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?
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
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.
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?
As it has been pointed out above, and despite being modded redundand I want to stress it again, the FSF relies on copyright law. One of its cornerstones is the GPL, and like all licenses it does depend on enforcable copyright law or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software and neither the FSF nor anyone else could do anything about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would say that the aspersions cast concerning Beckerman and the "pending sanctions motion" would be inaccurate. If I were in a lawsuit, I could potentially move to have sanctions entered against my opponent for various miscellaneous reasons, such as making out with the court reporter while the judge's back was turned, etc., regardless of whether any of those things were true or not. For the two seconds it would take the judge to deny my motion, that motion would be pending. At that very moment, someone could file a brief in another court involving the person who is my opponent in my case, stating that there is a pending sanctions motion against that person.
In Beckerman's case, while the motion isn't based on pure ridiculousness as in my straw man above, it's still based solely on allegations made by the RIAA against Beckerman with no consideration of any evidence.
While the assertion may not be "incorrect", as there is a pending sanctions motion against Beckerman, the fact that the RIAA frames it as a reason to discredit Beckerman makes it inaccurate.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
The RIAA is only incidentally a criminal organization. The law is just an inconvenient encumberance.
The real purpose of the RIAA is to make money. Lots of money. To do this, they have become an evangelical organization. They are trying to create and perpetuate a repressive belief system.
In action, they closely resemble an inquisition.
They are trying to create and enforce a belief system. Any tactic is justified if it will maintain their orthodox beliefs. These beliefs don't have to make sense. They just have to be valued.
* Copyright infringement equals piracy.
* Copying music is the same as theft of tangible property.
* Unapproved distribution of an idea requires infinite punishment.
These are not rational thoughts. They are elements of a repressive belief system.
Miles
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
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.
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
You must be new here
You must be new here if you're saying that to NYCL.
You must be new here if you're not used to people saying 'you must be new here' to NYCL.
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
the art of music in western civilization may even come alive again if we can get rid of these cartels.
...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.
They act like they think they're running the US Justice Department. Oh, wait...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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