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'. "

17 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. caveat by User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  2. About time by proudfoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      When supply outdid demand.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by Zigurd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by Zigurd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:RIAA/MPAA - is the bad press worth it? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. Re:RIAA fighting professor? by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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)?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. what is the real problem? by Don+Music · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Nice initiative but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. uhm (Re:meh) by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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?..

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. Re:Nice initiative but... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:RIAA fighting professor? by Polumna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:Nah, not so much. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a poor business man.

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

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful