Slashdot Mirror
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of 10 copyright law professors has filed an amicus curiae ('friend of the court') brief on the side of the defendant in Capitol v. Thomas, agreeing with the judge's recent decision that the $222,000 verdict won by the RIAA appears to be tainted by a 'manifest error of law.' The clear and well-written 14-page brief (PDF) argues that the 'making available' jury instruction, which the RIAA had requested and the judge ultimately accepted, was in fact a 'manifest error of law,' making the point, among others, that an interpretation of a statute should begin with the words of the statute. My only criticism of the brief is that it overstates the authorities relied on by the RIAA, citing cases which never decided the 'making available' issue as cases which had decided it in the RIAA's favor."
As it turns out, the MPAA, close ally to the RIAA, has come forth with a more controversial view. They suggest that proof of actual distribution shouldn't be required. From their brief (PDF): "Mandating that proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances."
Oh, certainly! If RIAA accuses someone of breaking a law, it is certainly a terrible burden on them to have to prove that, following the actual wording of the law Congress chose, an offense actually happened. Who among us hasn't had the same problem, from time to time?
If I went to Alice's bank, and demanded that they give me all of her money, because Alice died and left it to me, it would be a great hardship for me to have to show that Alice actually died, and actually willed the money as I claimed. Why, with the onerous burden of proof in my lap, I might not be able to collect anything! Just because there's an outside chance that she's still alive and doesn't know me from Adam doesn't mean that the bank shouldn't take my word for it.
I can say, absolutely honestly, that I have more sympathy with RIAA on this issue, than I have ever had with them on any other. Just don't ask me to prove it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
If they can't prove the distribution, then how do they know the copyright infringement is happening?
The same method they use to come up with the imaginary losses they suffer due to copyright infringementIn addition, I will testify against them.
Ignore this signature. By order.
"Quiet, quiet! There are ways of telling if she is a witch. Tell me. What do you do with witches?"
"Burn them!"
"And what else do you burn?"
"More witches! Um... Wood!"
"Does wood sink in water?"
"No! No! It floats!"
"And what else floats in water?"
"A duck!"
"So, logically..."
"If she weighs the same as a duck, then she must be made of wood! And therefore... a witch! Burn her!"
all the "proof" you need.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I don't know whether to be worried or relieved. It worries me that a judge somewhere is going to buy into that, at which point we can all kiss "innocent until proven guilty" goodbye. On the other hand this could turn out very well indeed if they get laughed out of court and be made to play by the same rules as everyone else.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
So what you want to say is that the more insane copyright laws get, the more people download content illegally?
Hey, I have a really weird idea how to solve that problem and make both sides happy!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Five congenital liars, a serial killer, six child molesters, several sewer rats and a starving weasel applied to the same court for status as "Friends of the RIAA".
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Fletcher: "Your honor, I object!"
Judge Stevens: "Why?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
Judge Stevens: "Over-ruled."
Fletcher: "Good call!"
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
And the mere fact that they chose not to respond to these allegations (of child abuse, child pornography and treason) is proof of their guilt.
I'll get the rope.
At one point we needed too much proof so we started printing a lot of it; proof then went down in value due to inflation and is now lower than the US Dollar.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]