Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Oppenheim Tries To Protect MediaSentry
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks, has requested permission to intervene in the 'probable cause' hearing scheduled next week in Raleigh, North Carolina, against MediaSentry. The hearing was convened by North Carolina's Private Protective Services Board, after complaints were filed by a law firm representing a number of North Carolina State University students who had been targeted by the RIAA based on the unlicensed 'investigation' conducted by SafeNet (the new name for MediaSentry). I guess the RIAA is worried. They should be."
Fuck them and what the stand for. Legally sanctioned oppression. Fuck em.
As the internet matures more and more, questionable legal methods are only going to get more and more defined. Remember in the bad old days (7-8 years ago) when there were legal threats being brought for things like "deep linking"? Back when the technology was new (compared to the legal system's understanding of it) I can see where the RIAA might have been able to strongarm people just by saying "we know you're doing it" but that's getting harder and harder to do. Thank heavens for progress.
The only thing that he's asked for is the (entirely reasonable, IMHO) chance to give specific testimony because he believes that the complaint is factually incorrect. Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece. It's not like the board will somehow be in a worse position to sanction MediaSentry/SafeNet for whatever violations they have committed.
To me this is basically a non-story. Aside from the involvement of the RIAA, you could reduce it to:
Corporation asks to give testimony in regulatory hearing that directly impacts its business. Truly shocking.
Because none of what you are describing involves "copying", one of the key items in the laws surrounding the concept of "copyright".
There is two issues with websites: content and presentation. Let me say that the content of RIAAvsPeople is unique and worthy of a mention in "History of the Internet". The presentation is acceptable, as you work within some Blogspot limitations. If you spent a few 100 dollar on website design and your personal education (Ray, you are a very good amateur web-publisher), it would look better, more professional. I am not convinced that your message would hit harder; my philosophy is that, for websites like yours, design can distract from the message. Keep it simple, concentrate on the message! You have something to tell that is important.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought.
True, but hey ... I'll bet most leeches get pissed off when you cover them with salt and pull them off their prey before they're finished.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Probably the only thing left is to lobby congress to change the law in some way to make it practical to go after people, e.g. requiring ISPs and colleges to be responsible for enough monitoring to identify people for real. I'm not happy at the thought of this, but you ask for courses of action, and that's a likely one.
Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way. Seriously mods, go find something else to masturbate to. He's a wonderful guy, no one is disputing that, but when he takes a shit it still stinks and he cannot walk on water. The definitions of clearly-worded guidelines, such as the moderation guidelines, don't change because it would suit your personal feelings. To pretend otherwise is utterly childish.
The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers.
Yes, they do. I don't think that we'd have had a problem with them if they followed the rules of the game. The problem is that they keep changing the rules in their favor to make money.
The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact copyright laws, and in 1790 they did. The original copyright term was 14 years with the right to renew for an additional 14 year term. So, at most, 28 years.
But in the last 200 years, the copyright has been extended 5 or 6 times to a point where it's flat-out ridiculous. Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.
Copyright is, in modern times, basically meant to protect content creators' works so they can exclusively make money from those works. This would ostensibly allow people in creative industries like writing, composing, etc. can have a livelihood since they do not produce tangible goods like machinists, farmers, etc. It's supposed to encourage content creators to create new works for the greater public good.
But they don't. Sure, people write new books and make new songs, but the incentive isn't really there anymore. Most copyrights nowadays are held by corporations, not people. I personally believe that this is one of the factors that contributed to the emerging anti-copyright movement (copyleft, creative commons, etc.)
For copyright to reform, changes need to be made. One day the system may be functionally obsolete if people continue to give up their copyrights as it, and its enforcers, is being viewed as a less palatable scheme more and more over time. A good start, in my opinion, would be:
1) Bring down copyright back to reasonable terms - something like 5-10 years. How often do books/music/etc. make money after the first few years? Certainly not enough to justify such a long copyright.
2) Make it so only people - not corporations - can hold copyrights. Copyright cartels literally sit on their duffs getting fat off of royalties and trying to protect that money. It's the very definition of protection money and most of the time it doesn't even go to the artists themselves anyway.
3) Make fines in the case of restitution more reasonable. A fine of hundreds of dollars for a song that can be bought for $0.99 is patently ridiculous. Restitution on fair market value with a 200%-300% penalty would be more than fair enough to make up any money lost.
Ultimately, reforms like these will help unclog the courts and make it much more likely that money actually gets into the artist's hands - where it's intended. The RIAA is necessary in some ways - like a union for artists. But rather than working for the artists, the artists work for them. Put the power back in the hands of the creators.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
If a new disruptive technology makes your old business model obsolete, and if you've exhausted all your current *legal* options, then you change your business model (or you go look for another job in a different field). You don't start taking illegal action, because you *feel* you deserve to. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
The answer is the same for the RIAA.
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.) Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center. For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win." If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves. The answer is the same for the RIAA.
Wow, what a fair and reasonable approach. The RIAA would never buy it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What alternative legal means can the RIAA/MPAA use to protect copyright and copyrighted content?
That's easy.
1. Do a competent technological investigation.
2. Hire competent and honorable lawyers.
3. If you obtain evidence of someone actually infringing your copyrights, send them a cease and desist letter and ask them to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement.
4. If a proven infringer refuses to enter into a cease and desist agreement, sue him or her, in a lawsuit supported by actual evidence, based upon actual legal theories.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is one of the most sane statements I've read/heard regarding copyright in the USA for a very long time.
On the matter of restitution, the claim that making available is tantamount to multiple infringements is one of the most ridiculous tactics of the **AA. If they are allowed to carry on with such behavior and definitions, it will be dangerous to all users of the internet.
Content is not a commodity under copyright, it is a property. The **AA have been treating it as a commodity and that violates the principles and intent of copyright law. Congress was given the ability to establish protections for content CREATORS, not commodity brokers.
In addition to what you have said, I suggest that one of the tests applied to any legal action against copyright infringement is that the plaintiff show just cause AND that they are indeed directly protecting the content creator and not just some revenue stream. If the copyright holder is not a citizen, there can be no case without extreme evidence of egregious infringement. Yes, that would make it difficult for corporations to defend their copyrights.... damn right it would.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People