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'. "
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.
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!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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....
It is because they hate children. The thought of happy children listening to their wonderful DRMed music just drives these professors mad.
Doesn't having a law college student handle your court case feel like having a med. college student do surgery on 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.
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
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.'
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
FalconShould there be a Law?
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?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.
"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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
five words:
Aqua Teen Hunger Force Lightbrite.
A message from the Gnutella,p2p,and BT networks
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.
... well, that works both ways.
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
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Has the RIAA actually picked on somebody "their own size"? :)
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful