Slashdot Mirror
New Hampshire Law Students Take On RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "We have recently learned that another law school legal aid clinic has joined the fight against the RIAA. Student attorneys from the Consumer and Commercial Law Clinic
of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, working under law school faculty supervision, are representing
a lady targeted by the RIAA in UMG Recording v. Roy in New Hampshire. The case is scheduled for trial next Fall. That makes at least 4 law schools providing anti-RIAA defense services: University of Maine,
University of San Francisco, Franklin Pierce, and, most recently, Harvard. Hopefully many
more will follow. One commentator theorizes that this news 'will ... [encourage] professors and students at other law schools to take on hitherto defenseless people being pilloried by the corporate music industry.'"
We need more of this to happen! See, not all lawyers are bad.
Don't Tread on Me! Baby!
Until this hits the masses the RIAA will continue its mad dog attacks and back room deals. Get this out there for everyone to see. Run an RIAA case in front of Judge Judy and then we'll see the changes that really matter.
/tag this +1 sarcastic please.
Why did it take this long for schools to fight against the RIAA? Ignoring the possibility that the RIAA might have been right * (which the majority of us would be arguing against, surely...), it just seems to be a perfect opportunity for any law students to actually practice law and earn some valuable experience on high profile cases. Were I a law student, I would salivate at the chance to be involved with something like this in the defense of fellow students. I'm surprised it took this long for law departments to get involved.
*And, really, it doesn't matter if the students being targeted were guilty. In our society, everyone deserves legal representation, even the guilty. Right or wrong, it's just how our system works. The law departments view shouldn't have been "this person is obviously innocent - we should get involved and help them". It should have been "these cases are high profile cases that will involve a lot of complex legal issues and will teach our law students a lot of valuable lessons that will make them better lawyers in the future. We should be involved." In my opinion, of course...
Are you sure it was a lady? We are talking about the Internet, after all...
Yes, it's a lady named Roy. Wait a second...
This guy's the limit!
Great, now this law schools are really delivering what they promise. High profile, real case of study against mayor law firms.
Lots of legal battles to teach their students the ways of the corporate warfare...
They students not only will have Harvard Law Student in their resume, also RIAA legal case.
For the fee this universities collect, they have found a new way to train legal sharks...
I should patent this "field training from school active model" :D
Â_Â
dont these people have a site they take donations for the effort, or we just donate to eff.org ?
granted, im gonna donate 10 bucks, but i do this frequently.
Read radical news here
BUT: "Circumstantial" does not mean any of the following, about evidence: (1) inadmissible; (2) insufficient to prove a fact in court; or (3) unreliable. You can be convicted of murder based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, if it is strong enough. Otherwise, murderers who hide their victims' bodies the best could not be convicted. And the RIAA only has to prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt as required for a criminal conviction.
This is about the RIAA's abuse of the discovery process and, in particular, its filing lawsuits for the sole purpose of collecting evidence through discovery. You personally can't just send me interrogatories without having a pending lawsuit against me, and you also can't file a lawsuit whose only purpose is to allow you to send me interrogatories. And that's what the RIAA is apparently doing...
=Smidge=
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
I suppose it could be a printer...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Taking the humanitarianism out of the equation (as wonderful as it is) this is the perfect opportunity for hands on experience. Lawyers usually only get to look at the same old cases that have been reviewed to death, but here is the opportunity go up against the same prosecutor in the same case over and over again. These are nearly scripted debate speeches. Sure, in a way you could say that is what a lawyer does, but this is uniquely different in that there are just sooo many cases, all with the same prosecutor fighting the same fight.
A class where students get into groups and provide legal council in different cases that almost all look the same? Computer science students can get identical computers, biologists can dissect many of the same species, but I don' think before the RIAA started going sue happy across the country was there such an opportunity to standardize a law class year after year fighting the same case in a real courtroom over and over again.
This is going to help real people, but realistically I hope it doesn't last long. I can just see it now: RIAA gets bailout from congress to save law school curriculum across country. HA!
Good law schools should really take advantage of this opportunity. I think schools could be judged by this for how up to date they are and how much they really care about their lawyers getting real experience in the classroom.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
We need the IT students to be the expert witnesses too :)
I swore off biting trolls but dammit, I guess I'm relapsing. Guess I need trollbiter rehab.
If you're spewing out copies of music, movies, or software, it's because information wants to be free and copyright infringement != theft...
If I'm spewing out copies of music, movies, or software, it's because the writers WANTED it to be "spewed out", like most file sharers. Like Lessig said in his book, of the three kinds of P2P, only one can possibly harm the artist, and the other three actually help. P2P is no more a threat to the entertainment industries than the VCR and cassette were. It's only a threat to the established but outmoded business practices. Everyone else from musicians to film makers are using P2P constructively.
Information doesn't want anything. I guess you could anthropomorphise and say "information wants to be free like compressed gas wants to escape", or you could just say "when information isn't free, neither are you."
However, copyright infringement is indeed not theift. Neither is smoking dope or jaywalking. Extortion IS theift, which is exactly what the RIAA is doing, Mr. Record Company Executive (you guys must get some killer cocaine to be such greedy, selfish, heartless bastards).
unless you're messing with open-source software
No, it's still not theift. It's copyright infringement.
The rest of your incredibly stupid rant is beneath discussion. Go back under your bridge.
Free Martian Whores!
Could have been worse. She could have been named "Seigfried".
[yeah, I know Roy is her last name]
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Four kinds of P2P, not 3. That was a typo, sorry
Free Martian Whores!
We have recently learned that student attorneys* at the Consumer and Commercial Law Clinic of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, have joined the fight against the RIAA, [...]
*Student attorneys are law students working under the supervision of law school faculty members.
We should all stand up and thank the lawyers of the RIAA and MPAA for providing their wonderful volunteer work to train the lawyers of tomorrow.
If I'm spewing out copies of music, movies, or software, it's because the writers WANTED it to be "spewed out", like most file sharers.
If content producers WANTED their content freely distributed to anyone and everyone with no restrictions, they wouldn't band together into associations like the RIAA, MPAA or FSF to protect their rights. Yes, the tactics of the RIAA in particular are reprehensible and ill-conceived. Yes, they will never be able to put the P2P genii back in the bottle. But, for now, that's the way the system works.
The laws that protect Metallica are the ones that also protect GPL'd software.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Indeed P2P is a great threat to all creators that use a digital medium. It is simple - I and everyone else on the Internet has a choice now. We can consume for free, or we can consume and pay. It is a simple and obvious choice.
I can choose to pay for what I download. I can use many different "stores" to make purchases. But at the same time, perhaps with even greater breadth of products to choose from, I can just take for free. Most of the people I know that are Internet-savvy are taking without paying. There doesn't seem to be any clear consequence to them why they would choose to pay.
There is no "download for free and pay later" option. How many times does the average person read a book or watch a movie? Once? Twice? OK, so now you have read it or seen it. Why would you ever, ever in your entire lifetime pay for the opportunity to do so again.
So I would say P2P is clearly harmful to content creators. If content is available in digital form, it is available today on the Internet for free. Sure, there may be greater familiarity with some content creators and it might mean that I would seek out there other works in the future. But if it is available for free, why would I ever pay for it?
Now this looks like a perfect world, as long as you aren't hoping for revenue from digital content. I do not see this going back to a "pay" model anytime soon, if ever.
Did the lady being defended by valiant students and faculty actually infringe on RIAA's intellectual property?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Now how long before the RIAA starts filing protests on how public money is financing the cases against them (and the need for Congressional action to Stop That Now), or targeting those schools providing such assistance for "enhanced enforcement" actions?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This won't be a serious public issue until it shows up on an episode of Boston Legal. And they better hurry since that show is in it its final, truncated, season.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Righteous Inquisition Army of America will know the full extent of public scrutiny once the whole of North America sees Denny Crane get sued for a million dollars because his next door neighbour uses his unencrypted wifi to use his limewire to download Metallica's latest!
to sue the engineer who did a crap job.
You do need a lawyer to sue another lawyer.
P2P is great for the creators of art. It's bad for the distributors and producers who control the industry, and want to stay in control. I'm most saddened when I see artists give in to the brainwashing the music executives do to them and come out against it.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
P2P is no more a threat to the entertainment industries than the VCR and cassette were.
But the "VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone"!!! Jack Valenti told us that, and he wouldn't lie, would he?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
It is great that universities are waking up to the abuse, but why did it take so long to figure out that RIAA dragnets are bad? Universities, as entities of their communities, funded by the public, should be stewards and protectors of the public when this type of crap happens. Don't universities gather great amounts of intellect? If so, how come they couldn't see that the RIAA was abusing the US legal system and others around the world? What a bunch of cowards! It must be safer to wait and see instead of influence. WTF do we fund research in universities except to create new theories, modify old ones, and throw away those that are irrelevant. Isn't this referred to as progressive? I am curious as to what is encouraging them. This would have been, and still is, an excellent exercise for law departments and budding new lawyers. The similarity in corporate entrenched culture that becomes stodgy and universities failing to be decisive and lacking of leadership seems oddly similar. Take a risk and be leaders in our communities.
t's only a threat to the established but outmoded business practices. Everyone else from musicians to film makers are using P2P constructively.
Didn't you know the RIAA is the bailout for the failing of the entertainment industry to creatively work their way into the digital age? Why not preserve an antiquated model of doing business? Then entertainment executives don't have to work hard and earn their pay.
I'm most saddened when I see artists give in to the brainwashing the music executives do to them and come out against it.
Most performers today totally get it... and can't wait for their recording agreement commitments to be over.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
For every band that is on an RIAA label there are 100 that are not. Copyright law doen't protect the musicians like it protects GPL programmers, it protects the GPL while not protecting the RIAA musician whatever; musicians' labor is "works for hire" under US copyright law; they work for the label, like a cook works for McDonald's or a programmer works for Microsoft. Like a Microsoft programmer, an RIAA musician does not own the "intellectual property" he creates.
For every RIAA song recorded in the 21st century there are a hundred indie songs, and over 99 of those indie songs can be freely copied with the blessing of the copyright holder, just like GPL software can be freely copied. In short, the RIAA is NOT the industry; it is just the noisiest, most selfish, evil part of it. Most "content producers" WANT their work shared. For reasons why see the introduction to Cory Doctorow's Little Brother or read Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons. Both are freely available on the internet with the authors' blessing, and can be bought in any bookstore.
Metallica is Microsoft Office, The Station is Star Office. The BSA == the RIAA. GPL software doesn't need or want the BSA any more than indie musicians need or want the RIAA.
And BTW, the RIAA wan't established "to protect their rights". It was established to standardize records' equalization.
Free Martian Whores!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
care to explain why Cory Doctorow's Little Brother sells well despite being on the internet? Look it up and read the introduction for his excellent reasons for doing so.
Everyone is listening to the RIAA's bullshit, good thing we dodn't listen to the MPAA when Heston said "the VCR is to movies like Jack the Ripper is to women." Logical, reasonable, but dead wrong.
No artist has ever starved from having his works given away, but many have starved from obscurity.
Free Martian Whores!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Interesting, one of the things blamed for declining CD sales was the increasing use of concerts by artists to make money. Content producers often do want monetary recognition of their work, though this is not universal, but the truth is that they are screwed over more by the content controllers than by P2P. Associations such as the RIAA were not formed in order to protect artists, they were formed because protecting artists was profitable and they wanted money. They protect artists whether they want it or not.
Most sales people are satisfied with much less "profit" from their customers. 50% is ridiculous. So is 30%. They wouldn't be viewed as such scum if they took a smaller piece of the victims pie. Kudos to these schools however for taking on the RIAA. Hopefully they don't plan to profit on it other than the satisfaction of stopping the RIAA from twisting the justice system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Copyright law doen't protect the musicians like it protects GPL programmers, it protects the GPL while not protecting the RIAA musician whatever; musicians' labor is "works for hire" under US copyright law...
I specifically didn't use the term "musician" when referring to the constituency of the RIAA. I used the term "content producer". The record labels, for better or worse, are the *producers* of the music, the artists themselves are merely employees(read: bitches) of the record labels. The big record labels, through the RIAA, are trying to protect their copyrights. The FSF does much the same for GPL'd code, whose copyright they control.
Most "content producers" WANT their work shared.
And right now, under current law, the copyright holder gets to choose whether or not to make their work freely available to all. No one is stopping indie bands from doing whatever they want with their music. No one is forcing bands to sign with the major labels. And, under the law, they are entitled to restrict the reproduction of their music however they see fit.
And BTW, the RIAA wan't established "to protect their rights". It was established to standardize records' equalization.
That's true, but doesn't change the fact that right now they are acting on the behalf of the labels to protect their copyrights.
My main point was: the laws that allow content producers to control the terms under which they can be copied, protect the record labels as well as GPL programmers.
PS. None of this should be construed as an endorsement of the RIAA's tactics or methods. They are a reprehensible organization, which represents a business model that is, rightly, dieing. But, right now with the state of the law as it exists today, they have the right to protect their copyrights. Unless someone wants to frame the issue of piracy as some form of civil disobedience, the right way to go about changing the situation is to get the law changed.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Isn't there a third possibility? Like that some lawyers are jerks? Just like there are some jerks everywhere else in the general population?
I went along to a bunch of court appearances and watched an acquaintance of mine suffer at the hands of the "wrong" attorney during his divorce. The wrangling it took just to get that attorney to go away so he could use another lawyer was really surprising. Thankfully his next attorney was really good, and a great person. I know now who to call if I ever need a lawyer for courtroom work.
If I hadn't seen these lawyers in action and I was staring at the phone book looking for a lawyer, I wouldn't know which one to pick. They're both qualified, and experienced but one was a big jerk and the other a great attorney. How does someone find a good lawyer, except by chance? It's not like everyone around me deals with lawyers all the time and I can just call up a friend or coworker for a recommendation.
Heck, even finding a good car mechanic can be challenging, let alone a lawyer. Thankfully I can work on my own car. Legal documents and court procedure, not so much.
Putting moderation advice in your
The record labels, for better or worse, are the *producers* of the music
Not really. Usually the producer is some guy who's a performer himself, and who is as exploited by the record company as the artist is. The record labels in actuality 'produce' nothing but a little bit of hype and a lot of money for themselves.
the artists themselves are merely employees(read: bitches) of the record labels
Yes the artists are the bitches. Although the customers of these "Big 4" record companies might also be thought of as "bitches", since they basically eat what they are fed.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
care to explain why Cory Doctorow's Little Brother sells well despite being on the internet?
Because I can't make a paper book at my house, for pennies. To most people, a digital copy of a book is of less value than the real thing; while a mp3 is, arguably, more valuable than a CD. The portability and flexibility can't be beat. Kudos to Cory Doctorow for using an innovative promotional model to market his book. But, I think music is a horse of a different color. There just isn't enough value-added for music to make the kosher download or CD attractive versus the free one.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Rightly or wrongly, the legal profession enjoys somewhat the same level of public approval as your average used car salesman. The fact that law students fighting the RIAA are looked on as the good guys shows you what complete douchebags the RIAA really are.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Maybe you mean Jack Valenti, who compared the VCR to the Boston strangler.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Mini Monster Golf should see if they would help with the lawsuit that Monster Cable brought against them for having the audacity to use the word 'Monster' in their business name.
I think he really meant Nancy Reagan, who compared a cuisinart to the hamburglar.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
The Jar of Marbles trick isn't new, or at least I don't think it is.
I remember hearing fourth-hand about a trick Clarence Darrow used, back in the old stogy days. When he wanted to distract the jury he'd embed a long sewing needle into the end of his cigar. The ash would burn down to the stub, but would not fall off the end of the cigar because of that invisible support. The jury, riveted to the scene of the immortal cigar ash, would completely ignore his opponent's testimony.
I know this is a true story, because my second step cousin-in-law's brother told me he could document it.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Yea, in the age of computers?
"You are you. Who is the other party? Mrs. Despicabwiggin? Hmm. She is already in our client file for some reason. Oh Yes. She was here last week. Let's discuss this problem."
1 minute at $600 an hour is $10. A lot better than whatever got racked up instead.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
some people are strong in soul enough that they dont lose their idealism.
Read radical news here
I believe The Sisters Of Mercy put out an album of unlistenable noise (even if you don't like the Sisters anyway it was noise!) just to complete an album deal.
Calling Sony-BMG a "content producer" is like calling Doubleday a "content producer". Neither Sony nor Doubleday produce anything. Doubleday prints the books that writers produce, Sony-BMG manufactures the CDs that the musicians produce.
Sony-BMG doesn't produce content, it owns content others produce. It is a parasite.
And right now, under current law, the copyright holder gets to choose whether or not to make their work freely available to all.
And 99% of content owners (the indies) choose to let their work be freely shared. Only the RIAA bands, a minority, choose not to. Yet this minority wants to call the majority's customers "pirates".
That's true, but doesn't change the fact that right now they are acting on the behalf of the labels to protect their copyrights
That's not what you said. You said they were ESTABLISHED for that purpose. here, have a bite of crow.
Free Martian Whores!
To most people, a digital copy of a book is of less value than the real thing; while a mp3 is, arguably, more valuable than a CD
See, thare's where the RIAA labels screwed up big time. From the get go in the old Napster days they equated MP3s with CDs, even though the MP3s were lossy (far lower quality than a CD), had no cover art, liner notes, or any other "value added" material.
Digital downloads were marketed as superior to CDs, and the marketing worked. But they're selling air; the idea of digital-no physical took hold, but unlike CDs, MP3s are worthless.
The record industry fucked up when they stopped being a record industry and started being a "music industry".
As you said, there is no way to make a paid-for doenload more attractive than a free one. That isn't the case with CDs; a factory-produced CD with cover art and liner notes is by far superior to a burned copy.
Digital-only music is worthless. The RIAA labels are run by morons, whose greed is going to kill them. I will celebrate when these dinasaurs finally die.
Free Martian Whores!
You are correct.
Free Martian Whores!
Sony-BMG doesn't produce content, it owns content others produce. It is a parasite.
If Sony-BMG doesn't produce content, then neither do Microsoft or Adobe. You said yourself that the record companies treat music made under their label as "works for hire", much the same as Microsoft treats code produced by their programmers. Book publishers, on the other hand, don't. The publishing industry evolved hundreds of years earlier than the recording and software industries, under a completely different legal and social system. Anyway, the music industry doesn't produce music, but sales. For that you need: an image, buzz, airplay, record store shelf space, marketing, and way, way back, in very last place, the actual music.
And 99% of content owners (the indies) choose to let their work be freely shared. Only the RIAA bands, a minority, choose not to.
Right now, they get that option. If you, or anyone else, doesn't like major label music, disagrees with their harassing legal tactics, or thinks that music is overpriced, you don't have to buy any. As you said, there is a huge amount of music out there for free. Artists are also free to sign with a major label, or not. If the free model truly works for the artists, the major labels will wither away and die simply from lack of new talent as they are drawn to the indies. Right now, most popular music is produced under RIAA labels. The people have spoken. But that does not diminish your right to enjoy any type of music you want.
What I really can't stand, and I haven't heard this from you, is the moralistic argument that just because the RIAA is evil, its okay to pirate music. There are plenty of options, as you have pointed out.
You said they were ESTABLISHED for that purpose. here, have a bite of crow.
You're right. But I don't think that diminishes the argument that one of their primary purposes now is copyright protection.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
What I really can't stand, and I haven't heard this from you, is the moralistic argument that just because the RIAA is evil, its okay to pirate music.
I'm boycotting the RIAA and have been for years. That means no sales, no downloads. The last RIAA music I obtained was given to me -- a store-bought CD.
Free Martian Whores!
Actually, it was Jack Valenti who compared the VCR to Jack the Ripper.