Slashdot Mirror
FSF Files Amicus Brief In RIAA Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Free Software Foundation has requested permission to file
an amicus curiae brief in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, defending the defendant's Due Process defense to the RIAA's claim for statutory damages. In the brief [PDF], FSF cites some of the leading authorities for the defense, including the 2003 decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Parker v. Time Warner, which held that excessive statutory damages are subject to the same due process test applicable to punitive damage awards by juries. Additionally, the brief cites three district court decisions, including UMG v. Lindor, and two law review articles — all of which deal specifically with Copyright Act statutory damages applicable to infringement of an MP3 file — to like effect."
I understand slashdot's obsession with the RI...really I do. But, don't you think stories like this that aren't really even news are getting a little too much attention? There is no decision, no new case, no new theory--not even the filing of an amicus curiae brief, just a petition to file an amicus curiae brief. Next we'll be hearing what the lawyers are eating for lunch.
...will there be an end to these suits which were claimed to have been stopped long ago or...
Will I be able to cause all of their heads to explode using the powers of my mind?
I just love it when a plan comes together.
Why don't add a brief summary about what your posts actually mean to the non-legal types, rather than this legalese summary each time?
When a whole new army of Good Guys come riding over the horizon, armed with their magical incantations of Facts and Citations, it may not be the end of the movie but the tide of the war may be turning, and it's a part you probably don't want to miss.
A little off topic, but I wonder what if anything the RIAA actually has accomplished from all these years of lawsuits. People hate them, is the money coming in at all? Does it really come down to just the principle of the matter now?
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
"defending the defendant's Due Process defense"
This sentence construction is indefensible!
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
It's nice to see someone go to the effort to file an amicus brief, but why the FSF? Excessive statutory damages for copyright infringement doesn't necessarily seem like something that's in their area of interest (i.e., I can't see how it affects software freedom one way or another). Or is it simply a lawyer at the FSF who happens to be interested? Do organizations often file these kinds of briefs in areas that the organization isn't primarily interested?
Karma (not carma) is irrelevant to an AC post.
Of course this is where you attempt to find some reason why shit you're posting still matters, the whole while thinking the echo chamber you live in in representative of reality.
RIAA is a joke, and you're an even worse joke for wasting so much time posting trivial shit about them that no one who isn't a total loser cares about.
Wow, you run out of Prozac or something? If you don't like what the guy posts then don't read it, or better yet don't waste your time and anger commenting on it.
Sheesh!
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
There is some true irony here as one of the Plaintiffs in this case who is arguing that such damages shouldn't be limited to a single-digit ratio of actual damages, argued (and won) in an Appeals Court case when they were the Defendant that such damages should be so limited.
Estoppel is the word that first comes to mind here.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
No I don't! The RIAA and MPAA are trying their mightiest to bring down the free exchange of ideas, knowledge, and data that we enjoy over the Internet as well as (with the help of Microsoft and Apple lackeys) control what you can and cannot do on your own personal computer. If you think this is some far off battle on some arcane legal minutiae that will never touch your own life, you are so wrong that there aren't words to describe how wrong you are.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
IANAL, so get one if you need legal advice, but here's the lowdown as I understand things:
There are these huge fines, that are thousands or hundreds of thousands of times the actual damages (e.g. download a song that costs $1 and you could pay a $100,000+ penalty to the RIAA, though they usually ask for "only" a few thousand dollars). I say "$100,000+" because someone will complain if I get the statutory damages wrong and it's actually $150k or $170k or something like that as a maximum. That's per work, BTW, though there are some oddities where an album might be a "work" instead of the individual songs. They actually tried to change that to make sure that they could get statutory damages for each song in an album (or each work in other types of collections), only to get shot down when asked for a case where they hadn't gotten enough money in damages. "Statutory damages," BTW, are where the government decided that it would be hard to figure out how much money people actually lost, so the legislature will make up a range and it's just presumed to be reasonable, so that people have one less thing to argue about in court. Provided the range of damages is reasonable, this can be a very good thing.
But then there's also a case that says 10x the actual losses in damages can be an unconstitutional abrogation of a right called "due process" [of law]. That right is written into the constitution, so the legislature can't take it away (though it doesn't stop them from trying).
There are also related arguments saying that, because the fines are so huge compared to the losses, this is really a criminal case being tried in civil court. The difference between the two is that you don't get a free public defender in civil court (like you do in criminal courts), and you lose several other important legal protections like a presumption of innocence that you should be allowed in a criminal case (the RIAA is only being asked to prove a "preponderance of the evidence" ... in other words, that the accused is more likely to be the one who infringed their copyrights than not).
There is legal precedent to support all of this, but I recommend that you read the paperwork linked in the story if you want to find out about it all. People have a tendency to complain a lot if you leave out some detail they care about, or gloss over a distinction they feel is important and that's only magnified when you're dealing with lawyers or geeks (let alone folks who are both). And I'm reduced to doing factory labor right now, rather than coding or sysadmin work, to make ends meet thanks to this crappy economy and I don't really have much more time than Ray does :-)
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
(I'm not affiliated with the EFF, I just support their goals.)
can go read something else and let the ones who do care pay attention and do what they can to stand up against evil orgs like the RIAA.
You may think, "Gee, isn't this group already defeated?" and you'd be wrong. There's still plenty of money left in the coffers of the international goons and we'll continue to see them fight to stay important even though those who hate them and just wish they'd die already are taking out their frustrations on the ones who are sticking up for them.
Maybe you don't like to read about the RIAA every other day, but if no one paid attention then these bastards would destroy our culture.
Keep up the good work NYCL.
My grandmother's computer got rooted by Sony.
My cousin got extorted freshmen year of college.
We all need to care about the RIAA.
They will die naturally in 10 years ; but, we
need to help the process along.
GuloGulo, I hope your mother doesn't get rooted
by Sony.
My company will not donate anymore a penny to the FSF because our money was intended to promote the free software to defend a person with charges of pirating music.
Not tolerable !!!
No more money for the FSF, EVER!
Forgot to check "Post Anonymously" box? :)
You're OK, you haven't quite reached the bottom yet:
http://www.lawschoolbound.net/TO/humor2.htm
Q. When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
MR. BROOKS: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot. :-)
Insert
Start putting SONY music CD's in your Windows machines.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
"The EFF or some other organization SHOULD be filing an amicus brief. But not
me... I'm just some guy." Ray Beckerman (on Groklaw)
Glad to see you changed your mind Ray.
No one cares about your personal cause anymore. It's not 2001. No one gives a shit about irrelevant-to-their every day lives legal wrangling, shit guy.... *snip* And finding a few slashtards to agree with you doesn't mean you're right, it means you've lost perspective.
And flaming people for liking certain stories and trying to speak for everybody (when it is obvious they don't like it) isn't? You fucking hypocritical nitwit.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
That isn't entirely on topic... But you surely are missing the big picture here, and ignoring the reality of who is using who.
Just to be short, Microsoft and Apple have everything to gain here, while RIAA people are a bunch of fools.
Rethinking email