Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation

Posted by timothy on from the but-copyleft-needs-copyright dept.

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)."

7 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe I haven't been paying attention... by McCat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But what's with all of the RIAA action all of a sudden? What's got a bee in their bonnet now as opposed to, say, five years ago?

    1. Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... by retchdog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Five of their lawyers are now placed in high-level positions within the Department of Justice?

      I dunno. It could be something else, or just a coincidence, but this does seem to be the simplest explanation among those them...

      Speaking abstractly, it's not a bad national strategy in a way. We're fucked economically, and have no manufacturing base to speak of. There's not much we can do except enforce "intellectual property" overseas. The downside is the implicit effect that this will have on domestic freedom and true innovation. I suspect we (as knowledge workers) will be learning some hard lessons in the next few years. I would not be surprised if the FSF and EFF (among others) are forcibly nationalized and destroyed/reorganized within four years.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... by hherb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Freedom can be seen as something absolute, or something relative.
      Some 30 years ago, in South West Africa (now Namibia), I was startled when, at checking in, people were asked to hand in their ammunition (they got to keep their guns) when boarding the plane from Windhoek to Cape Town. Most people protested at this violation of their freedom (while disregarding that only white people woudl get such freedom in the first place), but my seat neighbour winked at me and showed me his trouser pocket full with ammo. Body searching would have been unthinkable, and indeed I saw many people clamly reloading their guns as the plane departed, and the stewardess just ignoring them.

      30 years in fast forward - my wife was just insulted and her deodorant stolen by check in staff because the volume of the deodorant bottle was 110ml, and only 100ml were "allowed". The fact that the deodorant was 3/4 empty didn't matter. That on a flight back from Vanuatu to Sydney -100% tourists, 90% thereof probably scuba divers, can't get much lower in risk potential on flights I guess.

      Give them your little finger, and they not only take your whole hand but proceed to bite off your head after eviscerating and raping you.

      Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.

  2. Bias? by anjilslaire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies.

    Funny. I always thought the RIAA has an open and blatant bias against Fair Use. (yes, I know file sharing is not F/U, but those guys don't even want you copying your own stuff even if you never share it)

    --
    Need more useless stuff to read on teh internetz?
  3. Not completely inaccurate. by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the other hand, saying that the FSF is "dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" is extremely accurate. In fact, though I didn't see it on the home page, it's the quote that comes up in the Google blurb when you search.

    Also, just because the GPL requires copyright to function doesn't mean that the FSF isn't against copyright. 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.

    If the FSF could rewrite copyright law, it'd be completely different. I'd say they have an open dislike (maybe not "bias") against the current typical use of copyright, especially for computer programs.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  4. I am shocked! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am shocked and amazed that the people who filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the RIAA's actions in court are all actually members of organizations with a history of opposing the RIAA!!! We cannot allow this bias to continue! Anyone submitting an amicus curiae brief should first have to prove that they no particular bias towards either side of the argument! Look, it is by definition an adversarial relationship; it is a lawyer's job to paint their opponents in as poor a light as possible. Any judge who can't see through this blatant hyperbole doesn't deserve to sit on the bench.

    As far as the "pending sanctions motion", anybody can _request_ sanctions against opposing counsel - I've done it myself, when somebody suing me for $500,000 couldn't even be bothered to meet the court imposed deadlines. A pending motion is standard operating procedure. Get back to me when a judge actually imposes sanctions -- that is much more rare.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. Re:Well, is he? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well if you click the link "pending sanctions motion", and then click through to the underlying litigation document -- my November 7, 2008, declaration -- there you will find a detailed, painstaking, point-by-point analysis of each and every deliberately false statement of fact they'd made in their motion. And if you click through to the UMG v. Lindor case, and look at the RIAA's "reply" declaration, you will see that they were unable to rebut a single one of my allegations.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful