Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has requested permission to file a response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Free Software Foundation in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case against a Boston University grad student accused of having downloaded some song files when in his teens. In their proposed response, the RIAA lawyers personally attacked The Free Software Foundation, Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer), and NYCL's blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People.' The 9-page response (PDF) — 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding — termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs,' and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case)."
I am not a lawyer but my understanding that amicus curiae briefs came from parties not directly involved with the case but are very rarely neutral. From wikipedia: "The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. . . The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. . . Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation."
Again from wikipedia: "Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it." Offering additional information is the point of amicus curiae.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not really. FSF created the GPL to use copyright to enable it to specify the terms to keep code open and free. If there were no such thing as copyright, there would be no need for the GPL in the eyes of the FSF (or, at least, in its founder's eyes). I think it's pretty safe to say RMS would agree that he has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights." Actually, he'd probably be more likely to not say that, but to turn it around on you and accuse you of having an "open and virulent bias against freedom"... Here's an excerpt from the summary of his upcoming speech in Austin:
Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it.
Stallman would, if he had his way, abolish copyright as we know it and replace it with a system that forbids closed source and gives users rights to modify and share source code. This really isn't the same thing as what we call "copyright." But this is unlikely to happen, so the GPL uses copyright law against itself to try to guarantee some of those things for code that is GPL licensed.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
I think most of us concede that the GPL is a case where the FSF is using copyright law in a novel, unintended way to accomplish their goals.
That's why they call it the "copyleft" - not out of some right/left ideology, but to indicate that the GPL is a hack of copyright - the definition of hack being a novel and unintended use.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So, is Ray "subject to a pending sanctions motion", and if so, what does that mean anyway?
There is a link to the term "pending sanctions motion"; if you follow the link you can read all about it. They made a motion to withdraw their own case, and joined it with a motion for "discovery sanctions" against Mrs. Lindor and myself. The motion was based on nothing but lies. It is still pending. Our Rule 11 motion against them is strictly based on the fact that their motion for "discovery sanctions" was based on nothing but lies, so the 2 motions are closely interrelated.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Looking over the summary, at least, I'm left with one question: Are there any actual legal ramifications to this, or does this more or less boil down to "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeeee!"?
There are no legal ramifications to the ad hominem attacks; the RIAA was merely saying "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeee!".
As to the rest of the brief it grossly misstates and misunderstands the law regarding the jurisprudence of Due Process scrutiny of statutory damage awards.
Fortunately, Judge Gertner -- unlike the RIAA's lawyers -- can read.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You missed a step. The original Ghandi quote was thus (except for the bulleted list format):
But I agree, we're on stage 2-3 now.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better argument to use. The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Exactly, Nefarious. Except I would question whether it was "nicely structured". It was the work of an incompetent, untrained lawyer who has no respect for the law, and no understanding of what a lawyer is supposed to be. By filing such a brief he merely reinforced the fact that the law is against him. There is not a federal court in the land that will sustain the constitutionality, as against a due process challenge, of a statutory damages award equal to 2100 or more times the actual damages sustained.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"W and the neo-cons are no longer in control"
I'd remind you it was Clinton that signed the DMCA into law.
It's now Obama that is putting the RIAA in charge of the justice department.
And you're talking about a guy who no longer has any political power? As to the rest of your thoughts about manufacturing and oil prices, it seems at best a simplification, and at worst a series of non-sequiturs.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I read the 9-page brief, then I went to www.fsf.org (after adding the third "w" - more evidence the RIAA fails simple maths) and read their front page. Nowhere does it advocate infringing copyright. Nothing can be construed as a recommendation to violate the law or infringe on other people's rights. Nothing. I see the liberal use of terms such as "free" and "open" and other keywords of the dream of American democracy. I may see a little bit of throwback to Tom Paine and Ben Franklin, ancient and pernicious bomb-throwing anarchists that they were, but I see nothing that advocates moving to the dark side of the law.
I don't support RIAA music for the same reason I won't watch The Sopranos. Mafiosi scare me.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
You must be new here
You must be new here if you're saying that to NYCL.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
That's an XKCD reference, boy. You know what we do to XKCD referencers around here?
We link to them!
I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
It would not be possible for me, or any lawyer of conscience and professionalism, to be on the RIAA's side in these cases. The RIAA lawyers routinely sign documents they know to be false.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful