Give the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions regarding punitive damages and due process, she has a pretty strong argument.
In essence, the Supreme Court has held that awarding punitive damages that are more than 10x the amount of actual damages is out of line with the due process guarantees of the constitution. It follows that any mandatory award that is also grossly out of line with actual damages should be subject to similar constitutional problems.
For those interested, check out Campbell v. State Farm, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). It was a 6-3 decision, with Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg as dissenters. Given the Roberts Court just gave a similar judgment in the Exxon case, it probably is still very good law. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1289/
Like many on here, I support computers for family, friends, etc... I have flatly told people that I will do nothing on their computers if they run vista. I've only used Vista for a few days, and the experience of using it myself and attempting to work with it on other people's computers has been so unpleasant that I won't do anything for it.
Thus, I'm basically using MS's decision to quit XP to push OS upgrades of my own choosing. People can either stick with XP - which I'm more than happy to support - or, if they want to upgrade to something new, I suggest they install Ubuntu - which I have also recently started using and will support for them. I have had several people make that switch and find the experience palatable. The point is that, at least for the home user, those of us who are unhappy with Microsoft's decision at least have a chance to not only vote with our wallets, but also bring others along for the ride.
"The ONLY reason that I want my datacenter to switch to "Green" power is if and when it is CHEAPER to do so.
Any other reason will make data more expensive, slowing down the economy."
Fantastic! I presume then that, as a fan of the invisible hand controlling economic markets, you will fully respect the wishes of myself and numerous other people to spend our hard earned dollars in a manner that we feel is socially responsible; namely, supporting "green" data centers.
I also presume that you favor ending subsidies to coal companies and tax subsidies and benefits for the coal generating power plants which provide you the "cheap" electricity that you love.
And, as a true fan of the invisible hand (God bless Adam Smith!), I suppose that you favor removing government cleanup programs (which, afterall, are nothing more than the government coercing the populace to contribute money to environmental efforts, no doubt at the behest of those pesky activists) and having the providers of dirty electricity internalize the costs of all the pollution which they produce.
Frankly, people who gripe about government or activist intervention in the energy sector drive me buggy. If fossil fuel technologies were not heavily subsidized, they would *not* be nearly as economically competitive. Instead though, we have to live in a world where people don't want to pay more than $0.08/kWh, and will continue to steal my tax dollars to fund their dirty electricity while chiding me for trying to encourage the government to spend the same tax dollars they're taking from me on electricity that is both more sustainable and less polluting.
"Does anyone besides me find this utterly ridiculous?"
Depends on what you mean. Do I find it ridiculous that developers are ignoring a sizable portion of their userbase and implementing a feature that many people would like to disable? Yes, I find it ridiculous. Not terribly surprising, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Do I find it ridiculous that it's causing a project to fork? Not particularly. This is supposed to be the one of the greatest advantages of open source; if you don't like the way people play, you can pick up the pieces and start your own game. Silly me, I had secretly hoped that the threat of something like this happening would keep software like pidgin from ignoring its user base. Guess I was wrong.
While it may be true that this is pushed by big media, I hardly see how this is failing to accord appropriate protections to so-called "amateur" creators. Amateurs, like anyone else, can fairly easily register any work which they create with the copyright office. Further, you can do something like stick an email address or other contact information on the video/image/webpage/etc... so that there is some way for anyone wanting to use your copyrighted work to contact you (this has the dual function of also identifying that the work has an active "owner" who needs to be contacted). Neither of those approaches is overly burdensome, even for amateurs.
It seems that everyone favors liberalization of copyright laws only if it helps out the "little guy." Copyright needs to be a balance, allowing both large media holders and individual content creators to play fairly under the same set of rules. This bill would help achieve that.
They will be guilty of fraud. Doing something for someone does not entitle you to compensation unless you have a prior agreement that these actions will be compensated for. This is equivalent to me showing up on your lawn, mawing it and sending you a bill that I deem is fair. You didn't agree to pay for before hand, so you don't owe the money. Billing someone for the money they don't owe you is fraud.
This is entirely incorrect. Law in the U.S. and other common law countries has long recognized the legal principle of quantum meruit. Quantum meruit allows for a person who has undertaken labor for another party with that party's implied consent to sue for compensation. It is an equitable principle, and the court decides what fair compensation should be, as well as what could fairly be implied as being allowed to be done by the party doing the work. If the studio really did encourage these people to promote, and now is suing them for it, quantum meruit (being an equitable principle built around fairness) may very well allow them to recover compensation from the studios based on the studios promise and subsequent bad faith actions.
Your lawn mowing analogy is incorrect. It would be more proper to say that you asked someone to mow your lawn, but didn't agree on the price to pay the person mowing it. When that person was done mowing, you said "Ha! We didn't agree on a price for your labor, and now I'm not going to pay you." Quantum Meruit would provide a remedy.
Wikipedia has a great entry on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_meruit
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
First, IANAL, but I am in law school and have at least a basic knowledge of counterclaims, the FRCP, etc...
I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unfortunately....
This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):
"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"
"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."
Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.
"Windows users, don't forget to run WindowsUpdate first thing Monday morning."
Not just to rag on MS, but I will NOT be running my PC monday morning. Given microsoft's less-than-stellar history of patch releases (Service Pack 2 still gives me night terrors), I'll wait at least a week or so to see what problems these patches create.
It's unfortunate that many PC users (including myself) would rather risk having their PCs zombified or their data erased for a while longer instead of installing the latest MS patch. For me, past experience has shown me it's less of a risk to just sit it out for a while and see what new holes these patches open.
It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.
I can understand why the EFF, the ALA, and even an underdog like Sun are signed on as supporters of this bill, but what benfits are coming to companies like Qwest, Verizon and BellSouth - all major telecom providers? These companies are spending money to fight the DMCA, but what financial benefits does the destruction of the DMCA offer them? Is Telecom innovation being hurt this much by the DMCA so much that they're willing to take up arms and fight?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the DMCA nuked. But it would seem they've found something in this bill that suits them quite nicely in a financial sense, which immediately raises my skepticism level about how positive their support really is.
I get sick of hearing the "stealing" argument. The RIAA is not suing ANY of the downloaders, but only the uploaders. I own my music legitimately (i.e. I paid for the CDs and then ripped my own MP3s). How is me sharing something I own "stealing." Shouldn't they be targeting those who are illegally downloading what they don't own? This problem isn't akin to selling crack on the streets. I am not a dealer, but I do make hella good rips that I think other people who own the cds legitimately might want to listen to.
Watch out with all of this talk about free speech and democratic ideals, or China might demand your extradition for violating the "Republic's" laws about dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
Give the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions regarding punitive damages and due process, she has a pretty strong argument.
In essence, the Supreme Court has held that awarding punitive damages that are more than 10x the amount of actual damages is out of line with the due process guarantees of the constitution. It follows that any mandatory award that is also grossly out of line with actual damages should be subject to similar constitutional problems. For those interested, check out Campbell v. State Farm, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). It was a 6-3 decision, with Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg as dissenters. Given the Roberts Court just gave a similar judgment in the Exxon case, it probably is still very good law. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1289/
Like many on here, I support computers for family, friends, etc... I have flatly told people that I will do nothing on their computers if they run vista. I've only used Vista for a few days, and the experience of using it myself and attempting to work with it on other people's computers has been so unpleasant that I won't do anything for it.
Thus, I'm basically using MS's decision to quit XP to push OS upgrades of my own choosing. People can either stick with XP - which I'm more than happy to support - or, if they want to upgrade to something new, I suggest they install Ubuntu - which I have also recently started using and will support for them. I have had several people make that switch and find the experience palatable. The point is that, at least for the home user, those of us who are unhappy with Microsoft's decision at least have a chance to not only vote with our wallets, but also bring others along for the ride.
"The ONLY reason that I want my datacenter to switch to "Green" power is if and when it is CHEAPER to do so.
Any other reason will make data more expensive, slowing down the economy."
Fantastic! I presume then that, as a fan of the invisible hand controlling economic markets, you will fully respect the wishes of myself and numerous other people to spend our hard earned dollars in a manner that we feel is socially responsible; namely, supporting "green" data centers.
I also presume that you favor ending subsidies to coal companies and tax subsidies and benefits for the coal generating power plants which provide you the "cheap" electricity that you love.
And, as a true fan of the invisible hand (God bless Adam Smith!), I suppose that you favor removing government cleanup programs (which, afterall, are nothing more than the government coercing the populace to contribute money to environmental efforts, no doubt at the behest of those pesky activists) and having the providers of dirty electricity internalize the costs of all the pollution which they produce.
Frankly, people who gripe about government or activist intervention in the energy sector drive me buggy. If fossil fuel technologies were not heavily subsidized, they would *not* be nearly as economically competitive. Instead though, we have to live in a world where people don't want to pay more than $0.08/kWh, and will continue to steal my tax dollars to fund their dirty electricity while chiding me for trying to encourage the government to spend the same tax dollars they're taking from me on electricity that is both more sustainable and less polluting.
"Does anyone besides me find this utterly ridiculous?"
Depends on what you mean. Do I find it ridiculous that developers are ignoring a sizable portion of their userbase and implementing a feature that many people would like to disable? Yes, I find it ridiculous. Not terribly surprising, but ridiculous nonetheless.
Do I find it ridiculous that it's causing a project to fork? Not particularly. This is supposed to be the one of the greatest advantages of open source; if you don't like the way people play, you can pick up the pieces and start your own game. Silly me, I had secretly hoped that the threat of something like this happening would keep software like pidgin from ignoring its user base. Guess I was wrong.
While it may be true that this is pushed by big media, I hardly see how this is failing to accord appropriate protections to so-called "amateur" creators. Amateurs, like anyone else, can fairly easily register any work which they create with the copyright office. Further, you can do something like stick an email address or other contact information on the video/image/webpage/etc... so that there is some way for anyone wanting to use your copyrighted work to contact you (this has the dual function of also identifying that the work has an active "owner" who needs to be contacted). Neither of those approaches is overly burdensome, even for amateurs.
It seems that everyone favors liberalization of copyright laws only if it helps out the "little guy." Copyright needs to be a balance, allowing both large media holders and individual content creators to play fairly under the same set of rules. This bill would help achieve that.
Or, you could just google it and find the current version of the software on Softpedia or any one of a dozen other download sites.
This is an interlocutory order. TakeTwo can't appeal this order forcing them to turn over the game. If TakeTwo loses the full trial, then they can appeal and claim that the order should have never been issued. It's a civil proceudure rule.
That aside, I'm not surprised. Most state judges have little concept of the first amendment. Even if they lose at the trial level, they will almost certainly prevail on appeal. Video games are protected as expression just like speech, books, and flag burning. All this will do is stir up a media shitstorm, you'll see a bunch of Tipper Gore wannabes out whining about "saving the children," from violence, and then we'll go back to executing criminals, engaging in war, and watching Sunday afternoon football. God Bless America.
I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Unfortunately....
This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):
"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"
"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."
Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.
Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.
"Windows users, don't forget to run WindowsUpdate first thing Monday morning."
Not just to rag on MS, but I will NOT be running my PC monday morning. Given microsoft's less-than-stellar history of patch releases (Service Pack 2 still gives me night terrors), I'll wait at least a week or so to see what problems these patches create.
It's unfortunate that many PC users (including myself) would rather risk having their PCs zombified or their data erased for a while longer instead of installing the latest MS patch. For me, past experience has shown me it's less of a risk to just sit it out for a while and see what new holes these patches open.
Way to go Siemens. I now can buy a device that wastes bandwidth AND cellphone minutes.
It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.
I can understand why the EFF, the ALA, and even an underdog like Sun are signed on as supporters of this bill, but what benfits are coming to companies like Qwest, Verizon and BellSouth - all major telecom providers? These companies are spending money to fight the DMCA, but what financial benefits does the destruction of the DMCA offer them? Is Telecom innovation being hurt this much by the DMCA so much that they're willing to take up arms and fight?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the DMCA nuked. But it would seem they've found something in this bill that suits them quite nicely in a financial sense, which immediately raises my skepticism level about how positive their support really is.
I get sick of hearing the "stealing" argument. The RIAA is not suing ANY of the downloaders, but only the uploaders. I own my music legitimately (i.e. I paid for the CDs and then ripped my own MP3s). How is me sharing something I own "stealing." Shouldn't they be targeting those who are illegally downloading what they don't own? This problem isn't akin to selling crack on the streets. I am not a dealer, but I do make hella good rips that I think other people who own the cds legitimately might want to listen to.
Watch out with all of this talk about free speech and democratic ideals, or China might demand your extradition for violating the "Republic's" laws about dissent.