering people with terror here and terror there, they will first be afraid, then notice that you're crying wolf Well, here we go. You seem to agree, that somebody somewhere has "cried wolf" a few too many times. If such is, indeed, your opinion, would you, please, substantiate it with a few examples of somebody being publicly suspected of terrorism without a good reason?
Restricting myself only to stories that have appeared on slashdot, and which I remember immediately off the top of my head:
1) Boston freaking out over homemade lite-brites of cartoon characters. (2 guys arrested)

2) The TSA freaking out over a girl with a small LED art project attached to her sweatshirt. (1 MIT student detained)

3) Someone getting a home-repaired or modified device confiscated at an airport over a resistor sticking out of its casing.

Of course this is entirely irrelevant, because you requested examples without a "good" reason, and anyone with a reactionary bent, opposed to even the slightest non-conformity, would find any of those examples perfectly within reason.

If I might say something slightly more on-topic to this story, I am sympathetic to your position. I imagine being a well intentioned believer in IP would be extremely frustrating right now, and I'll give your intentions the benefit of the doubt. While I am completely and utterly opposed to the *AAs current methodology of protecting their IP, I remain sympathetic to their plight. I understand that they are trying to exercise their rights any way that they can, in the face of a technology that makes it virtually impossible (any discussion of legality aside).

I sincerely (truly and honestly) suggest that you try to Get Over It (tm). You may very well be right. Most of slashdot, admittedly myself included, could be morally and ethically backing the wrong pony. It doesn't matter. Unless by some miracle something like trusted computing happens (and even then I have serious doubts), there is absolutely nothing that you, the government, lobbying groups, legal groups, or any deity can do about it. Even people like my technologically disinclined little brother's even more technologically disinclined friends know how to get whatever music they want from the comfort of their dorm rooms. And they do. And they will continue to. It is a fact of life at this point.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Xaositecte]

I always thought it was a dig on that anti-piracy campaign that went something along the lines of "When you download movies off the internet, you're supporting terrorism."

The most complete article I can google up comes, oddly enough, from Kuro5hin.

Some Guy named Rick McCallum shot off his mouth about how Piracy and Terrorism are the same.

I don't know about the states (I'm living in Germany with the Military, so the only english-language TV we get here is AFN) - but the anti-drug campaign that runs along similar lines is still going strong here, with a bunch of kids talking gravely about how they helped kill police officers and fund criminals when they're doing drugs is still going strong.

There is a (small) amount of support for the arguement, physically pirated discs (as opposed to bittorrent downloads) - are usually pressed by organized crime in Asia. A bit of the money they make off that probably ends up in the hands of one terrorist organization or another.

Same with Drugs, the Poppy fields in Afghanistan provide the vast majority of funds for the insurgency there.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[TapeCutter]

"when was the term "terrorist" misused by the *AA (or, indeed, the US-government)?"

You may be technically correct, I really don't know or care. However, when the "last superpower" gets up and says to the rest of the planet "your either with us or against us" the available categories are clear.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[Dr. Hellno]

unjustified suspicion of terrorism?

five words:

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Lightbrite.

Re:RIAA fighting professor?

[scuba0]

I have two examples of when the American media industri have missused the term terrorism:

Music piracy funds terrorism: IFPI
http://techlogg.com/cMusic piracy funds terrorism: IFPIontent/view/230/31/

"Terroristgruppen Gula Brigaderna spred träningsmanualer på piratserver!" (in Swedish, 2005)
http://copyriot.blogspot.com/2005/10/terroristgruppen-gula-brigaderna-spred.html

(above) A mail sent from MPA to the Swedish version of them: "After a raid by Swedish representatives of Antipiratbyrån and police of one of the largest Internet provider. they found 23 TB of pirated material.". More interesting is that noone knows (yet) of what was on the servers, and it is a small Internet provider. By looking at the revisions of the document sent they found that a paragraph was removed, what it said was: "Information from the local goverments implies that the servers also was used to distribute traininginstructions for a terrorgroup called Yellow Brigades". All of this was false information from MPA.

This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[davester666]

He is clearly trying to strike a blow and trying to destroy the very foundation of our society, which is intellectual property. And if he is successful at undermining that, in any way, he'll attack physical property. And using brainwashed law students to help him do it, thus also destroying our future. This man has no shame!

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[darkhitman]

Yeah, it's actually a she, if you had read the summary.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Falindraun]

Sounds like davester666 might work for the RIAA based on his comment.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Falindraun might work for the sarcastic joke killers, based on his comment.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ya know, when I read it I wasn't sure myself... my first reaction was that it was an RIAA shill.... then I thought it was a joke.... and then I couldn't make up my mind.

I'm a little slow on the uptake, but now that I take a second look.....

I have to say, Anonymous Coward, that you might work for the sarcastic joke reinforcers and the humorless Slashdotter prodders, based on your comment.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a guy that likes to dress up. How do you know?

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[memfrob]

This is slashdot. Be happy the GP read the TITLE.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for pointing it out, it sheds a whole new light on the grandparent's post! j/k Honestly some of this politically correctness shit is taken too seriously sometimes

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, not just destroying intellectual property, but also the sex distinctions which let our species breed. Clearly a dangerous communist traitor. Immediate termination required, citizen.

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Rockin'Robert]

Which part of gender is Intellectual Property
which part is "a terrourist"?
RR

Re:This professor is clearly a terrorist.

[Avwar]

Clearly he is a terrorist.., taking on the terrorist RIAA. Ultimately, when you sell something it isn't yours anymore. Why should some people earn money for life for one accomplishment, artistic or otherwise. Better yet, why should a bunch of corporate types be able to set themselves up for life based on profits from the work of others, basically creating monopolies with their inherent price fixing opportunities. It just breaks my heart to see terrorists slay one another.

About time

[proudfoot]

While it's debatable whether this challenge has much of a legal chance - from what the lawyer the lawyer types I've spoken to told me, it's not much of a challenge - the simple fact that this defense sets a rather important precedent - that schools shouldn't bend over without fighting it out first.

Re:About time

[Timesprout]

Some one else is always to blame. That myust be so comforting

RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[timmarhy]

honestly is all the bad press doing them any good? yes i agree people ripping and selling songs is wrong, no i don't think kids swaping songs is wrong. when i was younger i'd listen to a few songs off my mates collection and if i liked it i'd go hunting for that artists full collection for purchase.

i guess this really frightens no talent hacks, if people get to hear their trash before buying it, they'll fade away pretty quick.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

People can listen to no-talent hacks before they buy, on iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, etc, etc. There goes your rationale for it being ok to illegally copy other people's work. I have heard that nonsense so many times: "If I like it I go and buy the whole CD." or "I should be able to steal someone's work and if I like it I'll give them a few bucks, or I'll go see them live." When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying?

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[cp.tar]

When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying?

When supply outdid demand.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mi]

When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying?

When supply outdid demand.

False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away — however saturated the market may be.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The seller has been awarded a market-distorting copyright monopoly. The seller should be free to set a price, but not to prevent sale of properly attributed third-party copies. That way, free market economics could determine the optimal price with out appeal to socialistic "help the poor starving artists" crap. If they don't want something copied, they're free not to release in the first place. Screw 'em.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[dregs]

>When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying

Oh, only for the about 1850 of the last 2000 years.
In fact it still happens today, thats what buskars are.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Zigurd]

When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying?

That's no more of an arbitrary way to compensate a copyright holder than the legislated way of doing it that has become disconnected from the stated purpose for the government granted limited monopoly.

By "arbitrary" I mean that copyright and patent monopolies are a creation of government. Government could very well decide that copyright no longer exists and, unlike natural rights, there would be no appeal to a universal notion of human rights. If it became too burdensome to protect copyright for, say, recorded performances, governments could rationally decide to not protect them, or to scale back protection to where infringement would be inconsequential under law. This is very different from the rights government is prohibited from infringing on, and that are presumed to exist with or without a government that is instructed to respect those rights.

So, literally, it is up to people to decide what to pay.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mi]

The seller has been awarded a market-distorting copyright monopoly.

No, they have not. There are plenty of ways for the creators of the non-tangible intellectual property (be they musicians, movie-makers, or clothing designers) to sell their works. Some of them choose to sell their rights to a middleman such as a record-company, of which there are plenty.

The seller should be free to set a price, but not to prevent sale of properly attributed third-party copies.

There you go. Your mention of "properly attributed" reveals internal inconsistency of your point of view, thus demonstrating it as objectively wrong. If the creator has no right to control their creation, why should anyone bother "properly attributing"? Oops...

If they don't want something copied, they're free not to release in the first place. Screw 'em.

And if you don't want to be killed, you're free to stay indoors. Fortunately, the government is upholding the laws (mostly)...

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Dr_Art]

When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying? It's always been that way. If you want free, you listen to the artists on the radio. If you want to pay a $1/song, you buy from iTunes or similar service. If you want to pay $9,250/song, you get sued by the RIAA and lose. :-(

Regards,
Art

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Zigurd]

And if you don't want to be killed, you're free to stay indoors. Fortunately, the government is upholding the laws (mostly)...

That is a perfect illustration of how copyright is positioned, incorrectly, as equivalent to a human right.

Antigua and Barbuda has won the right, in an international tribunal, to disregard copyright protection of U.S. recorded performances.

If, instead, they won the "right" to kill Americans, that would be different, no? In reality, no tribunal could grant such a "right." And there you have the difference between copyright and self-ownership.

The right to waive U.S. copyright isn't even as significant as, say, a letter of marque. So copyright is really pretty low on the rights food chain.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's very interesting is that the companies that are part of the RIAA have been repeatedly charged with illegally price fixing and keeping CD's at above market value (aka they're stealing from the whole country). The MPAA broke copyright to bring you the "University toolkit" and refused to co-operate with the copyright holder. The Sony Rootkit was based on open source software that was used without permission and broke copyright. It's obviously OK to steal. It's just uncool to get caught doing it.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mi]

That is a perfect illustration of how copyright is positioned, incorrectly, as equivalent to a human right.

The right of the creator to control their creation is — correctly — understood as a human right. There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind. The right to control, of course, implies the right to transfer the ownership, which is how a record label gets to own a song, and I get to control a car.

Antigua and Barbuda has won the right, in an international tribunal, to disregard copyright protection of U.S. recorded performances. If, instead, they won the "right" to kill Americans, that would be different, no?

No. The right to wage war on another country has been granted to the injured countries by various international bodies many times. The remedy simply matches the offense.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[cpt kangarooski]

The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right.

Not around here, it's not. Copyright is optional, artificial, utilitarian, economic -- and nothing else.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[homer_s]

The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right. There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind.

You are absolutely correct. But the "right of the creator to control their creation" does not mean that "the creator is allowed to infringe on my right to create". I think that is what is overlooked by many who blindly support all forms of intellectual property.

I'm not talking about music in particular, but about the general idea of "I did ABC first, now you cannot do ABC (and a thousand things related to it)". This goes beyond your right as a creator and actually takes away my freedom to create.

I happen to think that intellectual property can be controlled by private parties via contract law without the need for government enforcement.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The seller has been awarded a market-distorting copyright monopoly.

> No, they have not. There are plenty of ways for the creators of the
> non-tangible intellectual property (be they musicians, movie-makers,
> or clothing designers) to sell their works. Some of them choose to
> sell their rights to a middleman such as a record-company, of which>
> there are plenty.

There are other ways to sell intellectual work, but many choose to publish their work under market-distorting copyright "monopoly". Now, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a monopoly. But in this day an age when information is not just plentiful, but overflowing, its stupid to try and base a money-making strategy on the sale of property alone. People should expect to provide some kind of service for their information, and make money from that service.

To me, this whole issue is about a failure to innovate in the face of new technology.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Maxo-Texas]

>The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right

Not at all.

Copyright is an inducement for creators to create things and make them available for others to use. The targeted benefit was to society- not to a select individual.

It was rightly set for a short period of time and there are many other kinds of creations which people do not get to keep the rights too.

A tiny subset of humans has asserted additional rights- but the fact is that society is beginning to route around them because there is such a huge glut of inexpensive entertainment.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[vux984]

False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away -- however saturated the market may be.

If that were actually true then the market wouldn't be saturated with product that could be taken for free.

The barrier to entry to the 'music replication and redistribution industry' have dropped to 'bored child with computer, internet access, and 5 minutes of spare time'.

The only issue left is IP rights which the p2p group don't have... and while society generally feels they owe something to the artists who created it... they don't feel an obligation to protect an industry that is so obsolete its entire business model is threatened by the aforementioned children with internet access.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[cp.tar]

False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away — however saturated the market may be.

The price may be still set by the seller, but that's the point: people don't feel like paying it.

And currently, the supply of music is such that:

1. you can never ever listen to it all. My gf has enough music on her computer to last her the whole February, 24/7. And that's on some 40 GB of disk space. iPod Classic comes in 80 and 160 GB sizes, IIRC. You do the math.
2. you can buy music legally, and, more often than not, have to deal with DRM. Or you can "steal" it, by downloading it from a p2p network for the sole price of bandwidth.

The problem is, the record companies are no longer the sole suppliers. Much as they'd like to be.
And their competition is so unfair: they charge absolutely nothing. Or, in the case of allofmp3.com or whatever it was called, offering their product at the price people were actually willing to pay, in a format they were actually willing to purchase.

The market evolves. Adapt or become extinct.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the creator has no right to control their creation, why should anyone bother "properly attributing"? For the sake of the people - the ones who actually view the artistic work, so that they can find out who's actually responsible for it.

There's a perfectly consistent point of view saying that there should be no copyright whatsoever, but that people still shouldn't be able to pass something off as their own work. Plagiarism != copyright violation.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mpe]

The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right

Where is this listed as a "human right"? There's also the issue that "control their creation" may well not equate to current concepts of "intellectual property"...

There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind.

So physical "things" are the same as abstract "things"?

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mpe]

I'm not talking about music in particular, but about the general idea of "I did ABC first, now you cannot do ABC (and a thousand things related to it)".

Or even "I told the Government I did ABC first (they were fooled), now you cannot do ABC (and a thousand things related to it). Even if you actually did ABC first it dosn't matter. Nor does it matter if ABC is itself a variation of something carried out since Neolitic times."

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[phulegart]

False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away -- however saturated the market may be.

Too generic an answer. It doesn't apply to the specifics of this situation. What is the price of music on the radio? How much is the seller charging the end user, namely the person listening in their car, at their office, or at their home? Are you going to falsely assume that the radio station itself pays for the music? Sometimes it does. Sometimes it is sent music directly from a record company's marketing department (along with posters, press packages, hats, etc.) for free.

My knowledge happens to come from actually working at different radio stations.

So, if record companies, by their choice, are giving away music for free to an audience of undetermined size, and at the same time they cry and complain that an audience of undetermined size is listening to their music without paying... should we really be feeling sorry for them? Hell no.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mpe]

By "arbitrary" I mean that copyright and patent monopolies are a creation of government. Government could very well decide that copyright no longer exists and, unlike natural rights, there would be no appeal to a universal notion of human rights.

If the Government in question were the US Federal government. Then there is no confusion at all. Since such laws are allowed, but not mandated, by the US Consitution.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Adambomb]

The right to waive U.S. copyright isn't even as significant as, say, a letter of marque. God damn them all, I was told we'd leech the seeds for american gold
we'd fire no guns, shed no teeeaaars
Now i'm an embargoed shell of an antiguan peer, the last of beckermans priivaateeers

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The right to waive U.S. copyright isn't even as significant as, say, a letter of marque. God damn them all, I was told we'd leech the seeds for american gold we'd fire no guns, shed no teeeaaars Now i'm an embargoed shell of an antiguan peer, the last of beckermans priivaateeers I never get moderation points, but if I had one it would be "+1 Funny".

:)

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[drseuss9311]

Copyright is an inducement for creators to create things and make them available for others to use. The targeted benefit was to society- not to a select individual.

i'm glad that copyright was around when fire was invented/discovered/created so that the early humans were induced to create it and make it available for others to use... it surely did benefit society, in all seriousness
but what if there was some ancient ancestor that tried to hoard fire, and charge people for it?
once others found out how to make it on their own, what kind of copyright enforcement do you think the there were?

this makes me want to go watch Quest For Fire again

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Maxo-Texas]

Read up on your history. That is exactly what happened for centuries.

Patents were created as a way to keep secret knowledge from being lost.
Copyrights were created as an inducement for writers and musicians to create.

Copyright is not bad per se because we can easily see that people will steal everything they can get their hands on if unchecked by society and not compensate the person that did the work (be it creating a car, a fire, a pile of fire wood, a pie on a windowsill).

Part of the reason our society has advanced so quickly is because legal structures were put in place to force society to reward creators a reasonable amount.

However, creating a 3 minute song does not justify a lifetime income of millions.
Disney and other large corporations invested a lot of money in politicians to get copyright grossly overextended. So society is routing around them.
Also while there is only one "mickey mouse", there are 99 other entertaining things we can choose from today. If they raise the price of mickey mouse to high, we go elsewhere (of course wealthier people continue to consume mickey mouse at those higher rates).

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Adambomb]

No worries, we'd have to find a way to mod up my lack of coffee in my place as it gets the credit in any event heh.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[drseuss9311]

Read up on your history.

I don't know of any books on pre-history. Got any suggestions?
Isn't it all just speculation based upon archaeological findings anyway?
When was the first fire?
Who was the first fire hoarder?
Anyways it was just a thought... I'm in agreement with you on the modern question of copyright.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

honestly is all the bad press doing them any good?

Ask many of the RIAA's customers that, and they'll say "what bad press?" The damage to their sales is localised to the comparatively few who are aware of the issue, and even then, it's dependent on whether or not they agree with the RIAA's crusade. They're losing a few sales in the short term, but they're also securing their business in the long term, which couldn't survive if people gave up actually paying for music. They're making the sacrifice to remind people that there are the artists out there who lose out every time a person shares their works.

i guess this really frightens no talent hacks, if people get to hear their trash before buying it, they'll fade away pretty quick.

Let's not get personal. It's not like piracy is the only way to listen to music. I don't know how it is where you live, but I know that my local record stores all have CD players for trying before buying. You can also listen to previews from various online stores, you can listen to a friend's copy (like you have been doing), listen to the artist on the radio, or you could just read a review. The whole piracy thing isn't some front to secretly push crap to the consumer without them noticing.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want mod points, log in every time you come to slashdot, not just when you want to post.

It works.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay- you got me on the "fire"/pre-history.

I was talking more about the 1500-1850 period which wasn't directly addressing your point.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[mi]

You are absolutely correct.

Thank you very much.

But the "right of the creator to control their creation" does not mean that "the creator is allowed to infringe on my right to create".

That's patents, let's not change the subject.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[homer_s]

I thought the point was about intellectual property - you know, the non-tangible intellectual kind.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[drseuss9311]

So, have you ever seen Quest for Fire? Tommy Chong's daughter, Rae Dawn Chong, is one of the main characters.
It's a French film, but there's no dialog in it because it's set before language really was advanced.
Mostly primitive vocal noises, body language, and hand signs.
Still a good movie, though without any real words being spoken.

One of the elements of this film I liked the most was the realistic depiction of the diversity of anthropoid types that existed in those times. This was executed beautifully and skillfully in the depiction of several diverse tribal groups, explaining the well deserved Oscar for makeup.

Another elements of realism that scores big with me was that there are attacks by wild animals as well as by anthropoids. I also liked the language used by the main tribe, there was a suggestion that the language was evolving right before us as the travelers, having been sent on a quest for fire, returned with quite a bit more to talk about.

That was from the user review at imdb, and I wasn't really trying to 'get' you or anything... just pointing out how far back these issues really go.
Humans were able to be just as smart back then, but didn't have the body of past knowledge to draw from.
Kind of reminds me of how Linus Torvalds always says that open source developers are just standing on the backs of giants.
We're standing on the backs of all of humanity that came before us.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[Maxo-Texas]

I have seen it and liked it. I remember laughing at them eating leaves I think.

Back in the period I was referring to, people started inventing a lot of things and not sharing them (and before-- think of damascus steel).

So society promised reasonable compensation to idea creators who shared their ideas.

Say I have an idea for how to make gasoline out of snicker's bars that makes the gasoline at my cost of 60 cents per gallon. I can share that idea (knowing I will be compensated) or I can keep it secret and make a reasonable amount of money. When I die, the knowledge will be lost- for a long time like damascus steel.

It's not fair to ask an author to spend 3 years of their life writing and then give them nothing.
It's not fair to ask a singer to spend a few weeks writing and mastering a new song and give them nothing (current compensation rates are ridiculously high- at least 2 orders of magnitude to high).

It's a balance. The RIAA and others lost sight of their side of the contract when they were powerful. Now that the masses have the power to easily copy things, a lot of them are losing sight of their fair side.

Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it?

[drseuss9311]

thanks for the info i didn't know about damascus steel

I'm a fan of NewYorkCountryLawyer, but...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Isn't it a tad tacky for NewYorkCountryLawyer to submit an article that quotes him in the text? I suppose, this being Slashdot, that no one will end up reading the article.

And NYCL, this wasn't meant as a dig. And, I was glad to get your opinion in the article.

Re:I'm a fan of NewYorkCountryLawyer, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot, and article text gets changed, but not any of the text that should.

Re:I'm a fan of NewYorkCountryLawyer, but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Why would it be tacky for me to post an important story from p2pnet that happens to quote me? Usually I'm posting important stories from my own blog which quotes me even more heavily.

Nice initiative but...

[SamP2]

Doesn't having a law college student handle your court case feel like having a med. college student do surgery on you?

Re:Nice initiative but...

[CheshireDragon]

eh, I guess you could relate it to that. Although, living here in Dallas, TX(TX itself apparently the medical student capitol of the US,) I like the 5th-7th year students who do my checkups and other routine bodily maintenance. They seem to pay more attention in general and IMHO, that makes them far superior to an older DR who just smiles and nods. So, maybe a law student is the same way? Perhaps this may follow most professions. I have hired some IT guys that have had formal education(University Degree) and Certifications that make them look like the star employee. Yet, I have hired kids with A+ Certs(OR claim they can pass the A+) that can out perform the well educated.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[Kadin2048]

Doesn't having a law college student handle your court case feel like having a med. college student do surgery on you?

Yeah -- maybe we should start calling them "interns" and "residents," too.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[xSauronx]

Just out of curiosity: Did you pay the better workers a better wage based not on education but on performance?

Re:Nice initiative but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. THe defense they are mounting at this point is essentially pure issue of law. No facts to try to dispute, no witnesses to depose, no jury to persuade... all things that an experienced attorney will excel at over a novice. Pure law and legal theories OTOH, are the bread and butter of the academic legal environment. The students may not be as efficient at research in the subject area as an attorney who has 20 years experience in IP law and knows the leading cases by heart, but they are more open to theories and arguments to research that may be out of the mainstream (for now). They are devoted to the cause and will spend hundreds of hours pouring over research and caselaw that a practicing lawyer will not spend. The RIAA can't spend the other side into the ground because they are not racking up billable/noncollectable hours.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[Joe The Dragon]

it depends on the class work that the students do some are real good others are just read the book that are some times not that good.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. They're not college students, they're law school students.

2. They're not in it alone, they're working under the supervision of a very eminent lawyer.

3. Many if not most of the best briefs written in the legal profession are written in large part by young people working under the supervision of a more experienced lawyer. The younger lawyers and law students may have more time for scholarship and writing than us oldsters who are so busy taking phone calls and meetings and sending out bills and supervising youngsters.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Not necessarily. THe defense they are mounting at this point is essentially pure issue of law. No facts to try to dispute, no witnesses to depose, no jury to persuade... all things that an experienced attorney will excel at over a novice. Pure law and legal theories OTOH, are the bread and butter of the academic legal environment. The students may not be as efficient at research in the subject area as an attorney who has 20 years experience in IP law and knows the leading cases by heart, but they are more open to theories and arguments to research that may be out of the mainstream (for now). They are devoted to the cause and will spend hundreds of hours pouring over research and caselaw that a practicing lawyer will not spend. The RIAA can't spend the other side into the ground because they are not racking up billable/noncollectable hours. Exactly correct. Except the part about "theories and arguments...out of the mainstream (for now)". In my opinion it's the RIAA that's premised its legal position on "theories and arguments... out of the mainstream". The brief the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic filed is (a) superb, and (b) conservative. It's the RIAA lawyers that are the radicals here.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[nomadic]

Just out of curiosity: Did you pay the better workers a better wage based not on education but on performance?

Performance in the law, especially trial law, is based enormously on experience. A doctor fresh out of medical school is better equipped to handle a patient than a lawyer fresh out of law school. When a doctor treats a patient generally there isn't a doctor on the other side of the operating room intentionally trying to make the patient worse.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[sumdumass]

I don't know if you could call a law teacher an Eminent lawyer. If they were good, they obviously could make more money in the real world practicing law. They could be famous simply be being known of but I don't think they are in the way you used the term, standing above the rest.

In all the situations I know of where a law professor took a case after teaching, it seems that they lost the majority of them. Look at the EFF, they at one time consisted mainly of legal professors and typically lost all their cases. Now, they don't really take cases on but help others who do win. Well, they might take cases on themselves, it has been a few years since I discarded them as an idea that works.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[rts008]

"The students may not be as efficient at research in the subject area as an attorney who has 20 years experience in IP law and knows the leading cases by heart..."

Wasn't there someone who said something to the effect that quantity has it's own quality?

Don't underestimate the potential of a herd of students hellbent on a cause. (especially if it has the potential for a paper, higher grade, cred points, maybe even trying to get laid)

Re:Nice initiative but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't consider every law school professor an eminent lawyer. I consider this particular law school professor to be an eminent lawyer.

Parenthetically, I disagree with every single thing you said in your post.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[sumdumass]

The great thing about this country is that you can disagree with anything. However, disagreement doesn't make you right.

This professor is a hack. Most her career has been spent as a lapdog from someone else not even practicing law but clerking or advising. She stayed in fields where there was a gimmick that played on some sympathy. Disabilities where the old gimp would carry more weight then the law. Now there are people with a bigger gimp she can latch on to and that's what is happening.

More likely, what is really going on is that some *iaa associate gave the University of Maine some money, she is setting precedence for shady evidence collection techniques by challenging them and loosing. Who would ever question someone who won against a lawyer who is also on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on the Rules of Evidence- over the collection and presentation of evidence in a RIAA case. This is nothing but a scam like the early EFF was. There is a reasons other schools aren't doing the same and students aren't asking why.

She may be a good person, might even be a well know person. But any prestiges she carries it tightly attached to coat tails of the people that were great in the field of law. She has not made a name for herself in the field of law, I'm having trouble finding any landmark case she ws listed as an attorney on the winning side of.

You can have you high hopes and disagree. But that doesn't change anything. A 2bit hack relegated to teaching is still a 2 bit hack.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sounding just a little bit grumpy, and quite a bit paranoid, there, my friend.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[sumdumass]

Sure I do. I don't trust the lawyers of this world. Especially when they act like something they aren't. Notice how I didn't take issues with your stands particularly, It is because I know you are about what you talk about. I'm not convinced that Deirdre Smith is even close. I'm not even convinced that anything she is doing it outside wanting to better her stand somehow. It might just be that one of the coat tails she rides on had passed away and she needs to get some name recognition to replace the prestige that name lent. But your right, I don't trust her one bit.

Re:Nice initiative but...

[CheshireDragon]

Performance based....in the end I really had no choice, but I was able to make suggestions to the dept manager.
I started people on a flat rate for the 90day trial and after that, based on performance, determined their raise. Most I ever pushed someone was from the standard starting of 25K to 56K more then doubled this kids salary..needles to say he was shocked and he did fall out of his chair.

It looks to me...

[hyades1]

like the RIAA stepped in something squishy right over the top of their shoe, and they're at that point where they're praying it's just mud, and afraid to look down.

How did they ever get caught pulling their crap at a university with a whole faculty devoted to making lawyers? Can't you just see it...all those sweet little law students looking hopefully up at them, like a school of piranha that have learned how when their owner taps on the tank, a pork chop will be along shortly?

Re:It looks to me...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It looks to me... like the RIAA stepped in something squishy right over the top of their shoe, and they're at that point where they're praying it's just mud, and afraid to look down. How did they ever get caught pulling their crap at a university with a whole faculty devoted to making lawyers? Can't you just see it...all those sweet little law students looking hopefully up at them, like a school of piranha that have learned how when their owner taps on the tank, a pork chop will be along shortly? Yep, I think the RIAA made a mistake taking on the college and university world. Right now there are a lot of envious law students all across the country wishing their law school was doing the same thing. I don't think it will be long before you see a lot more of this. I think a great sleeping giant has been awakened.

Re:It looks to me...

[alshithead]

"How did they ever get caught pulling their crap at a university with a whole faculty devoted to making lawyers? Can't you just see it...all those sweet little law students looking hopefully up at them, like a school of piranha that have learned how when their owner taps on the tank, a pork chop will be along shortly?"

It's the same arrogance they've been guilty of all along. Their so called "experts" are overdue in being taken down. All it will take is some litigation savvy assistance.

So, what is your proof that the defendant was the one using the internet connection at said IP and MAC address? What about IP and MAC spoofing? Can you please explain to the judge and jury what NAT is? Do you have video or witnesses? With effective representation the element of doubt SHOULD be easily introduced.

Re:It looks to me...

[hyades1]

Thanks for the idea. If things come to pass the way I fear they will, I'll start sending suggestions to some of our law faculties and see if I can get them interested.

I guess you've heard a little about the situation in Canada. Our PM is currently auditioning for Blair's old position as Bush's lapdog, and his minority government was planning to sneak through a bill that probably would have given the RIAA everything it wanted, even though we've been paying a blank media tax for years that was supposed to compensate artists for lost sales. Because of public outrage, the bill hasn't been brought forward yet. Supposedly, time has suddenly been found for "consultation" with somebody besides the music and movie industries.

You guys down there might finally find out what an angry Canadian looks like. The last time a government tried something like this, the minister in charge lost his cabinet post, then his seat in the next election. We don't have capital punishment, even for scumbag politicians, or it might have been worse.

Re:It looks to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent has my vote for the Best Post of 2007 award. After three tries, I still could not read it straight through to my wife without stopping to laugh.

Re:It looks to me...

[hyades1]

Thanks. That's the kind of feedback that makes this all kinds of fun. Happy New Year

Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[jessiej]

I wonder how many of those students will end up working on the other side once they graduate. It would be kind of like a hacker working for a security company. They'll be more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of all the arguments and could demand premium salaries in this area of law.

Re:Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[falconwolf]

I wonder how many of those students will end up working on the other side once they graduate. It would be kind of like a hacker working for a security company. They'll be more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of all the arguments and could demand premium salaries in this area of law.

Except a hacker improves security when they see something that's insecure. It's crackers and script kiddies that break into systems for gain. Hackers have an ethic of not committing theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality.

Falcon

Re:Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[piojo]

Gaah, will you accept that a word can have two meanings, and that the meaning of a word can change over time? Your post began with the word "Except", so I was looking forward to a counter-argument, but instead you just explained what you believed the word "hacker" to mean. You could have at least started with "By the way" to indicate that your opinion is not actually a part of the discussion thread, but instead of a critique of the parent's choice of words.

Sorry for ranting. But I was really hoping for some discussion about whether some of these students might end up working for the RIAA, and you tricked me.

Re:Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[JonJ]

What if a "fireman" suddenly was someone that started fires, in stead of putting them out? The fact that the press and other idiots uses the wrong term to describe a criminal, does not make it right.

Re:Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[piojo]

What if a "fireman" suddenly was someone that started fires, in stead of putting them out? The fact that the press and other idiots uses the wrong term to describe a criminal, does not make it right. After enough time, it does make it right. That's just the way most languages change. We don't have a governing body that decides what is acceptable English. (Such panels exist, but they have no authority--there's no such thing as "official English".) In short, if people started using "fireman" to refer to people who start fires, I wouldn't like it at all, but maybe ten years later I would have to concede that the word had gained a second meaning.

Re:Will RIAA be Hiring Maine Grads in the future?

[Clujo]

The temp is just about 451 in here.

wow!

[purpleraison]

A lawyer fighting for the average American? Not a chance! However, this is a great opportunity for the rats to feed on each other... and for once I actually hope the lawyer wins (against the RIAA that is).

Here's the problem. No physical material !

[zymano]

The Riaa makes it seem like you're a thief who went into the record store and stole a bunch of CDs'.

This is ip ifringement. Not the exact same as theft.

The songs can be deleted and nothing is left. Is that the classical definiton of theft?

Where is the evidence? This to me is the part that is left out of the debate.

Just because you download shouldn't convict you!

If you delete then there is no evidence! damnit!

what is the real problem?

[Don Music]

Good for them, but contrary to what was written, the problem is not that the RIAA is re-writing the copyright laws. The problem is that RIAA is exploiting the anachronism of our current copyright laws. The laws truly do need to be re-written to incorporate creative works that are not strictly analog and paper-based, and that should be the goal.

Re:what is the real problem?

[Dr_Art]

...the problem is not that the RIAA is re-writing the copyright laws... I beg to differ. Here's just one example. The RIAA insists that "making available" is the same as copyright infringement. But take a look at Title 17 USC 106(3) which defines the exclusive distribution right as "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". This is the statute that the RIAA uses to sue, that is, they claim their exclusive distribution right granted by this statue is being infringed. But note, this statute clearly indicates a "sale or other transfer of ownership", and courts have consistently ruled that this means an actual transfer must take place to be considered infringement. The RIAA was successful in getting the judge in the Capitol v. Thomas case to instruct the jury that "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.". So it may be true that the RIAA is not literally rewriting copyright law (they have lobbyists that do that), but they sure are trying to rewrite copyright law by establishing precedents via cases against those who can't afford to defend themselves.

Regards,
Art (IANAL)

Re:what is the real problem?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I disagree. The RIAA's entire litigation campaign is based upon an invented legal principle which exists neither in the statute, nor in the caselaw.

Re:what is the real problem?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

...the problem is not that the RIAA is re-writing the copyright laws... I beg to differ. Here's just one example. The RIAA insists that "making available" is the same as copyright infringement. But take a look at Title 17 USC 106(3) [cornell.edu] which defines the exclusive distribution right as "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". This is the statute that the RIAA uses to sue, that is, they claim their exclusive distribution right granted by this statue is being infringed. But note, this statute clearly indicates a "sale or other transfer of ownership", and courts have consistently ruled that this means an actual transfer must take place to be considered infringement. The RIAA was successful in getting the judge in the Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] case to instruct the jury [wired.com] that "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.". So it may be true that the RIAA is not literally rewriting copyright law (they have lobbyists that do that), but they sure are trying to rewrite copyright law by establishing precedents via cases against those who can't afford to defend themselves. Beautiful comment, Dr_Art. MYSBAL (maybe you should be a lawyer) IYCATCIP (if you could afford the cut in pay).

Re:what is the real problem?

[The Empiricist]

So it may be true that the RIAA is not literally rewriting copyright law (they have lobbyists that do that), but they sure are trying to rewrite copyright law by establishing precedents via cases against those who can't afford to defend themselves.

Just a fine point: binding precedents are generally not established by suing individuals who don't try to put up much of a defense. While the decisions of district court judges may have some persuasive impact (particularly if well-written), they do not create an interpretation of law that is binding on other judges. A case has to rise to the level of appellate review before interpretations of law that have to be followed by other judges, binding precedents, can be generated. Even then, appellate panels often issue non-precedential opinions (especially if the facts are too messy to establish a rule that can be applied in the future).

Someone who is unable or unwilling to put up a defense in a district court is unlikely to appeal an adverse decision. Recording studio lawyers are probably trying to use these lawsuits to increase the costs of using P2P software for copyright infringement (which would be $0 if there was no risk of being sued) while trying to fund the expense of pursuing additional lawsuits. Of course they are going to argue against interpretations of the law that would undermine this strategy, but applying their interpretation of existing rights rather than trying to expand the scope of copyrights seems to be their primary objective.

Re:what is the real problem?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA is constantly citing its 'victories' in district court ex parte cases (cases where the other side doesn't even know there's a case), default cases (cases where the other side either didn't know there was a case or failed to defend it), and pro se cases (cases where the other side couldn't afford a lawyer). When we had motion practice in an appeals court, they cited their lower court ex parte 'victories' as though they were binding (although as you and I know, they were not).

Even when dealing with normal -- as opposed to moronic -- lawyers, district court precedents are extremely important where, as here, there are no appellate precedents.

Re:what is the real problem?

[Dr_Art]

Thanks for the compliment!!! I guess all of those years of watching Perry Mason reruns really paid off!!! Or else maybe it was staying in a Holiday Inn Express last night!!! :-)

Regards,
Art

Re:what is the real problem?

[nospam007]

I beg to differ. Here's just one example. The RIAA insists that "making available" is the same as copyright infringement. But take a look at Title 17 USC 106(3) [cornell.edu] which defines the exclusive distribution right as "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending".

___
BTW, if I would set my bittorrent client to stop seeding when the ratio reaches 99%, so there would be evidence on my machine that I never could have distributed even 1 (full)copy? That could hardly be named 'making available', no?

Re:what is the real problem?

[Dr_Art]

BTW, if I would set my bittorrent client to stop seeding when the ratio reaches 99%, so there would be evidence on my machine that I never could have distributed even 1 (full)copy? That could hardly be named 'making available', no? Excellent point!! How would you define a "copyrighted work" for the purposes of a lawsuit when bittorrent allows partial pieces to be transferred? I'm sure the RIAA would interpret it as a transfer, even if it wasn't 100%. I think that was Don Music's (the GP's) point in his post when he said:

The problem is that RIAA is exploiting the anachronism of our current copyright laws. The laws truly do need to be re-written to incorporate creative works that are not strictly analog and paper-based, and that should be the goal. It's as if we're in the wild wild west. The RIAA is the rich banker that is cheating the poor farmers out of their land in order to gain the mineral rights just before a big gold rush. The government is the sheriff that is in the pocket of the banker. People like NewYorkCountyLawyer are the "pale rider" that is helping the farmers fight back.

It's interesting how congress has passed laws to protect the big players such as ISPs, consumer electronics manufacturers & distributors, libraries & government (i.e. itself) and the RIAA, but has done nothing top help the average person protect themselves from the RIAA.

Regards,
Art

Fight the Power

[Anonymous Coward]

As the rhythm designed to bounce
What counts is that the rhymes
Designed to fill your mind
Now that you've realized the prides arrived
We got to pump the stuff to make us tough
from the heart
It's a start, a work of art
To revolutionize make a change nothin's strange
People, people we are the same
No we're not the same
Cause we don't know the game
What we need is awareness, we can't get careless
You say what is this?
My beloved lets get down to business
Mental self defensive fitness
(Yo) bum rush the show
You gotta go for what you know
Make everybody see, in order to fight the powers that be
Lemme hear you say...
Fight the Power

Course if this power had its way .... I might not be able to post those lyrics.

meh

[stoolpigeon]

if people haven't brought up examples it is because they don't care to respond, not because they don't exit. i don't even care too much about this issue, but i read your post - spent 5 minutes on google and found this. it is a bit long so i'll throw the relevant part into my post.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Hollywood) recently introduced the P2P Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211). This law essentially gives any copyright-holder the right to break any existing law while engaging in technological measures (such as hacking) in the course of protecting their content. They must give prior notice to the government, but there is no approval is required, and the government must keep secret any notice it receives. Large copyright holders sought this immunity in the counter-terrorism bills that greatly increased penalties for hacking, but the absurdity of equating file sharing to terrorism forced them to withdraw their bid that time. The chances of success are hopefully slim, but it's hard to tell.

so in 2002 copyright holders tried to gain the ability to completely ignore the law to go after those they thought to be violating copyright and tried to do so under the auspices of counter-terrorism. like i said, it took 5 minutes to find that with a google search on the words "copyright violation equated with terrorism".

Pissing off/on the Lawyers of Tomorrow...

[Sfing_ter]

At this point someone over there at the RIAA/MPAA have got to realize they are pissing off/on the legal minds ,business leaders and congress critters of tomorrow, this must be making them spot. It's one thing to get the little old lady who's grandson was over at christmas and installed limebearfreezemule and began downloading all his favorite songs, then left with the software starting everytime(and sharing!!!) granny went online; her only hope is to pay for a lawyer and that is not likely to happen, she'll be dead in a few years anyway... IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT thing to sue those who are in the process of learning the law or (choose on of the others i previously mentioned), they will be in their prime to fight back soon enough and will do it with great force. My name is Innigo Montoya, you have sued my father, prepare to die.

meh deux

[stoolpigeon]

i had another five minutes. read the footnotes of this article. The links were to an mpaa site and they have been pulled - but there has to be a way to track down stuff like Valenti, "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism," Testimony before The Subcommittee On Courts, The Internet, And Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives. It also says Valenti joked about wanting Dmitry Sklyarov executed. well - i'm gonna go do some other stuff - but you may want to think about a new approach on this issue because saying that you are awaiting requested examples from the 'other side' is basically saying 'i have built my position on ignorance of the publicly available facts.'

Re:meh deux

[Anonymous Coward]

way back machine

Not "of the University of Maine"

[pgn674]

Warning: nitpicking bellow.

Professor Deirdre M. Smith is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Maine School of Law, and the Director of the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic. The University of Maine School of Law is actually a part of the University of Southern Maine, which is a part of the University of Maine System. The University of Maine, which has a flagship campus in Orono and a few other campuses, is also a part of the University of Maine System. The University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine are separate. Therefor, Professor Deirdre M. Smith is not "of the University of Maine".

Oh, and the p2pnet article linked to in TFA looks like it has a poorly resized picture turned black and white pulled from this website: http://mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty-details.aspx?facultyID=18

uhm (Re:meh)

[mi]

Large copyright holders sought this immunity in the counter-terrorism bills that greatly increased penalties for hacking, but the absurdity of equating file sharing to terrorism forced them to withdraw their bid that time.

The purported "equating" is nothing more but a "strawman" attack on the *AA's position. And a lame one at that. *AA wanted to be able to investigate the pirates' computers (so as to be able to present stronger cases in courts), and they wanted to do it legally. The new law was making such investigations (largely) illegal, and so they wanted an exception/immunity. Any "equating" of piracy with terrorism comes purely from the imagination of the author of the article you quoted.

The links were to an mpaa site and they have been pulled, but there has to be a way to track down stuff like Valenti, "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism," Testimony before The Subcommittee On Courts

Linking is not equating. But you say, the information was pulled by the *AA site(s)... Could this be a sign, that they are not calling pirates "terrorists" today, even if — as you insist — they once did?

And would not that make the frosty-psster's insinuation invalid anyway?..

Re:uhm (Re:meh)

[stoolpigeon]

you don't care about the facts.
 
these businesses tried to pass copyright law inside anti-terrorism legislation. that's not a strawman. it's not lame. you are saying that the author imagined that this was an anti-terrorism bill?
 
as i insist? i don't insist anything. Jack Valenti testified before the government in an investigation entitled "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism". Are you going to tell me that he wasn't there to talk about copyright and ties between piracy and terrorism? the name is a straw man imagined up by whoever chaired the subcommittee?
 
you asked for examples. i was bored - took ten minutes to find you a couple and you then turn around and say they aren't examples at all. i see in other parts of this thread you've equated violating copyright with murder. at the same time your original post i replied to says that the statement certain legal whores who allow or act to bring certain types of "private lawsuit" is alluding to the riaa as terrorists. so gaining the right to hack people's computers in an antiterrorism bill is a straw man - but the words private lawsuit in quotes is a satisfactory allusion to terrorism. you live in a weird reality. and the funny thing is, you just haven't done any homework. google riaa and terrorism. you will find hundreds of hits where people clearly and definitively state that they believe the actions of the riaa are terrorism. you can drop your weak example. why i'm helping you out with that, i don't know. you should really do the work yourself.

Re:uhm (Re:meh)

[dcollins]

Mod this up!

Re:uhm (Re:meh)

[mi]

these businesses tried to pass copyright law inside anti-terrorism legislation.

My understanding is, they wanted an exception, that would apply to their activities — to prevent the anti-hacking provisions of the law from applying to their own investigations. But it is not, unfortunately, uncommon to see even completely unrelated bits attached to legislation these days — it is called "pork-barelling".

Jack Valenti testified before the government in an investigation entitled "International Copyright Piracy: Links to Organized Crime and Terrorism". Are you going to tell me that he wasn't there to talk about copyright and ties between piracy and terrorism?

Without reading the transcript, I can't draw conclusions. I'm surprised, you can.

The people in the article are lawyers, who are trying to help those accused by *AA of piracy. Even if you still think, the pirates themselves may be (unduly) labeled "terrorists", the lawyers defending them are perfectly safe from the accusation. The only time, a (real) terrorist's lawyer was herself convicted of crimes, was for very real help she provided her client in communicating with his followers "in the wild". The jury deliberated for 12 days and convicted her on all five counts.

Whatever your opinion of Lynne Stewart, no other lawyer has gotten into this sort of trouble. Even if Jack Valenti would like to portray pirates as terrorists (and I have not seen any evidence of this), insinuating, that the pirates' lawyers will be accused of "terrorism" is completely unfounded.

you asked for examples. i was bored - took ten minutes to find you a couple and you then turn around and say they aren't examples at all.

Indeed, they aren't.

i see in other parts of this thread you've equated violating copyright with murder.

No, I don't. But if such is your understanding of my other posts, I can see, why you are so mistaken on the original challenge.

but the words private lawsuit in quotes is a satisfactory allusion to terrorism.

You should've read the entire post, which tried to substantiate, why those "legal whores" may be seen as terrorists.

google riaa and terrorism. you will find hundreds of hits where people clearly and definitively state that they believe the actions of the riaa are terrorism. you can drop your weak example.

My weak example uses a (highly moderated) Slashdot post — not some left-of-the-wall lunatics' site...

why i'm helping you out with that, i don't know.

Because you are an honest man, who argues in good faith and is ready to accept the other side's argument. Whereas *AA themselves were accused of "terrorism" (wrongly, of course), no examples of them calling a student file-sharer "terrorist" exist. The frosty-pister I responded to made a completely unjustified claim.

RIAA going after students at Unis with law schools

[falconwolf]

How did they ever get caught pulling their crap at a university with a whole faculty devoted to making lawyers?

Hell the RIAA went after students from Yale which has a good law school. Now my question is why didn't Yale do the same thing as the Maine university?

Falcon

Re:RIAA going after students at Unis with law scho

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Now my question is why didn't Yale do the same thing as the Maine university? My guess is that there are some folks at Yale raising that question themselves. And maybe next time they will.

Nah, not so much.

[Weaselmancer]

He just happens to be one of the major players is all - hard to mention the topic *without* him coming up. Sort of like Pamela Jones and Groklaw. You really have to try to not have Groklaw come up in a SCO conversation.

In short, it's not like he's Roland Piquepaille or anything. The public good appears to be his motive, not a financial one.

Re:Nah, not so much.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The public good appears to be his motive, not a financial one. You mean I can't get rich defending poor and working class people being sued by multibillion dollar cartels? Why didn't you tell me that sooner? Dammit. Why couldn't I figure that out?

Re:Nah, not so much.

[Weaselmancer]

All those law courses and no time to take a single economics class?

Well, that'll teach you. =)

Re:Nah, not so much.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm a poor business man.

What would you expect from a country lawyer who winds up in Manhattan?

Re:RIAA going after students at Unis with law scho

[falconwolf]

Now my question is why didn't Yale do the same thing as the Maine university?

My guess is that there are some folks at Yale raising that question themselves. And maybe next time they will.

I hope they do.

Falcon

Re:RIAA going after students at Unis with law scho

[Anonymous Coward]

> Hell the RIAA went after students from Yale which has a good law school.

ha ha ha oh wow that's rich, really rich

bless your naïve heart

Dont give in kids!

[pattymeister]

/></a>

A message from the Gnutella,p2p,and BT networks

nice to see progress

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been over ten years since I became aware of copyright issues and began agitating for change,
not so much for modernization as for a return to the original intent of encouraging content creators.

It's nice to see how much has changed in 10 years - from general ignorance or apathy
to widespread understanding and anger at the widespread thefts by those in the industry
that have been going on for almost a century. Even many content creators now oppose RIAA.
Some artists recognize that attacking their fans tends to leave them with . . . less fans.

The question is, when are the folks at the RIAA going to "get it"? They've been shooting themselves in the foot
for five years now, at some time you'd think they'd look down and notice what a mangled mess it has become.

Re:nice to see progress

[ScrewMaster]

The RIAA won't until they're told to. That's not their function. The big copyright holders are the ones that need to "get it", so they can order the RIAA to back off. Remember, hundreds of millions of dollars are funnelled into the RIAA every year by the studios. They're the ones that are funding this insanity.

I find it annoying that the Recording Industry Association of America is funded and controlled by largely foreign outfits. In effect, they've allowed foreign-owned corporations to pay to have our legal system modified to suit their needs, and have severely damaged thousands of American lives in the process.

People complain about the influence America has abroad ... well, that works both ways.

Re:nice to see progress

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The cases aren't really the RIAA. They're really run by 4 record companies, 1 American, 3 Foreign. They only use the RIAA as a front to shield their obviously illegal collusion.

Ooops

[EdIII]

Has the RIAA actually picked on somebody "their own size"? :)

The temp is just about 451 in here.

[falconwolf]

Hot enough to burn books.

Falcon

You've forgotten what ownership is all about

[Mr2001]

The right of the creator to control their creation is -- correctly -- understood as a human right. There is no (or there should be no) distinction between tangible, material property and the non-tangible intellectual kind. What a ridiculous statement. You're either so misguided it isn't funny, or a shill for the recording industry.

Consider, for a moment, the purpose of ownership. Why does property have an owner?

The answer is simple: because it can only be in one place at a time. That is the fundamental nature of property. If I'm driving my car to New York, you can't be driving it to Los Angeles at the same time. If I'm building a shed in my back yard, you can't build a parking lot there at the same time.

Therefore we need some way of deciding how a piece of property is going to be used at any given moment. Otherwise, we'll all spend half the day fighting over who gets to drive the car, who gets to sleep in the bed, and so on; and everything will eventually end up in the hands of whoever has the most muscles or weapons.

There are a few conceivable ways to decide how property is to be used, but all the practical ways boil down to picking a person and declaring that he's in charge of that property. He will be the one to decide how it's used, and we'll call him the "owner". This restricts freedom -- if I want to drive a car, I have to buy or rent one instead of just using yours -- but it provides the real, tangible benefit of avoiding the chaos that would result as everyone struggled for control of unowned property.

Ideas and information, on the other hand, are completely different from property. The fundamental nature of information is that it can be everywhere simultaneously, and it's impossible for one person's use to interfere with anyone else's. I can use the speed of light to calculate how far away a star is, while at the same time, you can be using it to calculate how much energy is in a donut. I can listen to a song at the same time as you're putting it in a movie soundtrack. Unlike property, information is not scarce.

What that means is information doesn't need an owner. Adding the concept of ownership to information simply restricts everyone's freedom for no real purpose. (And yes, there is no real purpose: everything accomplished by copyright can be accomplished simply by paying people to work, the way it's done in every other industry.)

Ownership has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with the fundamental nature of property. Physical objects need an owner in order to resolve conflicts, but information doesn't. Since freedom is generally a good thing, and since granting ownership of information restricts freedom without providing any tangible benefit, information should not be owned.