Slashdot Mirror
NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "At Fordham Law School's annual IP Law Conference this year, Slashdot member NewYorkCountryLawyer had a chance to square off with Kenneth Doroshow, a Senior Vice President of the RIAA, over the subject of copyright statutory damages. Doroshow thought the Jammie Thomas verdict of $222,000 was okay, he said, since Ms. Thomas might have distributed 10 million unauthorized copies. NYCL, on the other hand, who has previously derided the $9,250-per-song file verdict as 'one of the most irrational things [he has] ever seen in [his] life in the law', stated at the Fordham conference that the verdict had made the United States 'a laughingstock throughout the world.' An Australian professor on the panel said, 'The comment has been made a few times that America is out of whack and you are a laughingstock in the rest of the world. As the only non-American on the panel, that's true. We do see the cases like Thomas in our newspapers, and we think: "Wow, those crazy Americans, what are they up to now?"
This whole notion of statutory damages is not something that we have within our Copyright Act. You actually have to be able to prove damage for you to be able to be compensated for that.' NYCL also got to debate the 'making available' issue, saying that there was no 'making available' right in US copyright law, despite the insistence of the program's moderator, the 'keynote' speaker, and a 'majority vote' of the audience that there was such a right. The next day, two decisions came down, and a month later yet another decision came down, all rejecting the 'making available' theory."
Notice is hereby given that Harmonious Botch claims copyright to the phrase "First post", both with and without an exclaimation mark, in uppercase or lowercase or any combination thereof, whether actually posted as a first post, a later post, or not posted at all, in alphabetic characters or other representation, including, but not limited to, brail, 1337, and morse code, in English, or any other language, whether posted on Slashdot or any other forum; and all derivative phrases, including, but not limited to: "Frist post", "Fist pots", "Frost p0st", "Frist pozt", "Frost pots", "Forced p0st", "Forced pots", "Firts post", "Fist post", "Frost post", "Fist pozt", "Frost pozt", "Forced post", "Furst post", "Frist psot", "Firts psot", "Firts p0st", "Fist p0st", "Frost psot", "Forced psot", "Forced pozt", "Furst psot", "Frosty piss", "Frist pist", "Firts pist", "Furst p0st", "Forced piss", "Fist pist", "Frost pist", "Forced pist", "Fist psot", "Furst pist", "Frist p0st", "Frost p0st", "Frist pozt", "Firts pozt", "Furst pozt", "Frist pots", "Firts pots", "Furst pots", and any similar phrase, both with and without an exclaimation mark, in uppercase or lowercase or any combination thereof, whether actually posted as a first post, a later post, or not posted at all, in alphabetic characters or other representation, including, but not limited to, brail, 1337, and morse code, in English, or any other language, except for French - I'm not that desperate, whether posted on Slashdot or any other forum.
than to have judges get your back when you are arguing with someone about how fucking wrong they are.
/. was represented (in a way) in that slap to the face.
One word sums this up: SWEEEEEET!
It took time but the RIAA and their lawyers are starting to look like the ass cabbage that they really are. It's quite nice to see that
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Just cause you cant understand him doesn't mean he's incoherent.
The rest of us have no problem.
How we know is more important than what we know.
No, honestly, often NYCL pretends that his is the only possible viewpoint and that it's so obvious that he doesn't bother to explain himself. It's both off-putting and tough to understand. He just doesn't realize that it's not so obvious that he's right.
Old "news" written in the third person.
Sure was a long summary... wait... you bastards, you tricked me into reading the article!
Additionally, his real name is NewYorkCountryLawyer. This by itself was news enough for me to read the story.
you aren't going to score any kind of points against these guys. they don't give a fuck what you or NYCL thinks, they just go home and roll around in their piles of money, doing the Dr Evil laugh.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
So the average song size was around 3Mbytes, 10 million copies would make for a total upload of around 30 Terabytes.
On my ADSL service (1.5Mbps download/256kbps upload), it would take me over 37 YEARS to upload that much data assuming I used it for nothing else, and the service had 100% uptime! Heck even if I got ADSL2+, uploads would still only be 4 times faster - bringing it down to just under 10 years to do that kind of an upload.
I guess I really do live in an Internet backwater...
There is no denying this. she took music without paying and thought she was above the law. I have fuck all sympathy for her, or at least, no more than I would have for someone shoplifting some CDs.
And then she compounded the error by denying it to the authorities. So she is a thief AND stupid.
Frankly I wish the fine was higher. I'm sick of leechers like her sponging off the goodwill of the honest people who buy music.
Everyone defending that woman is a music thief with a guilty conscience and I'm sick oh hearing you all whining like children.
grow up and get a job.
Was that the transcript of the entire discussion? It seems a bit odd to me that the organizers would go to the trouble of assembling the panel and an audience including some foreign lawyers only to have what appeared to be a brief twenty (20) minute discussion and then take no questions at the end. Perhaps Professor Hansen didn't like how the discussion was unfolding and cut it short so that he wouldn't lose the debate. Isn't it a bit unusual and irregular for the moderator to take a position up front anyway? What ever happened to the impartial and unbiased moderator concept?
Or, to put it another way, If I have something, and anyone who sees it can steal it, claiming I have "made it available" how many cars would not be stolen in New York?
Perhaps someone should ask the RIAA this question.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Since the Japanese has 1Gb/s links to the home and the RIAA/MPAA knows Americans are the more advanced culture, they obviously need to work on the assumption that everyone would have 10Gb/s links at least. It stands to reason, after all. Especially if they can get a larger fine out of the deal, and it's not like a judge would know what network speeds are meaningful. (If they did, the RIAA/MPAA would be being dangled over a crocodile pit by now.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
MR. BECKERMAN: The law runs the country. This is a nation of law, not a country of lawyers who are best paid by large content owners.
PROF. HANSEN: Ray, let's not get ad hominem. You know what ad hominem means? You've got a losing argument and you're desperate. So just stick to the merits.
I wonder how many Americans would agree that the quote-unquote "intellectual elite" should run the country.
Who is NewYorkCountryLawyer, and why does he talk about himself in third person?
But it is the RIAA who've sunk lower and lower in my opinion over the years, so that's my justification for reading it.
Couldn't NYCL have gotten a sock puppet to post this to soothe my feelings about conflict of interest? I keep hearing about a guy named twitter....
Although that is for ethernet, but ADSL is a shared wire protocol too, I think.
The first link is, I believe, wrong. The debate with Doroshow on statutory damages is here: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcript-of-march-28th-fordham-law_02.html How is it that no-one seems to have noticed there was no debate with Doroshow in the linked article?
No, honestly, his viewpoints are really obvious and simple to understand.
But how will we then kill the poor servers?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
"NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP"
That's not even a fair fight. It's like Raphael fighting a random bank robber. (I recently saw the latest TMNT movie.) Couldn't they have found somebody more at NYCL's level?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
HA! You weren't counting on me posting in Klingon! Take that you lawyers!
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
Litigation is not a business model.
the victims of these law suits will file a class action and reap what the RIAA has sowed.
They're using their grammar skills there.
The whole concept has more holes than meaning. Am I "making available" when I have content on my HD (e.g. from music I bought online), but which happens to be available from outside, because I have no idea how to secure my PC? Or what if I use P2P to distribute my IP, or legally freely available content, and due to the location of the copyrighted content on my HD it is shared as well?
Why is the owner of a PC suddenly respsonsible for the actions of his machine when it comes to content, but he is out of obligations when it comes to damage done by trojans and worms?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
PAY YOUR $699 LICENSE FEE, YOU COCK-SMOKING TEABAGGERS!
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your failure to correctly post even a simple classic troll simply doesn't measure up to the high standards we have here at slashdot. You see, unlike at digg or fark, we here at slashdot have a rich tradition of truly great trolling, and because of this we attract only the best and brightest of the trolling community. Our trolls gone on to lead very rich and lucrative careers in exciting and rewarding fields such as shills for Microsoft and Comcast management. Who do you think came up with the whole "make available" scheme the RIAA uses? That's right, a former slashdot troll!
So please, in the future put more care and thought into your trolling. Remember that you are walking the path blazed by such luminaries as the GNAA and that you stand beside such greats as the shit eater troll and the ASCII goatse guy. So in the future try to remember the greats that came before you along with your trolling peers and live up to their high standards. Thank you for your time and may you have a successful career trolling here at slashdot!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
[Show of hands]
PROF. GINSBURG: Absent the applicable exceptions. At least prima facie.
PROF. HANSEN: Prima facie. A good point. Thank you.
How many would say no?
[Show of hands]
Significantly fewer.
"Making something available in a folder" is basically the internet, in a nutshell. The exceptions they speak of should rather be the rule. Staggering.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
So if P2P file sharing is "illegal" then the "deep packet inspection" software programs the RIAA are insisting Universities install are also "illegal", no matter whether certain aspects of both processes are more or less automatic or more or less manual. If the RIAA has a right to wholesale examine the contents of all files on the internet to look for copyright violations, then so too does every single individual P2P user. The label "pirate" is nothing less than a fraudulently inaccurate intentionally distorted ad hominem criminally impeding the process of both legal and educational discovery.
Is it just me or does this conjure memories of <every-film-you've-seen-involving-an-exorcism>, where the malignant spirit is mocking the priest as he attempts the exorcism ?
Requiem for the American Dream
Mod parent up.
;).
From the transcript, if Hansen considers himself a member of the intellectual elite and still resorts to that sort of reasoning and argument, then I must be a super genius
'one of the most irrational things [he has] ever seen in [his] life in the law'
Really Ray? I mean it IS egregious, but a fine, any fine, really doesn't compare to losing your liberty for simple possession of marijuana. And that happens to people every day.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We are a nation of laws created with the consent of the governed. There are limits to what people will put up with no matter how clever Hansen and friends think they are.
Hansen thinks he would like to live in an aristocracy but he is sadly mistaken. He and his friends in the room feel good about their position in the world today but the more power they gain, the smaller the room will become. Aristocracy quickly becomes autocracy and autocrats have little need for lawyers once they are established. It starts with the mistaken notion of, "my opinion is more important than yours," and it ends with, "do as I say."
What I'd really like to know is what a rational, intelligent person who is interested primarily in courts giving fair verdicts that reflect the spirit of the law would want here.
I can understand the reservations about allowing a "making available" argument: if you can't prove that a specific illegal act has been committed, the idea of bringing a case based only on hypotheticals seems a bit dubious.
On the other hand, copyright is widely infringed on the Internet, contrary to the law, and the law in many jurisdictions and contexts does recognise concepts like inciting, soliciting or otherwise supporting illegal behaviour as illegal in their own right.
Using common sense, it's hard to see how a person with a hard drive full of ripped material subject to copyright, who is offering to share it over a P2P network where large amounts of copyright infringement take place, is innocent of all wrong-doing. If you don't accept the argument about making available, what is a fair and reasonable way for copyright holders whose material is being illegally shared to enforce their legal rights in this situation?
(If you want to rant about how all of copyright is broken and should be abolished, please do so in another thread and leave this one for discussing how to uphold the spirit of today's law fairly. Thanks.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's two judges and both of them took more time and trouble to understand the issue. That says a lot about Beckman's position.
The absurdity of the copyright warrior opinion was well represented at the debate itself. When talking about "common sense" they failed to use much of it. Instead of looking at the intent of copyright law as established in the US Constitution, they picked apart meanings of various sections of copyright code and cases that have no real bearing. It is as if they took a highlighter to millions of pages of random text and selected the words that make their case best then triumphantly declared themselves masters of the Universe. Ouija-boards are more honest.
Scholars such as Lessig and philosophers like Stallman have looked at intent come to the very reasonable conclusion that verbatim, personal copy should always be allowed because it maximizes the advancement of the state of the arts. The language of the Constitution is as plain and Copyright is a created right we no longer need.
The Constitution can only be ignored by confusing people with frauds like "intellectual property." The most obvious madness is the DMCA's attack on free speech by turning trade secret into to a kind of perpetual patent in the name of copyright defense. By confusing the purpose of each of these separate things, the copyright warriors have combined their powers into something no reasonable person would agree with. When created rights trump natural rights, you know the laws are out of balance.
Isn't Recording Industry vs The People NYCL's blog? So he's posting a submission (where all his points are made and any argument against his point of view is redacted, taken out of context or mis-characterized) with a link to his own blog, which features a transcript of him thinking he's "won" a debate despite outrageous attempts by The Man to keep him down (because, after all, as other posters have pointed out, the moderator was essentially Palpatine holding a knife to the throat of an infant)?
Oh wait, that's right... in any sub-group, the opinion they want to hear becomes the "right one." I'm going to go onto lolcatz and e-mail everyone about the transcript of a conversation with me talking to President Bush about how his next cabinet member should spend an hour each day making pictures of animals using poor grammar, then him telling me that it's a bad idea. That way I know I'm right because everyone will agree with me.
In journalism, this "submission" would be called incestuous. On the internet, this is called news.
Waiting for my "troll" mod...
When you're right, you're right.
it's so obvious that he doesn't bother to explain himself. It's both off-putting and tough to understand.If it's too smart for you in here, head back to Digg.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Correct me If I'm wrong, but...
Do not stores make CDs/DVDs/Books available?
Do not shoplifters shoplift?
Why aren't Wal-Mart/Best Buy/Circuit City/etc. being sued?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Look at the panel and audience for examples.
it's just the 99% that give the rest a bad name!
We should soil the names of the RIAA sponsers:
...
EMI
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Universal Music Group
Warner Music Group
Typing away on Slashdot, I can imagine a free news service and one that "rips off" other news services. No one owns facts. The real service is matching reader interest with world events and that's something Slashdot does very well. Looking at blog pages, I can further see that citizen reporting is flourishing and profitable. Your example of selling advertisements on top of another site is a commercial redistribution and not what I have in mind when I advocate "personal, verbatim copy." The New York times may or may not make the transition into the future of electronic publishing where they no longer have a monopoly on fact collection but there's no reason for them to do worse than any other group of gifted reporters and bloggers.
Classical musicians have as much or more to gain from their performances being shared and appreciated as anyone else. They surely don't make any money from record sales and publicity drives ticket sales. Someone else has already posted a link to free classical music.
was this advertised on /.? i'd have liked to have gone... or were we afraid of the "slashdot effect" and having a mob of /.'ers to raid fordham?
dreemkill.
Yet there's still a lot of money in classical recordings and symphonies seem to make a living.
Actually I would wager that the GP Anonymous Coward post is an RIAA employee or lawyer, because he keeps putting in the same post almost every time I submit a story, not even changing the words. Only RIAA flunkies are that stupid that they can't think of a few new words.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
it was overdue someone beaten sense into those idiots. more power to you nycl, ask it anytime you need. go bro !
Read radical news here
Dude, that's exactly what he meant -- RIAA == demon being exorcised.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
My peronsal favorite.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I can't believe this hasn't been modded up higher. This is extremely insightful and definitely illustrates the hypocracy of the currently unbalanced execution of the particular laws governing these areas. Bravo, sir or madam.
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
Congrats!
That, Sir, is called beating them at their own game.
My hat's off to you.
SARAVA!
Such an important point everyone should think about.
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
I'm not so sure. Given that judges have made so many mind-boggling judgments regarding copyrights and patents in the past, having one of those judges agree with you isn't exactly proof that you're a rational and intelligent person.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Well let him know about it then. Don't post as AC. Respond to his posts with well thought out rebuttals.
Or you can hide behind AC and make ad hominem attacks and offer no data, facts, debate, or anything substantial to support your position.
Or could it be that childish personal attacks are all you've got?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm well aware of the problems of making assumptions, from both a legal and an ethical perspective. What I'm asking is what people propose as a (fair, reasonable, practical) alternative.
Let me put it this way. You wrote this:
Look, you can't just assume. You have to prove damages. Simply saying "everyone knows he let a lot of people copy it" is not adequate. You have to document those infringements if you want to reasonably claim damages. The fact that doing so is becoming more and more difficult doesn't earn you a free pass in collecting evidence.
See, this is what we call sticking your head in the sand. It's easy to do:
Look, you can't just hide behind legal technicalities. You have to obey the law. Simply saying "you can only protect your legal rights by doing the near-impossible" is not adequate. You have to provide a credible mechanism through which the law can be enforced. The fact that technology makes this less and less likely in the current legal framework is not a free pass in breaking the law.
It's all very well saying you can't just assume, but when it's a damn good bet that the assumption would be correct most of the time and the activity in question is clearly illegal, that's a cop-out. What we need is a constructive way forward.
Consider this: we could remove all assumption and act in the spirit of supporting copyright law by, for example, criminalising all use of P2P software and imposing substantial statutory damages for possession. This would be easy to prove, easy to enforce, and yet I think we'd probably agree that it is completely missing the point and not good law. So before someone comes along and pushes that through, what better ideas do we have?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.