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."

Comments

Focusing too much on the minutia?

[Mrs. Grundy]

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.

Re:Focusing too much on the minutia?

[Jane Q. Public]

I do not understand why you think this "isn't news". It is, in fact, very encouraging good news: an important new fact regarding a case that is important and very relevant to today.

The outcome of this case affects, indirectly, whole industries surrounding recorded music and video, and the software industry as well. Being a software engineer, I, for one, am VERY interested in any news surrounding this case.

I will admit that this does not reflect a new decision, or other outcome. But that doesn't mean that it's "not news".

NewYorkCountryLawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer

[Loadmaster]

Because he's a practicing attorney and doesn't have the time to break every event down into simple terms (that's what Groklaw is for). I'm sure he would if he could, but that's the way it is.

I'm glad he does this, though, at least then we're made aware of happenings and can then go find further information about it.

Sigh

[mc1138]

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?

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Win or lose, the lawyers get paid.

It is the lawyers who have been scamming a desperate RIAA, which keeps hoping they will come through with big wins eventually. (Suckers!)

Re:I think you missed the point

[Schemat1c]

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!

Re:Focusing too much on the minutia? NOOOO

[Nom du Keyboard]

don't you think stories like this that aren't really even news are getting a little too much attention?

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.