Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Gets Nervous, Brings In Big Gun
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "I guess the RIAA is getting nervous about the ability of its 'national law firm' (in charge of bringing 'ex parte' motions, securing default judgments, and beating up grandmothers and children) to handle the oral argument scheduled to be heard on Monday, August 4th in Duluth, in Capitol v. Thomas. So, at the eleventh hour, it has brought in one of its 'Big Guns' from Washington, D.C., a lawyer who argues United States Supreme Court cases like MGM v. Grokster to handle the argument. This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs, but the judge ultimately realized that he had been misled by the RIAA in issuing his jury instructions, and indicated he's probably going to order a new trial. But, not to worry. A group of 10 copyright law professors from 10 different law schools and several other amici curiae (friends of the court) have filed briefs now, so it is highly unlikely the judge will allow himself to be misled again, no matter who the RIAA brings in as cannon fodder on Monday."
Those RIAA people are pretty sneaky
If this was any other business or industry doing this, other then the music/movie/software industries, they would be laughed at. Think of it this way, would Starbucks sue the customers it has because they switched over to McDonalds coffee? I don't really think so...
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I think they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can. No different from any other company or organization in that respect. This case is absolutely huge to them. Of course they're going to get the best counsel they can. Wouldn't they be foolish if they didn't?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Only here can you start a summary with "I guess...," followed by complete speculation and get away with it.
_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
RIAA gets nervous, brings in goatse man
Sounds pretty epic! Do they allow people to take pop-corn into the court?
You just got troll'd!
Don't forget to tag this article (and all articles relating to the RIAA, MPAA and anyone similar) with the tag "bastards".
And, this seems like a good stopping point. As of 1976 we had 2 26 year terms for a copyright, the act was amended that year and has been amended so many times since that whole treatises exist just to explain the changes in the law over a 32 year period.
What is particularly outrageous is the Sonny Bono extension - or, Save Mickey from the Public Domain Act. That crazy amendment brought material that was in the public domain back into copyright!
The great argument was that the authors would be more motivated to create with longer royalty periods - the only problem: I haven't heard any new creations from George and Ira Gershwin - the lazy bastards (ok, they're dead). The real reason to extend and extend these terms is to allow the corporate assignees to continue to profit. Disney was a strong backer because Mickey was about to become public domain - and that mouse is worth millions to its corporate masters.
The RIAA has been raking in the loot for 10-15 years now - and it is about time to put a stop to this kind of bs. I think that Monday will be the beginning of the end of the RIAA's tactics.
1. Using a crappy law firms
2. Using unlicensed PI's to supposedly download songs
3. Using a business model from 50 years ago in a post Y2K world
4. Not figuring out for years how to make money off of music the old fashioned way- by earning it through new ways of distribution, not by suing people.
5. By potentially generating so much case law that even the MPAA will have to give up as well
knew this was gonna happen eventually when 1 person fights and finds a flaw its not long before more start and the cracks in their "concrete solid" case start to be found and people start hittin on them with the hammers.
Well, I didn't know the phrase amicus curiae before, so I looked it up in Wikipedia and... I can't help it, it sounds a tad bit like "lobbying for courtrooms".
How do courts keep this from happening? Or do they, actually?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Having good lawyers on both sides can really cut through a lot of the fluff and the misery in a case like this. Of course, if the lawyers deliberately want to exacerbate the problem and the judge isn't on the ball, they can make things worse. But otherwise, why would the RIAA not want the best lawyer it can get?
They've already had their expert "ambushed" with Daubert in the previous UMG vs. Lindor deposition that Ray Beckerman posted. This is 100% a rookie mistake. A competent firm would have briefed the expert and all related parties extensively on Daubert to ensure this doesn't happen. The downside for the opposition is that a better lawyer has a better chance of avoiding these rookie mistakes, so you have to actually argue facts rather than procedure.
Do all of you who rail against the RIAA really want them defeated because they hired crappy lawyers, or do you want them defeated on the merits? I fear that the answer from the Slashdot crowd at large is "either way, doesn't matter" but I think that's a little intellectually dishonest.
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use. If you don't like it, you really need to be writing your members of Congress to change Copyright law. An issue like Capitol v. Thomas, where the issue seems to have shifted toward the magnitude of damages, is something that can be fought in the courts. And if it is to be fought in the courts, let it be fought on the essence of the issues and not on accidental factors such as the quality of the attorneys involved.
...and here is his unique game plan.
1) Ban reporters from courtroom
2) Turn off the lights
3) Win!!!
This is going to be a good one.
Excuse me, got to get some popcorn.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
> Arguably, I think the briefs are misfiled and that the process of the amicus curiae is being abused; A good amicus brief should, in my opinion, not be filed in support of any particular side, but in defense if a particular argument of law or explanation of fact.
Will they throw out the "amicus" brief from the RIAA-owned organization, or just ignore it?
Please...think of the grandmothers.
Can we keep and bear his arms after we cut them off?
Suppose they do. Do you have enough energy to be angry, or shall we skip the effort and just wilt?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
to go to their level and start to use the Chewbacca defense.
.
Granny is not the victim - the incontinent - drooling - rocking-chair stereotype the Geek chooses to project.
These days Granny is sitting on the Bench.
Little Red Riding Hood has got herself a Wii and is whooping it up in the basement with the Big Bad Wolf - and don't think for a moment she doesn't know it.
The appellate judge is quite deliberately from the removed from the pumped-up moral outrage and melodrama of the courtroom. It is perhaps just as well, because he has every reason to be cynical.
.
Money is strictly short-term, precedents affect the long-term.
The RIAA want precedents to be set such that they can continue to harass innocent people without regard for the consequences of their mistakes.
Now we know they're almost done!
From video game experience, we all know that the boss brings out his most dangerous and powerful weapon right before you win.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
can't we just call a nigger a nigger?
I like to call it "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently, this doesn't apply to civil cases.
Unlike criminal cases where guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases it only require a preponderance of evidence or some such. That's why OJ won his criminal case but lost the civil case.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The republican party is prioritizing business interests over consumers any time the have a chance.
And the democrats are all cozy and in bed with the Hollywood elite.
Expect RIAA, Viacom, Hollywood and all other companiers with IP content to consistently get everything they want from Wahington. As a consumer, dont even try to get your hopes up. You will continue to get screwed.
Just as a reminder: After entertainment became a big business with lobbyists around 1920, *no* new copyrighted work have expired. Every 10 years or so, it has been extended by at least 10 years, and is now about two lifetimes.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
And therein lies the bug in the jury system. People are people and can't just dump what they hear or see to /dev/null. Once something is spoken or shown in court, no matter if it was on purpose or not, it is out there impossible to retract. People will be swayed by it even if instructed to ignore it. Add to that the lower bar of "preponderance of the evidence" and it is a recipe for wacky verdicts.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Unfortunately a Jeffersonian America no longer exists.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When judges, who are so rich they probably have people use computers for them but never actually touched one
I don't think judges are as rich as you make them out to be. According to Wiki "As of January 2008, federal trial judges were paid $169,300 a year, appellate judges $179,500, associate Supreme Court justices $208,100 and the chief justice $217,400. All were permitted to earn an additional $21,000 a year for teaching." That may seems like a lot but I bet those capable of being judges who are in private practice make a lot more, like those lawyers who argue before judges.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I cannot seriously believe so many people who profess to be endlessly smart do not know how the Supreme Court works.
The reason RIAA is hiring someone new to argue before the SCTOUS is ... ?
Someone impress me. Please. Because right now everyone on Slashdot looks like a bunch of dumbfucks.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
So, at the eleventh hour, it has brought in one of its 'Big Guns' from Washington, D.C.
Who is it -- is it Perry Mason?
The US Constitution guarantees the exclusive rights to authors and inventors for a limited period.
Actually there is NO guarantee to copyrights or patents in the USA Constitution. What it does say is that congress can create them to encourage in the arts and sciences.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Lawyers in these cases have argued that "making available is the same as distributing," that a single shared song is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and a great many things that are far more absurd than my statement. The law is an ass and the lawyers in these cases are abusing the ignorance of the courts and the rights of the people.
It's time to take back ownership of our network, our computers, our rights to fair use and our right to "progress of science and useful arts" by taking back ownership of the related symbols. All of them. Where the constitution reads "securing for limited times" the framers did not intend for it to extend to over 100 years. 3 years is more like it. I could go with 30 days, or none.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Windshield wiper delay circuit. Oh my, what an innovation, NOT. 17 years monopoly for that? Fuck the patent system.
That's not innovation. That's "hmm I need to walk to X, looks like I should move one of my feet forward, WOW I just made an innovation".
Firstly patents aren't the same as copyrights (as someone has already told you).
Secondly, the patent system is so broken it isn't funny.
The geniuses who come up with real innovations are typically so far ahead of their time that people only "get it" years later. Way after the patents have expired, or at least near the expiry. Google for "Douglas Engelbart" and the "mother of all demos". Check out the _whole_ system they built 40 years ago, now that's what I call innovation. This is: "Hey guys let's walk to Y instead, and here's a whole system that can get us there".
Long terms would benefit the lame brains who come up with "one click" crap and think it's so innovative, and the patent office's overworked lame brains will just rubber stamp it.
There more lame brains than geniuses. So therefore the patent system as is will cause more harm than good.
Prizes for Innovation that are awarded in hindsight might be better. Get people to pay a fee to register their inventions to be eligible for the prizes, the registration helps in figuring out who was first which is quite important[1].
In my opinion it'll be more likely that lame brains in charge of awarding the prizes can figure out that something was innovative in _hingsight_ than lame brains in charge of reading a patent application can figure out whether the "invention" is innovative or not.
It is clear that patents as is are currently being used by companies as an anticompetitive tool, and they are not actually improving the pace of progress. They are in fact impeding progress in many cases.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobasys#Patent_dispute_with_Panasonic_EV_Energy
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINBNG11177720080630
Read the second link and simulate the likely future, guess what happens to the little guy?
Eventually you might have one patent, but for you to even move your little finger to implement it you would be infringing on thousands of patents owned by Allied Security Trust.
So guess what happens you try to do stuff and their lawyers meet your lawyers?
Or guess what some people might do instead: they don't actually implement stuff! Can't get sued that way. They sit and wait for the Allied Security Trust bunch to do stuff, and when the time is ripe they sue the relevant Allied Security Trust member and get $$$$$$$.
Tell me how this would improve the pace of progress and benefit society?
I'd take the rampant mutual copying ala China over this thank you very much.
I've got a Made in China 15g remote controlled heli that's rather cheap (about USD20 retail). Not amazingly innovative, but that's why it should be cheap, just the way I like it. Go figure out how many patents it infringes on from the infrared controller to the helicopter. It'll probably cost a fair bit to figure it out and you might never really be sure given how vague people write patent apps.
Yes inventors are going to cry that they aren't being rewarded, they're collateral damage. I will take great comfort in the _FACT_ that most of those "inventors" aren't real inventors and a great proportion of them are quacks who just think they're innovative. So only a very few will be hurt.
If my suggestion is done, some of those few might win a Prize for Innovation years later.
[1] A real inventor usually gets a fair bit of satisfaction from seeing his idea getting implemented, even if it's by others, AS LONG people know he was _first_. Sitting on it = not much satisfaction. In fact if lots of people implement his idea, that increases his odds of winning a Prize for Innovation (if his idea was indeed nonobvious and inventive).
4. Not figuring out for years how to make money off of music the old fashioned way- by earning it through new ways of distribution, not by suing people.
There is no revenue in recorded music anymore. I know I'm not buying any, and nobody I know is buying any.
Just because you don't buy music doesn't mean others don't. Currently I don't, the last CD I bought I did about 4 years ago, but except when I drive I don't listen to music much anymore. And all I have in my car is a radio, there's no tape, CD, or mpg player. However I want to get a turntable, then I would buy vinyl records. In the past few years I've seen more and more stores selling turntables. Even Best Buy carry them, and they may start carrying the records too. Amazon already carries them. I'm still looking for a good one that plays 78rpm as well as 33s and 45s, all I've seen so far don't play 78s. Though only a small part of the market, vinyl record sales are increasing.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it is highly unlikely the judge will allow himself to be misled again, no matter who the RIAA brings in as cannon fodder on Monday.
Hey, I know the author is just a simple ol' country lawyer, but this sentence makes no sense. If the RIAA is bringing in "the big gun" then they are not bringing in "cannon fodder."
The phrase cannon fodder is defined as "soldiers regarded merely as material to be expended in war." The term is usually used to describe a large force of poorly trained and poorly armed soldiers whose tactical value is that their slaughter consumes enemy resources. A good example of this is Zapp Brannigan's troops vesus the Killbots in Futurama.
As I constantly telling 12 year olds on Xbox Live, please don't use words if you are not sure what they mean.
they're just bringing in the best hired gun that they can
OK, so then why didn't they bring this guy in for the other parts of the trial?
Of course they're nervous.
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use. If you don't like it, you really need to be writing your members of Congress to change Copyright law.
Going to congress isn't the only way to change laws. Probably the most important part of citizenship is on a jury and when on a jury the citizen has the most power. If a juror believes a law is wrong, and don't let any judge tell you otherwise, it's their duty to vote innocent and send the message the law is bad. This is called jury nullification. Thomas Jefferson, in support for jury nullification, once said (also on the wiki page) "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." I've been called up twice for jury duty though I was not picked to sit on a jury and I was hoping to be picked to sit on a drug trial, so I could say drugs laws are wrong, but now I'd love to be picked to sit on one for one of these trials.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
on the battle.
Even the absolute best, most elite, and well-equipped soldiers can become cannon fodder when they are ordered to march into an artillery barrage. This applies to artillery crews manning huge guns too.
Isn't is a matter of perspective? The RIAA sees this guy as a "big gun", but the legal scholars' briefs may make him cannon fodder. The shades of meaning were clear to this reader.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Its the music and video thieves. They know the jig is up and they're about to pay and pay BIG for their years-long music theft. You can just smell the fecal matter being pumped into thousands of pirate pants right now as Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. steps up to the plate for RIAA for the coup de grace. No matter how much Jammie Thomas tries to wiggle out of the jury's verdict, he will learn that the law is what it is and that he is going to pay personally for the sins of his fellow music thieves (at least until RIAA tracks down the rest of them and hauls them into the dock of justice). Sucks to be you, Jammie.
--
Don't steal the dream - don't steal music.
This is not suing someone for downloading a song. This is about putting the song up for everyone on the Internet to download - potentially at least thousands or tens of thousands of people.
How many tens of millions of dual cassette decks were sold? blank audio/video tapes?
The truth is this "point" is nothing more than a straw man. The implication that the numbers are somehow different in digital than in analogue is utter bunk.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
It seems that in the new Slashdot regime the default is to not show sigs. It surprised me, too.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I hereby copyright "1110100100101000."...
Sorry, but Bill beat you to it: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free.
Music artists make a lot more money out of shows than from selling CDs. Nowadays you can find top artists distributing free CDs, providing full albums under Creative Commons license, and even refusing to record new albums since 1990. And you can be sure these groups are still making huge profits from their shows, thank you very much!
This is not even something new. Here in Brazil, music artists have been complaining for decades that record labels quite often pay them peanuts by "cheating" on sale numbers or simply ignoring contract agreements -- even the big labels such as EMI. But they continued recording CDs anyway, simply because the sustained publicity help promote their live shows, which is the part that really matters.
There is no revenue in recorded music anymore. I know I'm not buying any, and nobody I know is buying any.
Even before the time of MP3s and pirated CDs, everybody I know used to spend even more money buying show tickets than vinyls. From what I can tell, live shows became an even larger business now than decades ago.
I think the "business" of music is pretty much over.
For record labels, obviously. But for artists? Not at all!
> A law that tries to control the right to copy makes no sense in a
> world where everyone has every day access to copying machines
So if I invent a cheap machine with a red button which when pressed kills everyone except me within a 1 mile radius, and publish the plans on the Internet so everyone has access to one, the use of these machines should be legalized?
That particular part of your argument sounds stupid to me.
As for the rest, I do believe there is a place for copyright in a much more limited form than now exists --- much shorter time spans, much smaller civil and criminal (or possibly no criminal) penalties for violations. Probably a stance close to that of the poster you replied to.
This. The RIAA's gains from these cases are cash from out-of-court settlements, to a small degree, and public terror about daring to challenge them on intellectual property law, to a much larger degree.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Note this post originates from a record store.
The last, well all really, turntables I had only had one needle on one arm and they all played 33, 45, and 78rpm records, I played all three though not many 45s. Now 78s might of sounded better using a special needle but they all were able to play on the same one. But maybe that's why I haven't found any new ones that play 78s, I do like some Classical songs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I didn't check these very closely but they may be useful.
Thanks.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?