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)."
The RIAA thinks it's a bad man in a big town when it reality it wouldn't make a pimple on a simpleton's ass in a village.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
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?
...support piracy, so the FSF must be a terrorist organization, right?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
'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?
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement.
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
"4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding"
And?
-mkb
The RIAA is an organization that has repeatedly shown no respect for other persons or property, including the myriad recording artists, the plain intent of the Constitution, or its corpus. It is a usurper and an invader. It is an organization that needs prosecutions under RICO as well as numerous civil suits.
I love the FSF, but which of the quotes listed here is inaccurate? The FSF *does* want to get rid of copy restrictions, and does dislike the RIAA. Although, I would say the FSF hates on the RIAA, not the "recording industry", but I suspect the RIAA doesn't see the difference.
This is news how?
The only thing newsworthy I got from this is that the RIAA is just slightly more petty than I thought. Of course the Free Software Foundation is about making software "FREE", and of course, anyone with a blog aimed at bringing to light the RIAA's idiocy is going to be the target of their Ire. The thing people need to get over, and real quick, is the thought that the second they see anywhere in media the acronym RIAA, that they need to immediately post it on Slashdot.
We also need to realize, as a whole, that the RIAA hates us as much as we hate them, and we also need to note that the RIAA is a litigous bunch of pr1cks and that they will bring DMCA takedown notices, and law suits, and anything their multi-million dollar legal team can come up with against anyone who thinks differently than they do. The thing is, they have this crazy thing called MONEY backing them. When you have a band like Metallica, or Universal Studios supporting your cause, you can then afford frivolous lawsuits and such because money is no object
What we need, to effectively fight back against their idiocy, is SUPPORTERS. Find some corporation (good luck) that shares our ideals, or even a political movement. Then get them to help with the money to cover the expenses of all these court proceedings, offer legal support to the unfortunate few that get randomly targeted by the RIAA (like the ACLU does) and find someone to help us get some lobbying going in Washington.
Those are the things we need to do, or maybe even get some of us geeks to inundate media with easily comprehended information that average Joe blow can read and care about, and help spread the word to the masses about their evils. Find a way to make the average citizen give a crap about this issue, and you've found a way to get some money and influence behind this issue on a side that is NOT the RIAA. But until then, we'll always be a flea, biting the back of the Mammoth that is Industrialized politics at work.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
I can't wait to see what RMS is going to say in his reply :-)
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
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
Targeting lawyers instead of, say, people who don't even know how to defend is "getting better at picking targets" when it comes to law suits that are not far from simple harrassment?
Dunno if I can follow your train of thought.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We have achieved stage two, they have learned to fear us...
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
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.
GNU General Public License, version 6, 2013
1. Pull down you pants.
2. Bend over.
GPLv2 or later doesn't sound like such a good idea now, does it?
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).
So, is Ray "subject to a pending sanctions motion", and if so, what does that mean anyway? NYCL, as much as I respect you and wholeheartedly support and appreciate what you're doing, I'm not a fan of the "they did it too!" defense.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If you or I were to do things like that, then we'd be called lying assholes... but if a lawyer does it, then he is simply doing his job.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The RIAA is an organization dedicated to maximizing restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying music. They have a virulent, though perhaps less open, bias against music customers; and are blatantly biased for the record companies.
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'
What part of our confrontational legal system does the RIAA not understand?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
I don't know, but after reading that songlist I'm gonna go home and make sweet, sweet love to my wife.
OK, I'm actually going to go home and try to put the moves on my wife, who will reject me because she's "too tired" or "has a headache" or "is dying from some venereal disease" or some other lame excuse.
Who am I kidding? I'm going to go home, go downstairs to my cave, and masturbate quietly so my mom doesn't hear, just like every night.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Let's just assume that everything they said were accurate accusations and that the FSF is anti-copyright, anti-RIAA, anti-whatever... How is this relevant to their case?
It's not. The amicus brief simply brought certain legal authorities to the Court's attention. Either the authorities are in the book, or they're not. What FSF's personal opinion of the RIAA is, or what my personal opinion of the RIAA is, is completely irrelevant to anything.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad.
Seriously, it is great to see them being openly evil like this, for those that are slow or haven't gotten the point.
Well done, RIAA. Try twirling your mustache the next time you accuse anyone, just to really seal the deal.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
You describe the backlash as though it hasn't already happened. Remember Tower Records? Virgin Megastore?
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
That reminds me, pardon my Godwin, of an old line from the late Pierre Desproges: "You will never manage to completely convince me that jews weren't at least a LITTLE bit guilty of irrationnal anti-nazi bias."
And then in the very next sentence:
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
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
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better arguement to use.
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Or, to paraphrase, "Don't listen to him, he's just a lawyer! Whereas I am the True Friend of the Court, he's your enemy! Actually, he's mine, but I'd prefer you thought of him as yours".
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
They didn't claim FSF is a terrorist organization (yet.) "Dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" and having an "open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies." sounds like a compliment to me. I'd wear it as a badge of honor, as I'm sure FSF will do.
The RIAA didn't attack the FSF, they were praising the FSF for standing up to an evil organization: the RIAA.
So, I feel you are saying:
"We are preaching to the choir, and will never get anywhere"
If I have misunderstood, then correct me...I can take it, and welcome it, in fact.
Working on the above perspective, I have to reply to counter argue.
I will use myself as an example.
I lurked here for several years before getting an account.
Why?
I learned stuff that was new to me, but was dismissed as 'old news' by those with your attitude. Those comments still came through, in spite of those like you.
I found interesting things to explore and learn about, and still do here on slashdot...every day!
I found out about GNU/Linux on slashdot, despite you, and the fact it existed before I was aware that it was news.
There is benefit to 'preaching to the choir', as the choir grows, and talks to others.
I've learned about many things that I had no previous clue that they existed from the 'preaching to the choir' bunch here on slashdot.
Again, if I have misunderstood, please accept my apology, and correct me.
If my assumption was correct, or close, then think about what I said, and have some patience...we were all n00bs at one point....there will always be n00bs, and the future is full of n00bs...in reference to anything.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Or, to put it another way, Richard Stallman's cock is larger than the the cock size of everyone associated with the RIAA combined! What are they going to do in the face of such an enormous penis? What can they do?
Yeah I could make a serious post on the subject, but I'm giving the RIAA all the respect they and their shrill complaints deserve.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wow, perfect grammar in a /. story summary! I can't recall seeing such an exquisite exposition of the proper usage of nested quotation marks.
It's almost as if /. found a professional editor!
Oh wait...
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
You are correct. The existing music industry infrastructure is dying. Music won't.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
the art of music in western civilization may even come alive again if we can get rid of these cartels.
No of course they wouldn't, closed source businesses would hiss and spit bloody murder, but the AC you linked to didn't even suggest they would do that.
But that doesn't mean that over the longer term they'd do well - youngsters today somewhat overestimate the difficulty of reverse engineering from binary. Open-source programming-as-a-service-provision businesses would (already do anyway) spring up to replicate any functionality provided by closed stuff in the old system.
See, really, "programmer" *should* be a professional class like "doctor", "lawyer" - as a consulting programmer providing a service you're advising people how to run their computing machines (professing on the subject!) ...Really detailed, step by step advice... Open source basically just means that you're free to reuse existing advice verbatim when supplying that advice. It reflects closely the situation with contract terms, which lawyers freely copy/paste (when it comes to their _own_ work, they see the benefit of sharing) since they set it up so that contract texts themselves exempt from copyright in most systems. See, the lawyers know themselves that copyright is wrong...
...but I'd really like to know how to file one of those amateur circus briefs.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
When you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the law.
When you don't have the law on your side, pound on the facts.
When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.
When an opposing party start attacking people on their beliefs, you know they are in bad shape.
Fight Spammers!
NYCL is not just a harder target to hit, he is also a much more valuable one. If the RIAA can take him out of the equation, then they can go back to pushing around children and crippled grandmothers, but like any bully they can't properly operate with anyone actually standing up to them.
What comes next is the lawyer equivalent of meeting at the playground after school. If the RIAA can put enough hurt on NYCL, RMS and anyone else who has been willing to take a stand, then they go back to stealing lunch money... otherwise it is quite likely that they'll be shown for puffed up cowards and never be taken seriously again.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
It's been a few years since law school, so I may not be remembering my legal ethics class fully--but it seems at the very least highly questionable for a lawyer involved in a case to be submitting articles about that case to Slashdot.
I don't ever have to attend a legal ethics class to be absolutely certain you're wrong. There's nothing remotely unethical about submitting news articles about your own amicus curae brief. Quite the opposite. Such briefs are almost invariably filed by advocacy groups that exist for the purpose of publicizing such things.
I'll go even further. It's not unethical for a lawyer to publicize elements of a case he's involved in as a representative of one of the litigants when the lawsuit isn't under seal. The court filings themselves are public documents, in law and in fact. They always have been. So quoting them in their entirety, verbatim, is not only perfectly legal and ethical, it's also useful to the practice of law. Discussing them in detail is similarly useful. Summarizing and commenting on them likewise.
Perhaps you think that law commentary outside of the Law Review publication is unethical. You're sadly mistaken. It is both legal and ethical for anybody to discuss matters of public record. The day it's not is the day the USA becomes a fascist totalitarian state.
You've been listening too much to the "IP is property" mantra. Copyright is an artificial monopoly which is granted by a national government --- you cannot transfer it to another nation. The "other nation" is often respecting the some kind of international treaty which makes it recognize the original nation's copyright status for your work, but that would be automatic, in general.
They act like they think they're running the US Justice Department. Oh, wait...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No, they don't. Stallman is not the FSF, nor are Stallman's public statements the stated principles of FSF. If this referred strictly to Stallman, it might be true. But it doesn't.
Comparing Stallman's statements to the stated purpose of the FSF is like blaming Bush's foreign policy on the average American citizen. It's just not valid.
The point is that it's empty rhetoric that's completely irrelevant to the legal argument. Somebody could be a politician notorious for advocating legalizing marijuana. If they saw and filmed you assaulting without provocation some guy on the street who had light up a joint, just because that politician advocates for marijuana doesn't render invalid or affect their recordings and testimony of your unprovoked assault.
You could try that kind of crappy approach if you're in front of a jury in republican country, but the opposing lawyer should object as soon as it was clear where you were going with the line of reasoning and the judge should sustain it and slap you with contempt of court if you persisted. Submitting that kind of argument in writing to the judge doesn't make it any more proper or relevant or render you immune to repercussions.
In other words, being a "Commie", while indicating a significant misunderstanding of human nature, doesn't automatically invalidate a person's direct observations and arguments on a point of law. The kind of rhetoric you are championing might be unfortunately effective in grade school, campaign trails, and government committee hearings but, by long established precedent, it has no place in a court of law.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
In a legal action, a legally qualified target can often have less latitude afforded them in their defense than unqualified targets.
Going after NYCL for, say, defamation not only ties up a thorn in their side in a court case, but is harder to defend because it is expected that NYCL should know the law precisely.
The idea that "ignorance of the law is not a defense" may be true, but only in a criminal suit, it affords you some breathing room in a civil suit, to my knowledge.
Going after the FSF gets them money from places other than the recording industry, if it is believed credible. Stallman has pissed off a few too many corporate magnates, and they have money and the will. Microsoft might put cash into this, for instance.
Seriously, the game just got kicked up a notch, and it is possible for the RIAA to prevail simply because of the "torrents" of money they might receive from these sorts of actions. Justice can be bought.
The opening is over. The average Joe is undoubtedly aware that copying is illegal, and will no longer be afforded any breathing room. It's time for mid-game. They're trying to take down Joe's advocates.
Watch out. There are many more gambits to be played. This is a long game.
--
Toro
I think damages really need to be decided based on the financial gain of the infringer.
For someone downloading MP3s illegaly, that should indeed be fuck all. For a company making a profit off someone elses work, that should be all the profits they made.