Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA

whisper_jeff writes "Ars has an excellent write up outlining how Kiwi Camara (Jammie Thomas-Rasset's new lawyer) is following the 'Best Defense is a Good Offense' philosophy and going on the attack against the RIAA. Not content to just defend his client, he is laying siege against the RIAA's entire campaign and beginning the work of dismantling it from the bottom up, starting with the question of whether they actually do own the copyrights that were allegedly infringed. And, if you're thinking this is good for everyone who's been harassed by the RIAA, you'd be right — Camara, along with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, plans to file a class-action suit seeking to force the RIAA to return all the (ill-gotten) money they've earned from their litigation campaign." We first discussed the efforts of Nesson and Camara to thwart the RIAA last month.

Comments

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What does the Campaign for Real Ale have against the RIAA?

A$$ kickin' time

[arizwebfoot]

It's time to kick some serious RIAA boo-tay.

On a more serious note, it warms my heart to find that there is at least a couple of "good" lawyers out there who have their clients best interest at heart.

NYCountryLawyer excluded - dude you do good work.

Re:A$$ kickin' time

[mcgrew]

Well, the internet did change everything. But like at slashdot, it was offtopic and the Supreme Court modded him down.

Re:A$$ kickin' time

[Runaway1956]

Having a client's best interest at heart is a good thing, so don't get me wrong with the following.

More important that the client's interest, is society's interest. If the issue were ONLY whether Jammie had to pay for some songs, I'd say "Big deal - no story here." If the issue ended with whether it might affect whether I can download music as a result of this case, again, I'd say "Big deal - I can do without."

The REAL issues here, involve a concerted effort by RIAA and it's lookalikes to perform social engineering, on a global scale, with no benefit to society. In effect, the *IAA's want to sit in our living rooms, and watch for every instance of each of us using or enjoying any content to which they can lay any possible claim. And, with every instance, they want to charge us.

Time honored law has been challenged and even overturned in decisions that favor the "rights holders". Those same "rights holders" are spending billions world wide to expand the definitions of those rights, completely redefining what a copyright is.

Imagine a world in which your kindergarden daughter skips a rope in your yard with a half dozen freinds, singing a currently popular song. You check your online banking, to find that you've been charged a dollar or ten dollars for the use of copyrighted material.

Preposterous, you say? Look to the UK, the nation with more surveillance of it's population than any nation on earth. Look at current UK law, which makes it illegal for a mechanic or a restaurant to play a radio which might be heard by it's customers, unless a special fee is paid to the extortionist "rights enforcement" agencies.

The real question here is, what do rights holders hold? Do they hold all of us hostage? Do they own us?

This particular case means little, in and of itself. The important issue, is how the case applies to everyone, throughout the world.

Re:A$$ kickin' time

[jedidiah]

Actually, the internet didn't really change anything.

At the core of this are still very old principles and the original form of the relevant law.

The internet only makes the infringement more visible. It didn't even really increase it that much.
It may have made it easier. That's hard to say. The postman still pushes around more digital media.
You shouldn't underestimate the power of sneakernet.

The old law has been bent out of shape and as become badly unbalanced.

The basic questions remain: when does a work enter the public domain and what
do you do with the individuals that can't wait as long as Big Media wants.

The song played to the jury to gain sympathy for the RIAA in the one case
that has gone to trial was old enough that no one should be persecuted for
copying it.

Sorry Neil & Steve, those old works rightfully belong to the ages now.

Re:A$$ kickin' time

[VGPowerlord]

The question was why nobody had complained about all the prior term extensions. Well there was nobody around to complain. But the internet changed all that.

Well, up until 1976, US Copyright law was still fairly sane... 28 years with the possibility to file for another 28 years... and you have to file for copyright on everything.

The Copyright Act of 1976 bumped that to the author's life plus 50 years, made copyrights automatic, and introduced a number of other things into US Copyright law (including Fair Use). It could be that some people thought that the latter changes were good things.

However, by the time the most recent copyright extension happened, in 1998, we had already been exposed to the modern insanity super-long copyrights introduced, and we started to fight against the insanity of increasing it even further. It also introduced nothing new in terms of how Copyrights worked (the DMCA came a year or two later). It was a pure greed move by certain corporate interests, including one mousy movie studio.

Camera goes on offense against RIAA

[gparent]

Refuses to film copyrighted content!

A taste of their own medicine

[Drakkenmensch]

... and a lawsuit they can't just back out of when they realize they're not going to win. It's two great tastes brought together into a cocktail of bitter irony for the RIAA!

Kiwi?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a hell of a name for a lawyer.

"Meet Kiwi Camara. He's a high-powered defense attorney by day... and she's a pole-riding stripper by night! What will happen when these two lives collide? Find out this Fall on Barely Legal, only on Fox!"

Re:Kiwi?

[Niris]

Oh God dammit, I lol'd hard at work :(

Hmm.

[apodyopsis]

I wish them the very best of luck - thats a very powerful business lobby with a lot of politicians in pocket that they are going after.

Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

Re:Hmm.

[operator_error]

Still, its very clear why he chose to represent her - the publicity on this high profile case could make him and give his career a hell of a head start.

Good point. Also, please recall her previous lawyer allowed fees to climb to $150,000 and then pulled the lawyering services when Jammie couldn't pay-up. But then that lawyer didn't seem to have the wisdom to construct Jammie's case as well as her current lawyer either.

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[berashith]

exciting, but ultimately resulting in a loss?

Needs experienced analysis

[T Murphy]

We would all like to see the RIAA lose on all points brought up here, but how strong are these arguments, and are there known ways the RIAA could dodge them?

Re:Needs experienced analysis

[GWBasic]

More importantly, the indications are that he's fighting them on technicalities, not actual principles. So that'll cost him more in the end.

I think this essentially raises the bar for what's economical for the RIAA to go after. If they want to sue someone, they have to prove that they actually own the copyright, and that the material shared is the material copyrighted. This makes it difficult to sue someone for sharing files that have no economic value.

Yes, it's a technicality; however, the American court system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Without it, anyone could grab a list of IPs on a torrent, claim copyright, and then sue.

Wow!!!

[erroneus]

If the RIAA were forced to give all the money they collected BACK, the RIAA would simply close up shop permanently, probably filing some sort of bankruptcy or some such action to prevent their actually having to pay anything back.

And what would that mean with regards to the MPAA or BSA? They both, quite often, use similar tactics and means of evidence collection.

This will undoubtedly stir up a hornets nest on a scale we have never seen before. If this guy actually manages to win his cases and motions, it will likely result in new laws being introduced that would effectively make the RIAA's activities legal... that is unless some people are there to stop it which isn't likely considering the way laws like the DMCA are passed... subversively and practically secretly.

Re:Wow!!!

[erroneus]

And here I thought the following was true:

http://digg.com/tech_news/RIAA_Keeps_Settlement_Money_Artists_May_Sue

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/02/riaa_what_settlement_money.html ...and there are more on this topic. And while it's unquestionably true that these articles are talking about the settlements from fileshare software companies and not settlements from individuals, I see no cause to believe that the money collected is passed on to the labels (or the artists) at all. Do you have any indication that the RIAA actually passes the money they collect on to the labels? You are aware of the RIAA collection web site yes? (https://www.p2plawsuits.com/) People have been known to use that site when paying their settlements. A single point of transaction for all settlements ostensibly run by the RIAA.

I can't claim to have absolute knowledge of the fact, but it would appear that the RIAA does indeed pocket the money taken ostensibly to fund additional litigation and other legal activities.

Re:Wow!!!

[erroneus]

Yes, but when you sue someone for ill-gotten gains, you don't sue for "Net Gains" but for "Gross Gains." Their expenses and payroll are irrelevant.

Re:Wow!!!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA

Wrong.

nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA"

And wrong.

Care to try for a third incorrect statement?

Re:Wow!!!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'll ignore the snarky end of your reply

What do you mean you'll ignore it? Damn, that's the best part.

and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart.

Instead of my just being a snarky bastard? Well thanks for the more charitable interpretation.

Instead, I'll ask for clarification

I can do that too, although I prefer snarky.

- are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer?

Yes they are. But the actual filing and preparation is done by the RIAA. They just stick the record companies' names in. And when needed they give the record companies papers to sign. And then, if they get a judgment, the record companies assign the judgment to the RIAA, and the RIAA brings its own judgment collection proceeding.

For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?

Right.

As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.

Yeah, the settlement checks are payable to "RIAA Litigation Fund" (or something like that).

Oh, and by the way, Matthew Oppenheim, who acts as the "client" and the "principal" of the record companies, for settlement purposes, was at the counsel table during the first trial (and was observed by Ars Technica's reporter as reading my blog on his laptop), and has gotten himself admitted pro hac vice in the case this time around, which means he will be doing some questioning, or argument, or both.

lawyers.

[gd2shoe]

IANAL

Someone on slashdot once wrote "99% of all lawyers make the rest of us look bad".

Re:lawyers.

[Opportunist]

You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power. How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?

Re:lawyers.

[d'fim]

"How often did you tell your boss it takes 2 hours even though you knew it would take 2 minutes so you can slack off?"

Not often enough to offset all the times he has given me 2-hour tasks and expected results inside of 2 minutes.

Re:lawyers.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I remember when I first started reading /. (well before I signed up for an account) I would often seen IANAL. I didn't pick up on what it was for the longest time, I just figured it was people really into anal, either that or Apple's latest piece of hardware. Remember, when the iAnal 3G comes out to get the one with 32GB of capacity.

Re:lawyers.

[pluther]

...the simple fact that lawyers exist should logically mean that ignorance of the law is a valid excuse.

It sometimes is, especially when dealing with tax law and the like.

I've been let off with warnings on speeding tickets because I didn't know that the speed limit of the area I was traveling in differed from the standards.

I've also, on more than one occasion, messed up on my taxes, for example taking deductions I thought I was entitled to but wasn't, and when the IRS caught it, I just had to re-file. The most recent time resulted in an in-person visit from an IRS agent. (Last year, dealing with a problem with my 2002 returns).

(While scary at first - "Oh my gods, there's an IRS Agent at my door!" - everything turned out well.

We got along great, too - turns out IRS agents are all a bunch of nerds. One explained to me that it works best to "think of it as a game, with lots of math and complex rules that at least once a year." "So, big Avalon Hill fans, then?" Yep. The office is a giant cube farm, and there was a Robo-Rally game set up in the break room.)

Re:lawyers.

[shutdown -p now]

You can say that about many professions, from mechanics to plumbers to technical supporters to software engineers.

Any profession that has special knowledge their customer can't even possibly have unless he's a professional in the field as well is prone to abusing this power.

It's true, but what makes lawyers different from mechanics or plumbers is the level of that power. A plumber can set you up for an extra couple of hundred bucks. A lawyer can set you up for an extra couple of hundred thousand, and some jailtime too. Hence abuse of that power should be treated much more seriously.

Re:lawyers.

[HeronBlademaster]

I often wish we could mod things "+1 Sad but True".

Re:lawyers.

[smitty97]

I often wish we could mod things "+1 Sad but True".

Stop copying Metallica!

Re:lawyers.

[StuartHankins]

See? It changed already!

More on Camara/Thomas Vs. RIAA

[yerktoader]

There's more happening, and not all of it is necessarily going to work. I hope Thomas comes out on top, but I wonder how some of these tactics will affect the case overall.

MST3K Singalong Time!

[snarfies]

Camaraaaaaaaaaa! Camaraaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Camara is really neat,
Camara the RIAA won't beat,
We've been eating Kiwi, Camara!

Two sides

[davmoo]

This case brings me very mixed feelings. On the one hand, the RIAA (and to a lessor extent, the MPAA) needs to have its ass seriously kicked.

But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial. It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

Re:Two sides

[oneirophrenos]

It sucks that this isn't one of the cases where the RIAA went after a senior citizen who doesn't even know hot to turn on a computer. Its a good thing that the RIAA is so evil and stupid, because otherwise I'd find it much harder to root for her side.

Well that would be kind of dishonest, wouldn't it? Your average file-sharing culprit isn't an innocent old grandpa, but a young adult who downloads movies and music for his/her own use, full well knowing it's illicit. If we're going to defend file sharing, let's be honest and call things for what they are, and not try to embellish the truth or cherry pick facts. The RIAA may resort to reality distortion, but that doesn't mean we should.

Re:Two sides

[wytcld]

She's "obviously guilty" only if file-sharing is not fair use. And she's "obviously guilty" only if the RIAA truly owns those copyrights. If the copyrights were, in effect, extorted from the artists, falsely filed, then the RIAA is representing an industry who's claim of ownership is fraudulent.

This does not, by the way, under current US law, cheat the artists. You by default own copyright in your creative work, even without filing. Clearing the bogus recording industry copyrights off the federal register would, under our law, enable the true artists to file copyrights to their work in their own names. This would then open the opportunity for the true artists to recovery money properly owed them, from whoever has been commercially distributing their music - whether record companies or commercial online enterprises.

That would be a great boon for musicians. If file sharing is not fair use, but the copyrights properly belong to the creative artists rather than the recording companies, then it would be up to the artists to form a cooperative to claim money from file sharers. However, in this case it may well turn out that (1) file sharers are more willing to pay directly to the artists they love, and (2) artists are more willing to be generous to the fans who love them.

This ends up good all the way around. The file sharers, in defending themselves from the RIAA, can make the greatest gift back to the artists themselves - the true ownership of their own works.

Re:Two sides

[aaandre]

Agreed. What is also important is exposing the fact that RIAA does not really protect artists' profit but has built litigation into their business model instead with the intention to maximize their own profit. And as they are doing litigation as a business practice, they are doing everything possible to make it a streamlined, efficient, automated process by going around the laws binding the current judicial system.

And let's not forget that the judicial system costs a lot of taxpayer money. One entity putting a lot of load on said system costs us a lot of dollars which is one more way RIAA robs the public domain.

Re:Two sides

[cliffski]

Well said

I admire anyone who stands up and says "I believe that fundamentally it should be ok for me to just take copyrighted content"*

That takes balls, because it means you open yourself up to arrest and a serious fine, if not worse.
And that is exactly what people do who actually believe in something. I've put my own ass on the line and risked arrest for political issues in the past.
I don't see ANYONE doing this over the copyright issue. Everyone talks a tough fight behind a keyboard, but they also talk a lot about using anonymous services and masking their identity. Hardly the work of crusaders trying to change the law.

Even TPB claim its not them who are breaking any laws. if they actually believed in 'the cause' they would admit they are breaking the, and say they do so to get it changed.

Could it maybe be that getting free music is *not* worth a criminal record after all?

*I still completely dispute the premise that its ok to do this, and think people who espouse it are naive at best, but I can admire people who are naive and wrong, if they at least stand for something.

Re:Two sides

[cliffski]

I hate to burst your bubble, but nobody forces ANY musician to sign a recording contract, any mroe than someone like me is forced to sign a publishing deal with EA or Activision.
People freely make choices of how best to sell the proceeds of their work.
I don't hear any artists complain that they were forced to sign anything.

Getting noticed in the music industry is VERY hard. People sign with record companies because they can get you noticed. Most full time musicians are not also full-time marketing and PR experts.

Re:Two sides

[Splab]

You know you would get a lot more attention if you didn't sling around some crap like "Even TPB claim its [sic] not them who are breaking any laws."

US law != Swedish law. TPB might have lost round one, but that doesn't mean it's illegal to do what they do in Sweden.

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[AndrewNeo]

This is Slashdot. Anything is more exciting than sports.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie

[mcgrew]

What does it matter what his motivations are, so long as it results in a loss for the RIAA?

BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen. Funny how the RIAA never mentions the almost decade long boycott as a reason for decreased sales...

Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA

[omar.sahal]

Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works. With a good dash of community pooling of resources to sue any big corporation that infringes the above IP.
The situation we have now of large companies using the law to lock down markets would change. If they they feel they are being controlled and constrained by laws they initiated, the law will change.

Re:Camara Goes On Offense Against the RIAA

[mcgrew]

Actually I would like to see Open Source/ Creative Commons type licences covering intellectual and creative works.

They are. Cory Doctorow's books, as well as many other writer's books, are. There are a lot of indie musicians using those licenses as well.

You can read any of Doctorow's books online, or download them in any number of e-reader formats from his site. Funny how being online and free (as in both speech and beer) didn't stop him from making the NYT best seller list. If your stuff's good enough to pay for, people will pay for it even if they CAN get it for free.

Dangerous

[kenp2002]

This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high.

I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open.

Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.

I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom.

Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.

Re:Dangerous

[fprintf]

IANALBMWIAPL

I am not a lawyer but my wife is a paralegal?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a property lawyer?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a patent lawyer?
I am not a lawyer but my wife is a ?

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

practicing lesbian...?

Re:Dangerous

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny. Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high. I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open. Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre. I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom. Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.

I wouldn't worry about it. This firm has shown that they are (a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working. Sure they're young, but that's okay. Win, lose, or draw, only good can come out of their being in the case and giving the RIAA a run for its money. I wish every case was litigated with this much dedication and "attitude". The RIAA's lawyers are so accustomed to having a walk through the park on almost every case, that they are probably in shock at the moment.

Re:Dangerous

[maidix]

Your argument sounds vaguely reminiscent of the "we shouldn't even try to oppose anything he wants, because we might fail, and THEN what?!?!" argument that the Democrats used for 8 years to support, enable, and empower every single one of George W. Bush's policies. OK, so if we shouldn't use the legal system to oppose the RIAA, how should we do it? What method of opposing this insanity is so guaranteed in its success that we *shouldn't* be afraid of losing in the attempt? I say, make the attempt. Otherwise, you see... the RIAA has won, and the story is already over. I find that most objectionable. It's one thing to try, and fail... it's another thing to enable the people working against you, just so that you can wind up on the "winning" side.

Re:Dangerous

[TheLuggage2008]

This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win.

Has the MPAA taught you nothing?

1. Rudy Baylor successfully sued his client's insurance company for their illegal policies, a young lawyer with little experience trying the case of his life (The Rainmaker)
2. Erin Brockovich investigated lots of stuff until she learned things that made a California power company admit wrongdoing and pay out wads of cash
3. Vinny Gambini won his first ever trial, and that was a murder trial in front of a hostile judge...

With just a little Disney "can-do" attitude, this case is a lock for our scrappy little legal-eagle.

Kiwi Camara is a race troll

[Anonymous Coward]

In his first year at Harvard, Camara was involved in a racial controversy that would gain attention from the national media. Like many students, Camara posted his course outlines to a popular student-run website. Camara's, however, referred to blacks as nigs. For example, to summarize Shelley v. Kraemer, he wrote "Nigs buy land with no nig covenant; Q: Enforceable?"[7] The notes were prefaced with a disclaimer that they may contain racially offensive shorthand.[7]

Upon discovering the outline, a classmate alerted other students and professors.[7] Camara issued an apology and the outlines were promptly removed, whereupon a third student using the pseudonym "gcrocodile" e-mailed the classmate who discovered the outline expressing disappointment that they were no longer available and an intention to use the word nigger more often.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara

He sounds like trouble in a box!

Re:Kiwi Camara is a race troll

[amicusNYCL]

He sounds like trouble in a box!

He does? Did you only read that one paragraph in the wikipedia article? Here's another part:

Camara was born in Manila, Philippines [in 1984]. A year later, his family moved to Cleveland, Ohio before settling in Honolulu, Hawaii, where Camara attended the Punahou School.[1] He wrote a medical paper on alternative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis at age eleven,[1] which was published in the Hawai'i Journal of Medicine.[2] At sixteen, having skipped high school, Camara earned a Bachelor of Science in computer science from Hawaii Pacific University.[2] He completed the program in two years and was singularly recognized by the university for outstanding academic performance.[2] The Philippines awarded him their Jose Rizal Certificate of Achievement while he was in college and later, in 2005, recognized him with a Presidential Commendation.[3]

Yeah man, watch out for that guy, you see him coming and you better go the other way.

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[jamstar7]

This is Slashdot. Anything is more exciting than sports.

Except Redwings Hockey isn't a sport, it's a religon. And they'll bring home the Cup on Friday night.

But I like the idea of RIAA getting a dose of its own medicine. This day has been a long time coming, just like that other case we've been watching from the peanut gallery. Almost makes you wish you could sell tickets & popcorn at it. It's gonna be a helluva show...

Re:How practical is such a boycott?

[plover]

BTW, boycott the major labels, listen to indie music. By boycott I mean don't just not buy, don't even download or listen.

How do I avoid listening to major label music at work or in a grocery store?

You could try clapping your hands over your ears and loudly shouting "LA-LA-LA!" while you walk down the aisles of the grocery store. You'd probably benefit the other shoppers who would be also unable to hear the Muzak over your masking noise.

I'm not sure how you'd keep the music stopped once you've been committed into the asylum, however.

IANAL

[jockeys]

but neither is Jack Thompson!

Sorry, I'd been waiting a while for an excuse to say that in a slightly relevant way.

Re:Camara is a friend to all children!

[dzfoo]

Isn't that Gamera?

      -dZ.

This stunt is dangerous.

[falconwolf]

This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.

This "Rookie" is teamed up with a Harvard law professor who's called the "Billion Dollar Charlie" and has a 1998 movie, "A Civil Action", about a case of his about a toxic polluter.

Falcon

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie

[nausea_malvarma]

Problem is, most "Indie Music" is really on a major label. Take Sub-Pop. Every band on Sub Pop has been called Indie at some point, and most think Sub Pop is an independent label. On the contrary. 49% of the label is owned by Warner Brothers. Sub Pop does not directly fund the RIAA, but every Sub Pop album you buy supports Warner Brothers, which does.

One can use RIAA Radar to cleanse their music collection, but it's not perfect, since it does not detect this sort of indirect RIAA support. Realistically, if one want's to boycott the RIAA, they might as well boycott the idea of record labels themselves. In an age where bands can make their own album with consumer recording equipment, and make it sound just as good or better than professional releases, then distribute that music with the most powerful communication medium known to humanity, why do we still have these record label middlemen?

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

What is this "sports" you speak of?

Its a generic name for a certain type application (OSI Model, Application Layer), it often relies on NPT (Newtonian Physics Transport) and BCC (Body Collision Crumpling) in the transport and network layers.

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I don't boycott them. I haven't bought any music in the last decade because I haven't heard anything in the past decade worth downloading let alone buying!
Get off my lawn.

Re:Camara is a friend to all children!

[Missing_dc]

Where??

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

You know when you play any of the Madden games?

Imagine a bunch of guys going out into an actual field and doing that IRL.

Crazy, I know. But apparently it's fairly popular.

Re:I have a stupid question

[mdmkolbe]

RIAA only needs preponderence of evidence because it is civil. Law enforcement needs beyond reasonable doubt because its criminal.

Re:Not best chocie of defendent

[SoulReaverDan]

I think the issue that's here in this case is not that she is guilty or innocent, but what the RIAA is doing to win the case (attempted denial of a future lawyer, etc), and how much they want to take from her. Even though she is likely guilty, what she is guilty of is still insanely disproportional to what the RIAA is trying to get from her in exchange. That's my opinion, at least.

Re:Not best chocie of defendent

[NormalVisual]

You can't make a big deal of a fight that doesn't exist. Yes, the RIAA has acted shamefully, but the vast majority of people that they've strong-armed over the years did in fact settle, so they're done - there's no fight for them to pursue. I'd agree that Jammie Thomas probably isn't the best defendant to be involved in this, but she fought back, unlike most of the others, and she's going to be getting a whole new trial, which is a *huge* deal and gives her new lawyer all kinds of legal options to explore.

The RIAA's ill fated motion to bar objections

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

By the way, I submitted a proposed article a few days ago -- which is still in the Firehose -- about the Judge denying the RIAA's motion to bar Jammie from objecting to the defects in their copyright registration documents. I guess the article is being rejected, although it was voted up to "orange" in the Firehose, so you might want to check it out.

Re:More exciting than the play offs

[edalytical]

Lies, damned lies.

Sport is a type of car where cost approaches out-of-my-price-range for large values of features or for certain values of make.

Re:How practical is such a boycott?

[jamstar7]

So in other words, just become an anti-social asshole!

They're already on /., how much more do they need to do before hanging the 'Mission Acomplished' sign?

Re:Look that gift horse in the mouth, Jammie

[Omestes]

The term "indie" has somehow become a genre, and not an actual signifier of "independent". This is also true for Hollywood, most "indie" films are produced by major studios, and the signifier basically means "emulating Juno" now. Indie in music basically means watered down punk rock, or "sounds kind of like Radiohead", or "pop for people over 15". Actually, it might be one of the most useless genre tags after "alternative".

There are TONS of decent independent labels out there. John Zorn's Tzadik, Mike Patton's Ipecac, Mimicry, Drag City, Relapse, etc... Odd thing, most of the music put of by the aforementioned labels would never actually be called "indie", even if they are independent artists.

Re:How practical is such a boycott?

[sbeckstead]

Point taken...