This is just a wild thought, but could the court have done this to protect the RIAA from their own lawyers?
You know, I hadn't even thought of that, because I associate the RIAA so closely with its lawyers. But now that you raise the thought, I can't really rule it out.
Ray, these lawyers are mimicking the mode of operation of the RIAA gang. Thanks in part to your reporting, we know of some possible attack vectors against it. We know they are using illegal joinder. We know they can't profit unless most of defendants settle. And we know they depend on each defendant's isolation, so they won't know what the weaknesses are and they won't fight. Knowing what we do now, how can the community come together to help? How can we inform the defendants of their options, and how can we fight the plaintiffs directly?
Good questions. Very, very good questions. To which I do not know the answer.
I am very troubled by this issue. What "community"? I don't see a "community".
I think these lawyers handling these small bogus cases on a contingent basis might possibly be in for a surprise. Maybe they thought the RIAA was 'making it up on volume', but I doubt it. I have a strong hunch that the RIAA spent more on prosecuting the cases than it received in settlements and other recoveries.
I'm guessing that these lawyers will be laying out a lot of money, and a whole lot of time, and their fees won't even come close to what they expend.
Which of course, serves them right for being involved in extortionate, champertous, unnecessary litigation.
Of course there are a number of bands that release songs to the public for free.
You can copy and distribute them without fear of infringement.
There are even big bands owned by RIAA that do this for some songs and even albums.
Heck, one of those hides usb drives with copies of their songs for their fans to find and enjoy, they've even hidden them in the bathroom at their concerts.
Basically, you can't be sure that it is, or isn't, an illegal copy if all you know is the band and song name.
Right. And, to the best of my knowledge, many of the recordings which are the subject of these lawsuits were in fact made available for free by the record companies.
The person has to really not know that it's copyrighted, to qualify for the defense. But even if he or she doesn't know, he or she will be precluded if the one they copied had a copyright notice on it.
These judges went further, and said she's precluded because somewhere, in some store somewhere, there's a copy with a copyright notice on it. I.e., they basically ruled that there is no "innocent infringement" defense, which is ridiculous, and contrary to the plain wording of the statute.
Key word in the title of the post: "Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court
from Wikipedia entry for Certiorari [wikipedia.org]:
The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the most recently-concluded term, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%
Those are some slim chances
Agreed. The US Supreme Court is very very selective about granting petitions for cert.
Are there sufficient legal issues here for the Court to even take up the case?
Yes there is a huge issue here. Whether the defense of "innocent infringement" is unavailable, merely because somewhere there is a copy -- which the defendant has never seen much less copied from -- that does contain a copyright notice. The appeals court's decision is ludicrous, and clearly contradicted by the statute itself, and yet it is not the first but the second appeals court to have reached that conclusion. It is vitally important that the Supreme Court remind the courts of what the statute is about.
No offense but this article is rank speculation. You have no information whatsoever about it closing down, just the opinion of some "experts" that it will have to.
I see. Sounds like a very sensible policy. So would I be correct in saying that Limewire can (and probably will) appeal?
And that it's merely a confusing bit of argot to say they can't specifically appeal this ruling on the RIAA's motion for summary judgment? But rather, they must wait until there's a Final Judgment (the outcome of which is now virtually certain)?
Yes but a lot can happen between now and then. E.g., settlement discussions, damages award that's livable, motion practice over possible interlocutory appeal, actual interlocutory appeal which results in reversal of all or part of the Court's order, etc., etc.
The decision was not a final judgment, so it is not appealable.
This is the one detail I really don't understand. Are you saying Limewire has no avenues for appeal at all, just because this judgment was not final?
In federal practice, in order to avoid piecemeal appeals, there is normally no appeal except from a final judgment disposing of all issues regarding all parties.
One of the judgments was on unfair competition.
Really?
REALLY?/me holds up a mirror to the Board of Directors of the RIAA
I need a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.
I had the exact same reaction when I came to that part of the decision.
New York Lawyer, my good man, thanks 10,000 times for your work and effort, but as a non-lawyer I have NO IDEA what your post means. It must be bad, but really I don't know what it means. Can you tell me, a non-lawyer, what it means other than "You're screwed" or some such thing? I just don't know...
Are you saying you, for one, welcome our country-sized microbe overlords?
No. Of course not. What do you take me for?
I'm saying these are the good microbes, who are our friends, and will help to protect us from the bad microbes who wish to be colonize, and ultimately devour, us.
Your imagination is running riot. I wish you would calm down, and rely upon science, as I do.
What's this? A science story from NewYorkCountyLawyer?.....
Actually there is a bit of evidence, not publicly available, which would support your theory that I may have been a little bit out of my element with this story:
This was the first of my 232 stories that was actually improved by the Slashdot editor.
Now I know I didn't read TFA, but how does the RIAA/MPAA fit into this story? Are they suing the microbes for copyright infringement as well?? Heartless bastards.
:)
Perhaps as previously unidentified microorganisms that live without oxygen, in the muck?
No matter how jaded you think you are, you would be shocked by the degree of decision making that is carried out by appointed bureaucrats in protected sinecures. Decisions that affect the daily lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of people are done completely by fiat with no political accountability whatsoever. The more that this is exposed, the better for everyone.
That is why I think the cost argument against it is poorly taken. Because I think with greater accountability and transparency, there would be a major net gain, as less money would be expended on wasteful and purposeless things which are solely the result of political dealmaking, not genuine governance. Most bloggers and online journalists have no meaningful access to the records of these things; once these records were online, and the "blogosphere" could get its mitts on this stuff, the results will be hilarious. And ultimately beneficial.
The vast majority of people won't have any use for this data being online.
Not so. Just because most people don't have a direct need for the material, and wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it, doesn't mean that society doesn't need it. Society does need it. It's just like securities prospectuses; most small investors don't read them, but the fact that the prospectuses are out there and publicly accessible is extremely important to every investor: (1) it helps to keep people honest, and (2) the pros who can read and understand them spread the information to the rest of us.
All of that data had been available to large corporations who track that sort of thing.
All of that data is already publicly available - you just have to drive down to the individual offices.
Will it cause problems? I don't know.
Will it make government more transparent? I think so.
Well said. This is all publicly available stuff that would be available under the Freedom of Information Law. It just means that getting the stuff will be less dependent on (a) having money to spend and (b) having money for lawyers. I.e., it makes the process more democratic.
Ray -
Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary.
If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
Slashdot Mirror
This is just a wild thought, but could the court have done this to protect the RIAA from their own lawyers?
You know, I hadn't even thought of that, because I associate the RIAA so closely with its lawyers. But now that you raise the thought, I can't really rule it out.
It's a loss leader.
They make it up on the volume.
I want to be a Special Master.
I would like to be a Jedi knight.
I'm not a lawyer but I would bet they would prefer to spend $2 million to get a $1 million settlement
The judge has already ruled that the maximum they can get is $54,000. So the range of possible verdicts at the 3rd trial would be from 0 to $54,000.
Doesn't this sound like a fucked up business model?
It doesn't even sound like a business model.
Ray, these lawyers are mimicking the mode of operation of the RIAA gang. Thanks in part to your reporting, we know of some possible attack vectors against it. We know they are using illegal joinder. We know they can't profit unless most of defendants settle. And we know they depend on each defendant's isolation, so they won't know what the weaknesses are and they won't fight. Knowing what we do now, how can the community come together to help? How can we inform the defendants of their options, and how can we fight the plaintiffs directly?
Good questions. Very, very good questions. To which I do not know the answer.
I am very troubled by this issue. What "community"? I don't see a "community".
I think these lawyers handling these small bogus cases on a contingent basis might possibly be in for a surprise. Maybe they thought the RIAA was 'making it up on volume', but I doubt it. I have a strong hunch that the RIAA spent more on prosecuting the cases than it received in settlements and other recoveries.
I'm guessing that these lawyers will be laying out a lot of money, and a whole lot of time, and their fees won't even come close to what they expend.
Which of course, serves them right for being involved in extortionate, champertous, unnecessary litigation.
Of course there are a number of bands that release songs to the public for free. You can copy and distribute them without fear of infringement. There are even big bands owned by RIAA that do this for some songs and even albums. Heck, one of those hides usb drives with copies of their songs for their fans to find and enjoy, they've even hidden them in the bathroom at their concerts. Basically, you can't be sure that it is, or isn't, an illegal copy if all you know is the band and song name.
Right. And, to the best of my knowledge, many of the recordings which are the subject of these lawsuits were in fact made available for free by the record companies.
The person has to really not know that it's copyrighted, to qualify for the defense. But even if he or she doesn't know, he or she will be precluded if the one they copied had a copyright notice on it.
These judges went further, and said she's precluded because somewhere, in some store somewhere, there's a copy with a copyright notice on it. I.e., they basically ruled that there is no "innocent infringement" defense, which is ridiculous, and contrary to the plain wording of the statute.
Key word in the title of the post: "Innocent Infringement" Defense May Reach Supreme Court from Wikipedia entry for Certiorari [wikipedia.org]: The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the most recently-concluded term, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1% Those are some slim chances
Agreed. The US Supreme Court is very very selective about granting petitions for cert.
Are there sufficient legal issues here for the Court to even take up the case?
Yes there is a huge issue here. Whether the defense of "innocent infringement" is unavailable, merely because somewhere there is a copy -- which the defendant has never seen much less copied from -- that does contain a copyright notice. The appeals court's decision is ludicrous, and clearly contradicted by the statute itself, and yet it is not the first but the second appeals court to have reached that conclusion. It is vitally important that the Supreme Court remind the courts of what the statute is about.
No offense but this article is rank speculation. You have no information whatsoever about it closing down, just the opinion of some "experts" that it will have to.
Baloney.
I see. Sounds like a very sensible policy. So would I be correct in saying that Limewire can (and probably will) appeal?
And that it's merely a confusing bit of argot to say they can't specifically appeal this ruling on the RIAA's motion for summary judgment? But rather, they must wait until there's a Final Judgment (the outcome of which is now virtually certain)?
Yes but a lot can happen between now and then. E.g., settlement discussions, damages award that's livable, motion practice over possible interlocutory appeal, actual interlocutory appeal which results in reversal of all or part of the Court's order, etc., etc.
Can you explain the phrase:
The decision was not a final judgment, so it is not appealable.
This is the one detail I really don't understand. Are you saying Limewire has no avenues for appeal at all, just because this judgment was not final?
In federal practice, in order to avoid piecemeal appeals, there is normally no appeal except from a final judgment disposing of all issues regarding all parties.
One of the judgments was on unfair competition. /me holds up a mirror to the Board of Directors of the RIAA
Really?
REALLY?
I need a new irony meter. Mine just exploded.
I had the exact same reaction when I came to that part of the decision.
New York Lawyer, my good man, thanks 10,000 times for your work and effort, but as a non-lawyer I have NO IDEA what your post means. It must be bad, but really I don't know what it means. Can you tell me, a non-lawyer, what it means other than "You're screwed" or some such thing? I just don't know...
Sure.
It means Lime Wire might be screwed.
Are you saying you, for one, welcome our country-sized microbe overlords?
No. Of course not. What do you take me for?
I'm saying these are the good microbes, who are our friends, and will help to protect us from the bad microbes who wish to be colonize, and ultimately devour, us.
Your imagination is running riot. I wish you would calm down, and rely upon science, as I do.
What's this? A science story from NewYorkCountyLawyer?.....
Actually there is a bit of evidence, not publicly available, which would support your theory that I may have been a little bit out of my element with this story:
This was the first of my 232 stories that was actually improved by the Slashdot editor.
A mat of microbes the size of Greece
I don't care what country you use for comparison. I'm scared by microbes the size of any country!
Don't be scared. Microbes are your friend.
Now I know I didn't read TFA, but how does the RIAA/MPAA fit into this story?
Don't pigeonhole me man. After all I did go to Bronx High School of Science.
Now I know I didn't read TFA, but how does the RIAA/MPAA fit into this story? Are they suing the microbes for copyright infringement as well?? Heartless bastards.
:)
Perhaps as previously unidentified microorganisms that live without oxygen, in the muck?
No matter how jaded you think you are, you would be shocked by the degree of decision making that is carried out by appointed bureaucrats in protected sinecures. Decisions that affect the daily lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of people are done completely by fiat with no political accountability whatsoever. The more that this is exposed, the better for everyone.
That is why I think the cost argument against it is poorly taken. Because I think with greater accountability and transparency, there would be a major net gain, as less money would be expended on wasteful and purposeless things which are solely the result of political dealmaking, not genuine governance. Most bloggers and online journalists have no meaningful access to the records of these things; once these records were online, and the "blogosphere" could get its mitts on this stuff, the results will be hilarious. And ultimately beneficial.
The vast majority of people won't have any use for this data being online.
Not so. Just because most people don't have a direct need for the material, and wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it, doesn't mean that society doesn't need it. Society does need it. It's just like securities prospectuses; most small investors don't read them, but the fact that the prospectuses are out there and publicly accessible is extremely important to every investor: (1) it helps to keep people honest, and (2) the pros who can read and understand them spread the information to the rest of us.
All of that data had been available to large corporations who track that sort of thing.
All of that data is already publicly available - you just have to drive down to the individual offices.
Will it cause problems? I don't know.
Will it make government more transparent? I think so.
Well said. This is all publicly available stuff that would be available under the Freedom of Information Law. It just means that getting the stuff will be less dependent on (a) having money to spend and (b) having money for lawyers. I.e., it makes the process more democratic.
Ray - Surely, if it's evidence, it can't be proprietary. If I were the judge in this case, I would have said "Proprietary evidence? You must be joking. Either show me the evidence, or I'm dismissing your case for lack thereof."
That's what a judge is supposed to say.