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.
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.
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...
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
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....
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?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's cute. If you weren't an AC it would be even cuter.
Dance for me, monkey!
Notice how these kind of comments, when made, are always made by "Anonymous Cowards."
They don't seem to grasp the nuances of the issue, can't spell (even her name) properly, and generally seem like a perfect example of what social promotion and television have done to western societies.
These types will be the first ones who bow down and welcome the completion of the convergence of corporate behemoths and corrupt governments into the coming fascistic nightmare.
They speak of "the law" and seem to have disdain for those who think they are "above it," yet have no recognition of which parties in this issue are truly acting "above the law."
It does not fill me with faith in our future.
HA! You weren't counting on me posting in Klingon! Take that you lawyers!
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
Just because one opposes the RIAA does not mean that one advocates all of the things that the RIAA opposes. The issue here is not that the RIAA wants people to pay for its music; it's that the RIAA is using absurd definitions, underhanded tactics and exaggerations to take money which they don't deserve. The fact that one side breaks the law does not make it justified for the other side to ignore it.
Paradox
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.
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
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
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."
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.
Most of the time the AC "unpopular opinion" I see is blatant trolling. You can disagree without sounding like an asshole simply looking for replies. Very, VERY rarely do I see an AC account posting something truly insightful -- because they have nothing to lose. They can say whatever they want and there's nothing tying them to it, so it attracts all sorts of morons.
I have nothing against AC posts, and I have posted in favor of copyright (and also in reforming the current stupidity that is copyright in the US), and I sometimes post as AC. But insightful, interesting posts don't often come from the AC bunch. Especially on hot-button issues -- look in just about any thread on an issue and you'll see dozens of ACs posting shit like OP did.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
And for a good 100+ years or so it worked beautifully. If the trade agreement hadn't been broken by the cartels you and I could listen to Hendrix,Joplin,Classic Stones,etc all for free. And artists would be free to take that music and reinterpret in new and exciting ways. But you see Mr. Coward,a trade agreement ceases to be a trade agreement when one side doesn't get anything in return.It would be like me offering you a free car dealership in return for the rights to all the older models traded in,only when I go to collect you kick me in the nuts and have me arrested for daring to step on "your" property. But you see Mr. Coward,it isn't your property because you didn't live up to the agreement. So YOU are a thief. Just as the RIAA has stolen from us all by robbing us of our public domain so that they can profit for eternity.
So while I haven't heard anything from the RIAA "artists" that I would actually listen to if you paid me,I would have no problem with someone else downloading their music. Because THEY broke the agreement and until a new agreement is reached that is fair and equitable to both sides I say they can go piss up a rope. But of course this is my 02c(released into the public domain),YMMV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You're trolling, but I'll make my point anyway. In all of the comments I've seen by NYCL, and in looking at his litigation history I see little to no evidence that he is "anti-RIAA" because he opposes copyright in general. In fact, the litigation history suggests his typical case is one where the RIAA's fishnet has wrongly fingered someone for infringement and the RIAA insists on pressing forward despite having a generally flimsy case.
The impression I get is not one of anti-copyright, but one of anti-abuse of the legal system. There are many of us who support the idea that copyright infringement is wrong, but still abhor the legal practices of the RIAA. It's easy to just say "if you do nothing wrong you won't get sued" but I think there's a certain single mother in Oregon who would argue against that point. I really see no alternative in such situations but a direct confrontation. Perhaps you have a better solution Mr. Anonymous Coward?
As a side note: Perhaps you wouldn't get down-modded as troll if you made a truly insightful post rather than going for cheap ad hominem attacks. If you don't want to be marked as a troll don't sound like one when you post.
2. Most likely the reason he's biased is that he has been representing some large content owning companies.
3. No I don't think he considered himself smarter than me. He's just afraid that I'm right. In fact, I think he knows that I'm right, but wants to persuade the legal community to think otherwise.
4. Two things that never really come across in transcripts are (a) humor and (b) irony. In my opinion, Hugh Hansen is a very funny, self-effacing, guy with a good sense of humor, and the transcript doesn't really do that justice. He knew that the things I was saying were important, and represented valid views of the law; that's why he invited me as a speaker. And he invited other people, as well, who are not in agreement with his views.
That being said, I would prefer speaking in an environment where the moderator treats my views with respect, and where the conference does not have an agenda of propagandizing for the moderator's viewpoint. Many of the attendees, many of whom were lawyers from foreign countries, may have been misled by the intellectually dishonest presentation Michael Schlesinger gave.
All in all, this experience was a little like being on the Bill O'Reilly Show.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Without copyright, the NYT would have one subscriber: an admin of RipOffTheNYT.com. Everyone else would eschew paying for the NYT and get the exact same content for free from RipOffTheNYT.com.
Don't forget that the NYT and other investigative journalism organizations need to exist for places like Slashdot to exist. Slashdot doesn't investigate; it refers and contains discussion.
Speaking of which, couldn't the NYT just kill if it could get a critical mass of users to behave in a Slashdot way--their business model could be "come for the news, stay for the discussion." And if you had to subscribe in order to comment, they could ensure a relatively high level of discussion. Imagine Slashdot for people with Slashdot-comparable expertise in foreign affairs, or national politics rather than just tech (of course members of Slashdot know more than tech, but, e.g., not a substantial number of users are well-versed in the law--hence "IANAL, but") and with a mod system. I would pay (assuming I had a job) to participate in that sort of discussion on such far-reaching issues.
And subscriptions could be cancelled if people were flamers, thus ensuring good discussion.
1. Follow the Copyright Act.
2. Follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Follow the US Constitution and make sure that statutory damages are not violative of the Due Process clause.
4. Follow normal, traditional practices of the copyright bar, in seeking to avoid, rather than rushing to precipitate, litigation.
I think that would be "fair", "reasonable", and "practical". Why don't you?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I can't speak for anyone else here, but can tell you why I am "unwilling to answer" your question. Because it is an absurd question. As we lawyers would say, it "assumes facts not in evidence".
You are starting from an assumption that US copyright law is not up to protecting the rights of copyright holders. As someone who has worked with copyright law for almost 35 years, I respectfully disagree.
If you are sincere in that belief, and I have no reason to doubt that you are, you are about the only person I have ever met who sincerely believes such a thing.
There are shills, trolls, flacks, lobbyists, and even attorneys, who work for content holders, who will publicly say such stuff when you press a button, but none of them sincerely believe such claptrap.
All copyright holders have to do is what they have been doing for decades in the US:
-keep an eye open for major violators of their rights,
-enter into cease and desist agreements with those violators, and
-as to those who refuse to enter into cease and desist agreements, if they are engaged in major copyright infringement, commence a lawsuit based upon (a) solid evidence, and (b) the well established law, and (c) follow the normal rules and practices of civil litigation in the federal courts.
The only people who ever tried to make anyone think that ambushing our populace with wholesale lawsuits against minor copyright infringements was an effective business model were the morons in the employ of 4 large record companies and 6 large motion picture companies who had failed to capitalize on one of the greatest business opportunities in the history of the world, the dawning of the digital age, and were now looking to find a scapegoat for their screwup, finding their scapegoats in children, grandparents, stroke victims, homeless people, and other hapless victims of the content cartel's madness. They, and the lawyers who have profiteered by inciting and exploiting this folly.
I am sorry if their propaganda machine has unduly influenced you. And I am sorry to disillusion you. But our copyright law and our court system work just fine, when they are not being abused by a host of well paid liars.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful