Slashdot Mirror
U. Maine Law Students Trying To Shut RIAA Down
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."
I'm just trying to be helpful here. NYCL's wording is a bit too lawyerly for the likes of us IANALs.
They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking -- among other things -- an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders.
They filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, seeking an injunction against these cases. They argue that 1) the cases seek to circumvent the FERPA (the FERPA protects student privacy rights), 2) the cases are in violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders, and 3) the cases are brought for improper purposes of a) obtaining discovery, b) getting publicity, c) and intimidation.
If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish.
All the so called evidence the RIAA has would be circumstantial. Just because a particular computer was at a particular IP address does not mean a particular individual was responsible for the infringement. I certainly hope they are fully successful.
When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.
Similarly here, these students seem to have a deparment which values them enough to give them something interesting AND useful to work on.
Good on them all.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
That's right, it was I who falsely accused thousands of innocent people of having violated copyright. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Dedicated by the RIAA in the near future at the University of Maine.....
:)
That should get the faculty to shut up those pesky law students
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
In case you were wondering what Rule 11 is like I was...
It seems like we see a new RIAA related story every day.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Answer #1: Why not?
Answer #2: Since it's now free, everyone can afford it.
Answer #3: These days, you can have the music even if you can't afford it. Since they're at college to learn, they'd better spend their money on books.
c++;
Judging from your spelling, you didn't get very far with edumacation, did you?
How about anonymous cowards learn to IDENTIFY THEMSELVES and stop trolling?
What the hell is wrong with discussing who is downloading copyrighted material then laughing at the RIAA cunts?
If you don't have a clue you cant have it. You are at slashdot to learn and teach, not troll your fucking ass off.
Idiot.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
im a foreigner, dont know us law, and even i have understood what they were suing against, and what they were going to use.
you dont need to have a big name to be a good law school. you just need quality students, and encouraging teachers.
Read radical news here
Re: to answer 1, 2 and 3. No.
Look, its seriously time to stop pretending your silly excuses are valid. I will admit I download music/vids/etc, but it IS illegal. No seriously. Yes, some music through special online, downloadable vendors are legal ways to d/l music, but Kazaa is not. Limewire is not. Stop making excuses for yourselves and those who do this. Now, i am in no means a RIAA lover, but ignoring that stealing anything is illegal is irresponsible and childish.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Note to any soon-to-be students: The parent is an idiot, no-one else expects you to work all your waking hours. Enjoy yourselves, it's much easier to learn that way.
Then they will have too much power to continue these actions. On the flip side, constantly fighting these cases in court is not what RIAA wants to do. They want it settled and out of the way as soon as possible. Hopefully law students in each state all take up this cause pro bono. I say law students because they probably will be most likely to fight pro bono and save the defendants money but also they will probably fight as hard as anyone against the RIAA. Imagine putting that on your resume after law school...that you successfully brought down the RIAA.
Talk about your bad car analogy.
Look: I take your car. Now I have a car, and you don't. I have clearly caused you harm: I have made it more difficult for you to go to work, spend time with your family, pick up groceries, and pay for a new car.
Now look again: You're sharing some music files. I download them from you. Now we both have a car... I mean, music files. I have not caused you harm- you still have your music that you (presumably) paid for. The only argument you can make is that I have caused harm to the RIAA (and those who work for it) and the artist. This may be the case, but it's not a given. If I was never going to buy that music to begin with, I haven't deprived anyone of anything. In fact, if I decide I like the music I would never have heard otherwise, I may decide to buy it somewhere down the road. I have caused no harm; I have simply gained a benefit, but not at anyone else's expense.
On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. That's pretty lousy, although a lot of people understandably have a lack of sympathy for uber-billionaire multinational corporations and their multi-billionaire hack artists. This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.
You paint this out to be black and white, but in truth, this situation is extremely nuanced, and the heart of the problem is that our current laws (and the RIAA's current business model) are in no way sufficient or even relevant for it.
Here come the cavalry!
The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.
Using a cantenna, the "smart" students should aim the directional wifi to their dorms and surf on the library IP address. That would be funny. Then the university would HAVE to defend itself against this nonsense instead of throwing its students under the wheels.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's actually a very good move. IANAL, but I did go to law school for awhile and both my parents were educators. It amazes me that the schools have turned over any information. When I was working tech support for a school district hardly a day went by where we would run into an administrative roadblock because of FERPA, and all the privacy guarantees it gives to students.
Speaking for me only, if I were among the students whose identity had already been turned over I would attempt to get my identity withheld in discovery because it was illegally obtained. I would also sue the school which gave away my information.
Have they set up anything for donations?
IANAL so don't mind me if I'm incorrect here, but in that case the ruling magistrate judge suggested Rule 11 sanctions. Stating In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. This judge's complaint is the last point of the motion that the legal aid is filing, but if even the judge has problems with what the MAFIAA is doing here I see the defendants winning most, if not all of the points of this motion.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education
Maybe because a smart woman is infinitely more attractive than a dumb one? Sorry, maybe it's just personal opinion, but I like to see a brain behind the eyes. No, the eyes higher up. Dumb peple are IMHO irritating, especially when they become president.
Hmm, slight tangent. What would happen with a pr*n start as president? It would make life hard for those seeking indictment, and it's not like it would change much from current, umm, "leadership" other than be a heck of a lot more entertaining (and probably less violent).
However, given the national reaction to a simple "wardrobe malfunction" (sjeez what a PC term, let's call it "exposed normal body part") I'd say "fat chance". I must move to Italy..
And because it is written in the holy book it is true and shall always be.
ignoring that stealing anything is illegal is irresponsibleA copyright violation is not stealing.
c++;
The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.
The problem businessmen have is that they can't figure out the solution to this problem. Perhaps by exposing a band to a wide market, they could collect x amount of dollars from the concerts they performed, as they're supposedly responsible for popularzing the band to begin with. So the contract would spell that out for as long as the band is signed up with a particular record label. Recording music would simply be to advertise for the band rather than a major means of profit. You simply can't reproduce live performances--it's a different experience. Start making shit that can't be downloaded! Add extra shit to those hard copy of albums to make them worthwhile to buy: extra art, neat case, raffle tickets to win apparel, dogtags with band member names on it, et cetera. It's time to be creative. The artist at this point seems to be supported, so now I want my art for free and I'll worry about the artist when necessary. After all, isn't art's main purpose to be enjoyed by both the creator and his of her fans? As long as the artist isn't broke, I'm not going to feel guilty for not supporting the business of uncreative suits.
...go to 11!
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
You really nailed it. It is very nuanced and the reason why the debate rages because people can play the semantics game and make either side sound plausible. Thing is, slashdot is *the* place for geeks, and geeks are normally more objective than this. I guess everyone (or community) has their blind spots. You'll probably catch a few undeserved troll/flamebait mods for stating what you did because you'll look like an RIAA stooge (and you obviously aren't). But at least what you said is objective.
That said, the RIAA should NOT be allowed to use questionable tactics to enforce their copyrights. They really do bully people. It's unfortunate that well connected and very wealthy organizations can do things that the average guy couldn't. The law should be enforced with a modicum of parity. If the law really falls short in addressing what downloading music illegally is defined as, at least it can be consistent in how far a corporation can go in defending its IP, as well as how much in damages it can seek in a civil trial. The story of the woman from Michigan who was successfully sued for >200K should have never happened. What sane court could grant such a sum for such a small crime? That should be as illegal as copyright infringement, I know the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't pertain to civil trials but in this case that's what it was.
blah blah blah
There was no need for that. Apologise.
simon
This point was really driven home to me on discussion list recently. All the GenY members were defending graffiti as an artform whereas all the older members were condemning it as vandalism. GenY seems to think vandalism is OK as long as it is done against large corporations. I blame the RIAA in part for this. I blame the RIAA in part for the increase in graffiti.
I'm confused. Should I be at /. to learn and teach, or to discuss who is downloaded copyrighted music and laugh at RIAA cunts?
Because really, they're not one and the same.
You'd think the judge could put a stop to that -- or better yet a new Federal Rule -- mandating that any identities discovered could only be utilized in the current case. That way, if the plaintiffs lost, or never went to trial in the first place, that information couldn't be misused otherwise.
There was a non-RIAA non-Copyright case a couple years ago where a company sued to obtain the identity of a blogger, critical to that company, and believed to be an employee. While that company had no possibility of winning their case under the First Amendment, once they forced the internet site to cough up sufficient identifying information, they dropped their case and simply fired the employee. That should have never been allowed, and side-steps the whole intent that anonymous persons can be forced to be identified by the courts in virtually any case, no matter how lame, because it's necessary for the administration of justice to identify these defendants.
The whole idea that this will all come out in the wash so to speak, meaning at the actual trial exonerating innocent defendants and punishing overreaching plaintiffs totally misses the point of the damage already being done by the time identities have been revealed under the most flimsy of pretenses.
There should be an argument made that because the RIAA cannot win at trial with the illegally gathered evidence they already have, then identities shouldn't be revealed in the first place. Of course the RIAA will throw back the Jamie Thomas case were stupid juries, a less than bright defendant, and outright wrong jury instructions show that anything is possible if you throw enough b.s. at it.
Of course, my idea will only work if the penalties for actually misusing identity information outside of the trial itself are very VERY severe!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
damaged by dogma
1. This may not pass in a court of law, but a way to show there is no intent to distribute but still make available would be a disclaimer when connecting sayign "Unauthorized connections or copying of this data is not permitted." The server could still allow it without resistance, but it would be posted as not allowed.
This would be like the books on a table in the front yard with a sign that says "Don't steal". No one would be stopping anyone from taking a book, but they owner would be seen as making an effort saying they do not authorize the action.
2. Regardless of thier tactics, concerns with copyright length, and the "quality" of the people they represent's product, don't you still believe that when people own IP with a valid copyright (especially if the music/movie/etc is fairly new) have a right to control the distribution of their work and somehow stop people from sharing THEIR music/movie/data/etc without authorization?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Why should RIAA exist at the first place?
Corporations should not have the right to "unionize" with the sole purpose of suing people.
God...NO!!!
> are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation
Ummm, that's what copyright is for, so the owners can go after the copyright violaters, including discovery, getting publicity (to discourage others), and intimidation (to discourage others.) Penalties are intimidation.
Now if you view it as a SLAPP- or Scientology-style attack, designed to intimidate by deliberately driving up costs, then you may have a point.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It may be "illegal". It isn't necessarily immoral or unethical.
It's all about the age of the work. There's plenty of stuff that
should be in the public domain by now but isn't because one side
of this particular social contract has decided to rewrite the
rules (much like credit card issuing banks).
The sad fact of the matter is there is now much more and better
content that should be free but isn't than there is new stuff.
This is really what the RIAA and MPAA are afraid of.
They're afraid that their flavor of the month can't stand up to John Wayne.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"Have you ever watched porn close caption?"
Transcribing porn for the hearing impaired.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Answer#1 Why Not?: This is a simple one to dismiss: Because I said so!
Answer#2 How is it free. If it is legally free then accepted, if there is a question of legality see answer #1
Answer#3 This actually is gibberish.
Why bother
I prefer the boat analogy, personally, from April Fool's:
RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy
In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.
If you cant afford the music you cant have it.
Answer #1: Why not?
I can't afford a car and would like yours.
Answer #2: Since it's now free, everyone can afford it.
That's very generous of you. Leave the keys under the floormat.
Answer #3: These days, you can have the music even if you can't afford it. Since they're at college to learn, they'd better spend their money on books.
Your generosity with other people's possessions is remarkable. After all, you are entitled to them.
Actually cruel and unusual punishment extends to everyone. If you catch your kid jerking off to gay porn you arent allowed to make them walk down main street with their pants down holding up a sign that says 'I'm a flaming faggot!'. Because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.
Besides punishment for a crime (or civil case) is decided BY the Government (read: judge). Therefore they are not permitted to apply anything that would be considered cruel or unusual.
1. not to mention not go to the same educational institution or use the same ISP, or live in the same general geographic area as someone who might be distributing copyrighted works without authorization.
2. you're missing the fact that almost every time anyone has lawyered up against them, they speedily drop the suit. that would seem to point to the fact that they're simply throwing lots of lawsuits with minimal or non-existent/inadmissible evidence and hope that they're uninterested in contesting the claims and/or unable to get a lawyer to do so, and simply pay them X thousand dollars to go away.
3. no doubt that what they [the sharers] are (allegedly) doing is illegal under current (US) copyright law. what is at issue is the manner in which they are perusing appears to blatantly violate several other laws regarding legal process. simply because they believe they are perusing people doing something illegal should not give them carte blanche to do whatever they like in the process.
4. that is being worked on.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Must... learn... to stop... BITING...
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
All of the above.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The more I think about the argument about works reverting to the public domain, the less sense it makes.
If I spend 3 years working and toiling to buy some land and build a house, then that house is mine FOREVER. I can even leave it to my descendants, and they will still 100% own it in a thousand years time. There is inheritance tax, but the property remains private
If I take that same 3 years work, and put it into writing a new book, some software, a game or recording an album, apparently that isn't mine any more within X years (where X is defined as zero by anti-copyright kids).
Why?
The rational man would not produce creative work because its value is limited to only X years. this is a DISINCENTIVE to creative work.
You might say that society benefits from publically owned communal art. But isn't this true of land too? There are some individuals in my country owning hundreds of acres, who did NOTHING to deserve it, not even their great grandparents did the original work.
How is this fair? or sensible?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I know want to eliminate the middleman. However, I don't know a single one that thinks the answer lies in giving away all their recordings. Do you?
damaged by dogma
that examines a computers harddrive and estimates the amount of space I can "hide" music data in. Then I gather the music listening habits of the machine by genre, peak play times, and other various metrics. Finally I use this data to obtain music from various P2P sources to find content the user would enjoy and secretly insert it into their play lists. Think I can get the RIAA to pay a $50 fee per machine I install it on? I'm going to be rich!!
Taking when you can't afford is understandable when talking about necessities. Taking when you can afford (just about everyone can afford a bit of music) rewards nothing but your own greed.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
B.) They are excessive.
C.) Therefore, unconstitutional.
It certainly does apply to Civil Trial when damages are a priori set by Federal Statute, juries are instructed, biased, and beholden to not awarding actual damages, which according to recent Supreme Court cases, are deemed excessive at more than three times the actual damage amount. So any penalty greater than $3 per infringed song is unconstitutional, let alone $150,000 fines for $1 (not even *proved*) actual damages.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Death.
Apply the same reasoning to this situation as you did elsewhere. You have indeed "denied income" to the RIAA, but that is not the same thing as harming them. For example, if you started up a competing label then you have "denied income" to the RIAA's member labels by getting some people to buy from you instead of them. Invalidating someone else's future expectations, however well or badly founded, is not wrong per se; it can contribute to one's liability, but only if it is the result of actual harm. For example, if you cripple someone you can become liable for their future income, but if you instead out-compete them and are awarded their job you own them nothing, despite having denied them the same amount of future income.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I notice that one form of trolling which takes place, every time we have a post on a litigation event in the RIAA cases, is that someone starts some thread about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, whether the money goes to the artists, etc.
I wish folks with moderation points would mod those posts as "off-topic".
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the litigations, which are not about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, but about whether morons with a lot of money in the bank and a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers have the right to be suing (a) innocent people for no reason at all, and (b) people who may have committed copyright infringement for excessive sums of money.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
sins of our fathers, and all. What's your last name?
damaged by dogma
Wow, I just saw that movie last weekend. I can't remember the name of it, though. Hah.
I always thought a better analogy would be something like:
I own a lake. I charge admission to go swimming in my lake, which is otherwise not fenced-in or restricted in any way. At night, while I'm asleep, you go swimming in my lake.
Outside the obvious (and irrelevant) issue of trespass, do you owe me money?
There are some things you can say:
* It's stupid to not fence in a lake, and expect nobody to go swimming in it. Unfortunately, that ends up being an argument for DRM.
* Lakes should be free for everyone to swim in. Obviously, we have plenty of precedent for controlling access to "enjoyment" of a source that would cost the same to maintain and run regardless of the number of participants (movie theaters, for a simple example).
* This analogy is stupid. I'm not sure that it is. A media license and an admission work in much the same way, with much the same purpose.
The fact is that the RIAA's entire business model depends on most people paying admission. That certainly doesn't excuse their current tactics, which are reprehensible.
However, anyone with a level of personal responsibility and objectivity has to recognize that if you break an existing business model by not playing the game, the business model will change. In this case, the cultural shift towards file-sharing was damned near instantaneous in industry terms, so all the changes have been heavily reactive: draconian DRM, litigation, etc.
I hope the RIAA goes down in flames. I also hope a general understanding is gained by the public that widespread casual media piracy, whether you think it's right or wrong, will throw the status quo out the window when it becomes notable enough (and it probably already has).
What we get in return may or may not be better. We can get better shopkeepers, maybe, but any media distribution business model is going to have to rely either on honor (legally enforced or otherwise) or external restrictions like DRM. Take your pick.
I did understand this stuff already, but just wanted to make sure it really was that simple.
... totally wasted on this crowd, I'm sure, since most of us are much better informed than you are.
Honestly, I haven't seen even a Microsoft apologist do a better job portraying truly awful people in such a positive light, while simultaneously skirting the real issues. Very impressive effort
They aren't the bad guys, they just have a dirty job.
They are very much are the bad guys, because this is less a matter of why, as it is a matter of how. Now, I was going to write a lengthy missive in a (probably vain) effort to enlighten you, but then I discovered the source of your disinformation:
I once hired an entertainment attorney to explain it all to me, who was very surprised that it's not self evident.
That's rather like asking a surgeon whether or not you need surgery (no offense intended to any surgeons out there, but we all have our biases.) Next time, try selecting a competent attorney specializing in copyright law who doesn't work for the very industry whose tactics and ethics are being questioned. You might gain a better understanding of what's really going on here.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This point ought to be expanded. A way to foment a revolution is actual unfairness. The MAFIAA is patently unfair in their dealings with both their customers and artists. They have no sense of responsibility to be trying such stunts. They're their own worst enemies. They won't play by the rules, so it falls to our legal system to stop them. They persist in their obviously wrong views of how the natural world works. Regulations on the ever easier activity known as "copying" simply cannot be forced or enforced on unwilling people. The MAFIAA's efforts have for the most part served to precipitate a change of heart in many people who would be willing participants, and would feel twinges of conscience for "starving artists". That's the real message sent by "judgment of $222,000 against a single mother for allegedly sharing 24 copyrighted songs" and many other similar cases despite furious efforts to spin all those as fair punishments for infringement of holy copyright. They've managed to brainwash a number of people, but it's been wearing ever thinner, and too many of their efforts such as "Captain Copyright" have been comically inept. Actually, they aren't really even bothering to say those judgments are fair, only that they "send a message" that we'd better not "copy that floppy". DRM and copy protection have been at best wastes, and at worst complete disasters. But either mislead by their convictions or through sheer uncaring greed or most likely a bit of both, they try these DRM schemes, and also try to subvert our system, getting new rules passed and upheld through a combination of bribery (with the most common euphemism for that being "campaign contributions") and hysterical fearmongering over a basic fact of life known as "change". Valenti and his "Boston strangler" analogy come to mind. How else would the judge in the original Napster case have been moved to proclaim that the defendants have "created a monster"?
It is good for stability that these law students, among others, have found ways to help the system in at last reining in the MAFIAA. There are still plenty of other wealthy players who are finessing, bending, and outright cheating every way they can. Cheating of course is also a fact of nature, but that thanks to corruption they get away with it repeatedly is an ongoing problem. I maintain we still need fundamental changes to the law, and that copyright and also patent law must eventually be seen by a majority for the dogma that it is, and be neutered and possibly even repealed. To the extent that the MAFIAA's comeuppance delays this, this is bad. If the MAFIAA could actually prevail, they might find all they managed to do was precipitate a revolution, and discover they're in the thrilling position of "first against the wall". But once the law is caught up with reality whether by negotiation or revolution, and it then seems desirable to give extra encouragement to the arts and sciences (and I expect it will), we can devise ways to do that without trying to regulate sharing. I'm not keen on such ideas as a levy on blank CDs, or an Internet tax, as there'd certainly be big issues in figuring out how the monies raised should be distributed let alone whether the levy or tax is a fair amount or even fair at all, with even more players looking for every angle, but I think such schemes might ultimately be chosen.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Over-broad, vague discovery notices, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
what firm do you work for so I can I let them know?