Slashdot Mirror
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'. "
Yeah, it's actually a she, if you had read the summary.
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
False. The price is still set by the seller, who is under no obligation to sell/give away — however saturated the market may be.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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".
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...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)
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
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
way back machine