I am truly gratified by the University of Wisconsin's courageous stance against the RIAA's reign of terror. It's a pleasure to see a university standing up for its students instead of acting as a mindless enforcer for big corporations. Wisconsin is a great institution; and this is but another example of what makes it great. If I was a high school student trying to pick a college, or a parent of one, I would take heed: here is an institution that recognizes its educational mission.
Well you sound like a very compassionate human being, thinking that wearing blue trousers is equivalent to having a stroke that paralyzes half your body, and thinking it's okay to just bring frivolous lawsuits against innocent people who are helpless to protect themselves. I feel sorry for you.
1. I think the lawsuits are misguided, as anyone familiar with my work knows.
2. The lawsuits are based on a theory that has no basis in the law, and is a fabrication.
3. Even were the theory valid, the RIAA does not have sufficient evidence upon which to base its claim that the defendant did what they claim he or she did.
4. On top of that, the RIAA's lawyers conduct the lawsuits in an unscrupulous manner calculated not to win (they never win a contested case on the merits), but to force the defendant to capitulate due to the cost of defending him or her self.
5. When the RIAA lawyers learn that the defendant is innocent, they nevertheless maintain the case as long as possible in order to confer subpoena power on their lawyers as long as possible with which to conduct an investigation masquerading as a litigation.
6. To take the RIAA's novel theory, flimsy evidence, and unscrupulous litigation tactics and inflict them on any citizen is wrong.
7. To inflict them on stroke victims, Multiple Sclerosis victims, wheelchair-bound people, grandparents, single moms, and others who did not engage in any copyright infringement whatsoever is doubly wrong.
8. This article happens to be about a case against an innocent person who is a stroke victim. I don't have time to write a book about all the things wrong with the RIAA's cases every time I do a Slashdot post. If you want to read about them, there's a growing body of material here.
9. If you think it's irrelevant that the defendant is a totally disabled stroke victim I strenuously disagree; in my value system that does indeed count for something. And I, were I the the plaintiffs' attorney, would NEVER bring such a suit, even were I convinced that the RIAA's theory was valid and its facts valid; I did not go to law school to oppress helpless people.
Also, by the way, I do not consider it okay for a lawyer in civil litigation to "use every weapon you're handed". I believe lawyers should in civil cases should be selective about who they represent, and should not use every weapon they're handed. This is not about the law of the jungle.
Civil litigation should be carried out honorably, and fairly.
At least that's the way it is among the better lawyers.
The RIAA lawyers use every weapon they can envision, even ones that backfire.
Well all I can say to those who are under the impression that compassion, and pity, and mercy, and ordinary decency, have no place in the law... (1) you are wrong, and (2) I would not be a lawyer if I agreed with you.
If you think it's okay for our justice system to oppress helpless people, I beg to differ.
"Nymz" doesn't have to read, he's an RIAA troll. Don't waste your time on him. He knows the cases are frivolous, which is why his moron employers are getting hammered for attorneys fees.
"jb.hl.com" complained that he wanted facts. I asked him which parts of the story weren't factual and he admitted that it was all factual.
So what is his problem? That the facts make the RIAA out to be scum?
What facts does he want? Facts making the RIAA out to be decent. legitimate businesspeople? I don't know of any.
From their payola, to their oppressive recording agreements, to their lying to the Justice Department, to their collusion and pricefixing, to their suing children, disabled people, and lots of people who never even heard of filesharing, to their distortion and lies in court proceedings.... all the facts I know of make the RIAA out to be vermin.
Sorry, "jb.hl.com", I can't make up facts for you. Only the RIAA lawyers can do that.
If the record company does not own any kind of copyright in the sound recording or in the underlying musical composition I do not see what standing it would have to bring a copyright infringement action. If however the band owns the copyright in the musical composition but the record company owns the sound recording copyright, then the record company would have standing to enforce its sound recording copyright. I've never heard of a record company not owning the sound recording copyright.
Usually the person sued does have a computer. But I would say in more than 50% of the cases the person sued did not engage in file sharing, let alone copyright infringement through file sharing. I.e., even apart from the problem with the RIAA's imaginative legal theories which attempt to expand copyright law beyond anything the statute provides, more than 50% of the defendants did not do what the RIAA says they did. That is not an acceptable margin of error.
It is the norm in the legal profession to attempt to compromise disputes without resort to litigation... the RIAA doesn't compromise.
It is the norm in the copyright bar to send a cease and desist letter, and enter into a cease and desist agreement, without demanding the payment of money, except in exceptional cases.... the RIAA doesn't do that.
It is required of lawyers to conduct a factual investigation before signing a pleading.... the RIAA lawyers don't do that.
It is required of lawyers that their pleadings state actual legal claims.... the RIAA lawyers don't do that.
Bottom line, I do not consider that they are acting within their rights at all in bringing these lawsuits. I think they are outlaws.
I have no problem with honest partisanship and differences of opinion. I don't appreciate people masquerading as something they're not. On my own blog RIAA PR flacks are welcome to participate if they announce themselves. In your case, how do I know who you are, or that you are not one of them?
They are totally outside the law on this litigation campaign, making up the law as they go, resting their case on slender to non-existent evidence, and making up for it with an endless stream of lawyers and money.
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday a man called me, said he's just been sued, he's 63 years old, and he's "very scared".
I am truly gratified by the University of Wisconsin's courageous stance against the RIAA's reign of terror. It's a pleasure to see a university standing up for its students instead of acting as a mindless enforcer for big corporations. Wisconsin is a great institution; and this is but another example of what makes it great. If I was a high school student trying to pick a college, or a parent of one, I would take heed: here is an institution that recognizes its educational mission.
What case are you referring to?
Well you sound like a very compassionate human being, thinking that wearing blue trousers is equivalent to having a stroke that paralyzes half your body, and thinking it's okay to just bring frivolous lawsuits against innocent people who are helpless to protect themselves. I feel sorry for you.
Well let's fight back against that kind of thinking. We are humans first.
Well there's a word for a person who thinks pity, compassion, mercy, and ordinary decency aren't important; it's "sociopath".
2. The lawsuits are based on a theory that has no basis in the law, and is a fabrication.
3. Even were the theory valid, the RIAA does not have sufficient evidence upon which to base its claim that the defendant did what they claim he or she did.
4. On top of that, the RIAA's lawyers conduct the lawsuits in an unscrupulous manner calculated not to win (they never win a contested case on the merits), but to force the defendant to capitulate due to the cost of defending him or her self.
5. When the RIAA lawyers learn that the defendant is innocent, they nevertheless maintain the case as long as possible in order to confer subpoena power on their lawyers as long as possible with which to conduct an investigation masquerading as a litigation.
6. To take the RIAA's novel theory, flimsy evidence, and unscrupulous litigation tactics and inflict them on any citizen is wrong.
7. To inflict them on stroke victims, Multiple Sclerosis victims, wheelchair-bound people, grandparents, single moms, and others who did not engage in any copyright infringement whatsoever is doubly wrong.
8. This article happens to be about a case against an innocent person who is a stroke victim. I don't have time to write a book about all the things wrong with the RIAA's cases every time I do a Slashdot post. If you want to read about them, there's a growing body of material here.
9. If you think it's irrelevant that the defendant is a totally disabled stroke victim I strenuously disagree; in my value system that does indeed count for something. And I, were I the the plaintiffs' attorney, would NEVER bring such a suit, even were I convinced that the RIAA's theory was valid and its facts valid; I did not go to law school to oppress helpless people.
Civil litigation should be carried out honorably, and fairly.
At least that's the way it is among the better lawyers.
The RIAA lawyers use every weapon they can envision, even ones that backfire.
If you think it's okay for our justice system to oppress helpless people, I beg to differ.
"Nymz" doesn't have to read, he's an RIAA troll. Don't waste your time on him. He knows the cases are frivolous, which is why his moron employers are getting hammered for attorneys fees.
"jb.hl.com" complained that he wanted facts. I asked him which parts of the story weren't factual and he admitted that it was all factual.
So what is his problem? That the facts make the RIAA out to be scum?
What facts does he want? Facts making the RIAA out to be decent. legitimate businesspeople? I don't know of any.
From their payola, to their oppressive recording agreements, to their lying to the Justice Department, to their collusion and pricefixing, to their suing children, disabled people, and lots of people who never even heard of filesharing, to their distortion and lies in court proceedings.... all the facts I know of make the RIAA out to be vermin.
Sorry, "jb.hl.com", I can't make up facts for you. Only the RIAA lawyers can do that.
Which part of the story isn't factual?
Yes it is a problem, only I'm not sure the system does allow it. They are getting their head handed to them in Capitol v. Foster, and I am hopeful the 'system' is catching up to them elsewhere.
If the record company does not own any kind of copyright in the sound recording or in the underlying musical composition I do not see what standing it would have to bring a copyright infringement action. If however the band owns the copyright in the musical composition but the record company owns the sound recording copyright, then the record company would have standing to enforce its sound recording copyright. I've never heard of a record company not owning the sound recording copyright.
Sorry, that question calls for legal advice. That's not what I'm on Slashdot to do.
Thanks for the information. I've added Jamendo.com to my list of links to non-RIAA music, "Liberated Music".
Usually the person sued does have a computer. But I would say in more than 50% of the cases the person sued did not engage in file sharing, let alone copyright infringement through file sharing. I.e., even apart from the problem with the RIAA's imaginative legal theories which attempt to expand copyright law beyond anything the statute provides, more than 50% of the defendants did not do what the RIAA says they did. That is not an acceptable margin of error.
The only way they can get out of it is to drop their challenge to the 'reasonableness' of Ms. Foster's attorneys' fees.
It is the norm in the copyright bar to send a cease and desist letter, and enter into a cease and desist agreement, without demanding the payment of money, except in exceptional cases.... the RIAA doesn't do that.
It is required of lawyers to conduct a factual investigation before signing a pleading.... the RIAA lawyers don't do that.
It is required of lawyers that their pleadings state actual legal claims.... the RIAA lawyers don't do that.
Bottom line, I do not consider that they are acting within their rights at all in bringing these lawsuits. I think they are outlaws.
I have no problem with honest partisanship and differences of opinion. I don't appreciate people masquerading as something they're not. On my own blog RIAA PR flacks are welcome to participate if they announce themselves. In your case, how do I know who you are, or that you are not one of them?
Glad you pointed that out, Captain, in response to the overly simplistic parent.
I guess you didn't read the article, which points out that he did not engage in file sharing or "spamming" as you call it.
See Atlantic v. Andersen, where an Oregon RICO case has been filed against them.
They are totally outside the law on this litigation campaign, making up the law as they go, resting their case on slender to non-existent evidence, and making up for it with an endless stream of lawyers and money.
I've been collecting a list of links I call Liberated Music.