Thanks, Nom. Yep you picked out some of the many goodies. It was a very fertile outing. I've only had it for a day, and have already cited it in another case. Lawyers defending RIAA victims are going to have some fun with it.
While I do think it odd that the RIAA picked a guy who (a) is not a professional engineer, (b) has never testified anywhere except at a school board meeting, and (c) is involved in selling software, to universities and other LAN networks, which is supposedly designed to avoid RIAA lawsuits..... these aren't to my mind the most important things to focus on.
What is more important and shocking is the unprofessionalism of his vodoo science.
If this witness (a) lacked appropriate professional credentials, (b) lacked appropriate expert witness credentials, and (c) had a major conflict of interest, but nevertheless had a convincing and reliable scientific basis for his conclusions, then he would present a formidable obstacle.
As it turns out, his "method" -- if you want to call it that -- will be laughed out of any courtroom.
Thanks for your assurances, which are based on guesswork and speculation on your part.
Law is not based on guesswork and speculation.
Under the rule of law we are supposed to know what we can and can't do, not have to guess at what will happen after someone sues us and we spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more to find out.
As the Computer & Communications Industry Association and U.S. Internet Industy Association said in their brief, the RIAA's attempt to expand the distribution right to "making available" would "both ignore the plain language and structure of the Copyright Act and distort copyright law in a way that would threaten varied interests across the American economy and society" (Amicus Brief at page 2), "sweep into the reach of copyright law many activities not now covered by copyright law" (Amicus Brief at page 10), and would render "the boundaries of the [distribution] right... indeterminate and unpredictable, creating chilling effects on members of Amici [companies in the computer and internet industries] and virtually every other participant on the Internet" (Amicus Brief at page 11).
The fact that you're able to imagine an argument that might or might not defeat the applicability of this new infringement theory to hyperlinks is wonderful. I'm very happy for you. But in the real world having some vague argument that might or might not ultimately carry the day in a litigation is not much comfort to anyone, nor would it be to you if you were sued.
I'm really starting to wonder about you because this is the favorite line of RIAA trolls: "I hate the RIAA just as much as anybody else". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and removed the "foe" designation.... provisionally.
Now listen to me one more time.
Copyright Law in the United States is governed by something we call the Copyright Act.
There is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
If you will bother to read the transcript you will see that Judge Karas made that exact same point, and that the RIAA's lawyer did not have an answer to it.
Now when you keep saying that you're not aware of a body of case law that says what is or isn't "making available", can't you see how misleading and illogical that is? Why would the cases define something no one ever heard of before.
So please stop saying things that are misleading, and I won't designate you as a foe.
But if you make another misleading comment the foe designation goes up and stays up, which means to me that I won't be reading your stuff any more.
Libraries are not above the copyright law. They have to follow the rules like everyone else. They have special rules that are applicable to libraries, and to the extent those are inapplicable, the regular rules.
In the Hotaling case, discussed in the oral argument, the 4th Circuit dispensed with the normal 'physical copy dissemination rule' for a library that deliberately failed to keep circulation records and admitted to having numerous pirated copies throughout its branches.
Not really, if you're familiar with copyright law. There are SIX rights described in Sec. 106. The "distribution" right is only one of them. It is very specifically defined. And the courts have repeatedly held, through a long line of cases, that there must be a PHYSICAL DISSEMINATION OF ACTUAL COPIES before the DISTRIBUTION right is implicated (along with other requirements such as sale, license, transfer, etc., and dissemination of the copies to the public).
One user is trolling around trying to generate threads of discussion on what is "making available".
Please believe me that this is a nonsensical discussion. There are no cases on what is "making available" because there is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
"I'm not aware of any ruling that has established that merely "linking to" equates with "making available".
Please listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.
I have an important announcement to make.
There is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
So why on earth would there be cases that discuss what is or isn't "making available"?
Didn't you read the briefs? Didn't you read the argument, especially the part where the Judge points out to the RIAA lawyer that there's no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act?
Don't you know that the only litigant anyone has ever seen that thinks that merely "making available" is a copyright infringement is the RIAA?
Sorry, but this sounds a lot like RIAA trolling to me. I notice that you have a history of putting up such posts.
The purposes of the copyright laws are NOT vindicated by bringing frivolous cases based on junk science and no evidence. See amicus brief of American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma in Capitol v. Foster.
If the big 4 record labels are unable to compete, their employees will lose their jobs, and no doubt seek employment among their more successful competitors in the digital music field, who are more adept at listening to -- as opposed to bring lawsuits against -- their customers.
According to the RIAA it doesn't even matter if you have no idea that it is happening, as long as you're the person that paid for the internet access account.
(That's not copyright law, that's just a bully trying to write the law of the jungle.)
Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun.
I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, Nom. Yep you picked out some of the many goodies. It was a very fertile outing. I've only had it for a day, and have already cited it in another case. Lawyers defending RIAA victims are going to have some fun with it.
What is more important and shocking is the unprofessionalism of his vodoo science.
If this witness (a) lacked appropriate professional credentials, (b) lacked appropriate expert witness credentials, and (c) had a major conflict of interest, but nevertheless had a convincing and reliable scientific basis for his conclusions, then he would present a formidable obstacle.
As it turns out, his "method" -- if you want to call it that -- will be laughed out of any courtroom.
For me to say why he was doing it would be speculation. My guess as to the reason: inexperience.
Such as testifying as an expert witness in judicial proceedings in which one party is seeking to recover tens of thousands of dollars?
(You don't mind if I call you by your first name, do you?)
Thanks for your assurances, which are based on guesswork and speculation on your part.
Law is not based on guesswork and speculation.
Under the rule of law we are supposed to know what we can and can't do, not have to guess at what will happen after someone sues us and we spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more to find out.
As the Computer & Communications Industry Association and U.S. Internet Industy Association said in their brief, the RIAA's attempt to expand the distribution right to "making available" would "both ignore the plain language and structure of the Copyright Act and distort copyright law in a way that would threaten varied interests across the American economy and society" (Amicus Brief at page 2), "sweep into the reach of copyright law many activities not now covered by copyright law" (Amicus Brief at page 10), and would render "the boundaries of the [distribution] right ... indeterminate and unpredictable, creating chilling effects on members of Amici [companies in the computer and internet industries] and virtually every other participant on the Internet" (Amicus Brief at page 11).
The fact that you're able to imagine an argument that might or might not defeat the applicability of this new infringement theory to hyperlinks is wonderful. I'm very happy for you. But in the real world having some vague argument that might or might not ultimately carry the day in a litigation is not much comfort to anyone, nor would it be to you if you were sued.
I'm really starting to wonder about you because this is the favorite line of RIAA trolls: "I hate the RIAA just as much as anybody else". I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and removed the "foe" designation.... provisionally.
Now listen to me one more time.
Copyright Law in the United States is governed by something we call the Copyright Act.
There is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
If you will bother to read the transcript you will see that Judge Karas made that exact same point, and that the RIAA's lawyer did not have an answer to it.
Now when you keep saying that you're not aware of a body of case law that says what is or isn't "making available", can't you see how misleading and illogical that is? Why would the cases define something no one ever heard of before.
So please stop saying things that are misleading, and I won't designate you as a foe.
But if you make another misleading comment the foe designation goes up and stays up, which means to me that I won't be reading your stuff any more.
Seems to me you have a much better grasp of copyright law than the RIAA lawyers do.
Libraries are not above the copyright law. They have to follow the rules like everyone else. They have special rules that are applicable to libraries, and to the extent those are inapplicable, the regular rules.
In the Hotaling case, discussed in the oral argument, the 4th Circuit dispensed with the normal 'physical copy dissemination rule' for a library that deliberately failed to keep circulation records and admitted to having numerous pirated copies throughout its branches.
Not really, if you're familiar with copyright law. There are SIX rights described in Sec. 106. The "distribution" right is only one of them. It is very specifically defined. And the courts have repeatedly held, through a long line of cases, that there must be a PHYSICAL DISSEMINATION OF ACTUAL COPIES before the DISTRIBUTION right is implicated (along with other requirements such as sale, license, transfer, etc., and dissemination of the copies to the public).
Yes he does comprehend the full ramifications of his decision. For which I am grateful.
The judges in Phoenix, Abilene, Waco, Fort Worth, and Brooklyn, simply "punted" -- i.e. they declined to decide the "making available" issue.
Judge Karas promised he won't punt.
One user is trolling around trying to generate threads of discussion on what is "making available".
Please believe me that this is a nonsensical discussion. There are no cases on what is "making available" because there is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
Under the facts you described you made an unauthorized copy which is a flagrant copyright violation.
What possible legal basis do you have for saying that? The answer should have been "of course not".
They wouldn't have any basis for alleging a public performance, either.
You keep repeating this mantra:
Please listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.
I have an important announcement to make.
There is no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act.
So why on earth would there be cases that discuss what is or isn't "making available"?
Didn't you read the briefs? Didn't you read the argument, especially the part where the Judge points out to the RIAA lawyer that there's no such thing as "making available" in the Copyright Act?
Don't you know that the only litigant anyone has ever seen that thinks that merely "making available" is a copyright infringement is the RIAA?
After reading what you just wrote, I can't believe you think you could have done a better job than I did.
Even the RIAA's lawyer did a better job than you did, and he's operating under a major disadvantage: a lack of familiarity with copyright law.
There is nothing remotely resembling "copyright piracy" in any of the cases the RIAA has brought against consumers. You are misusing the term.
Sorry, but this sounds a lot like RIAA trolling to me. I notice that you have a history of putting up such posts.
The purposes of the copyright laws are NOT vindicated by bringing frivolous cases based on junk science and no evidence. See amicus brief of American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma in Capitol v. Foster.
If the big 4 record labels are unable to compete, their employees will lose their jobs, and no doubt seek employment among their more successful competitors in the digital music field, who are more adept at listening to -- as opposed to bring lawsuits against -- their customers.
Yes in the RIAA's misguided view of things.
Agreed, the RIAA's theories have no resemblance to anything in copyright law.
Note that Judge Karas pointed out to them that what they're asking him for appears nowhere in the Copyright Act.
According to the RIAA it doesn't even matter if you have no idea that it is happening, as long as you're the person that paid for the internet access account.
(That's not copyright law, that's just a bully trying to write the law of the jungle.)
They would collapse.
In fact I'm not sure they aren't already collapsing, with just a few folks pushing back.
Well yes, Graham, you are right that this was a rhetorical question, it's an issue for Judge Karas. And yes, this wasn't an "Ask Slashdot".
But I am always interested in Slashdot's collective wisdom.
When I got roasted after my Slashdot interview, I left this comment, 'Twas Brillig:
:)
Thank you, Stanistani.