I don't disagree with a single thing you said. I don't defend the actions of the RIAA or the ludicrous judgements that have been rendered.
I would think that the burden of proof should be on the RIAA to demonstrate that files were successfully and illegally shared. The only evidence that is ever presented is (1) files were made available and (2) files were shared with an agent of the RIAA who was granted the rights to download [and share], which makes that exemplar invalid...
The RIAA has no evidence of "uploading", except to their unlicensed private investigators. If there was any such evidence, then those folks should/would be parties to the suit.
To be a distribution it has to be "to the public" and it has to have been through a "sale or other transfer of ownership" or through a "rental, lease or lending". None of the above were shown to have occurred.
I don't remember the exact figures and I'm too lazy to look it up, but if I recall, 4 members of the Department of Justice was actually hired from the RIAA by Obama.
At least 6, and 2 of them occupy the 1st and 2nd highest positions under Holder
Sigh. I don't know why NYCL and everyone else fails to understand that there were TWO separate and independent infringements, and Tenenbaum was found liable for both
Sigh. I don't know why the 3 trolls working this thread fail to understand that there were TWO separate and independent allegations of infringement, that neither of them was "uploading" or "downloading", that neither "uploading" or "downloading" is a copyright infringement, that the allegations were copying and distributing, and that while copying was proved, there was no proof of distribution.
I think putting Obama at the front of the article instead of just focusing on the DOJ itself is sensationalist.
I disagree. I deliberately downplayed the 2 briefs served by Obama's DOJ in RIAA cases when he'd been in office just a few months, because I know that lawyers need time to get up to speed on things. Those 2 early briefs were copy and paste jobs from the Bush administration.
I was deeply interested in what they would do after they'd had some time to think things through. A year was enough time to think things through. This brief tells me that the Obama DOJ is going to be exactly what we feared it would be, just as ignorant and servile as the Bush DOJ.
NYCL clearly has his "side". The statements in it should be considered to be nothing more than opinion, as they are, rather than statements of fact or actual precedent
True
because the courts have repeatedly explored and rejected his claims
False. The issue has never been decided in any of the RIAA cases. The only RIAA case in which it has been litigated to any extent was UMG v. Lindor, where -the RIAA argued that it was a frivolous defense, -I argued that it was not a frivolous defense, and -the Judge agreed with me and rejected the RIAA's argument.
I think the problem is that the $22,750 in statutory damages for each of the 30 infringements that the court ruled to be just, could be construed as excessive.
The Court has NOT 'ruled it to be just'. The jury rendered that verdict, and the judge established a briefing schedule for the parties to submit papers on whether it was unconstitutional or otherwise excessive. The Court has yet to determine that it is just, and in my opinion will almost undoubtedly determine that it is not just, based on about 700 years of legal precedent.
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring.
This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the DOJ does not file a brief in every case, and does not always agree with the outcome of all cases tried in court. When the DOJ files a brief, this has nothing to do with their activities in the enforcement of the law, but rather their opinion about the judgement of the court after the fact.
In this case, this was a civil suit, right? What enforcement of the "law as passed" was every required of the DOJ in this case?
I did not say that it was unconstitutional to award statutory damages; I challenge the amount. Under United States Supreme Court standards, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded something in the neighborhood of $1.40 per infringed work.
Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?
I used the term "Obama DOJ" because
-Mr. Obama when campaigning, did so upon a platform of "change" -he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people, rather than large corporations, and -there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ.
So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no "change", and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres. Obama's RIAA overlords.
It'd be far worse if the DOJ started picking and choosing which laws they wanted to enforce/defend.
You misunderstand what the Constitution is. It is a law. And it is the highest law, in the sense that any law which conflicts with it is invalid. The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the laws, and has determined that the Constitution does not permit damage awards which are 'disproportioned' to the actual damage sustained. The DOJ, as attorneys, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as did the President, as did the Supreme Court justices.
This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress
The requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.
Exactly, Culture20. The Constitution is our highest law, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 5th Amendment does not tolerate excessive 'punitive awards'.
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws. In fact, it's our highest law. Any "law" which conflicts with it is invalid.
They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Yes they would be doing their jobs. By ignoring the Constitution, they are failing to do their jobs. The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution.
It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass. last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012. Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout.
The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.
Very interesting point, GPLDAN. I focus on the legal side of it, but you make a very good point about the political ramifications of what President Obama is doing when he consistently sides with the major corporations against.... the voters.
I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations are true, and can easily be proven. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.
The question of if the RIAA loses and if they make a settlement and on how favorable of terms probably has less to do with their guilt and the law than it has to do with who is running the show. The justice department is loaded with ex-employees of RIAA at the highest levels.
This is a private class action; it has nothing to do with the justice department. It would have to do with what the lawyers work out, whether class members object, and whether the judge approves of the deal.
... eventually, NYCL WILL come over to the Darkside - it's only a matter of time.
Someone put a transponder inside NYCL and keep a lock on it at all times! Be sure that he's accompanied by 10 bodyguards at all times, and beam him back if he's alone for more than 2 minutes.
The summary was entirely factual, and didn't contain any "anti-RIAA propaganda". Your quote was for a reader comment, not from the original summary.
Read the Starr vs Sony decision linked in the summary and you'll discover that the appeals judges found the evidence is strong that RIAA members have been colluding using illegal (under antitrust law) methods such as price fixing [wikipedia.org]. E.g., they ask why RIAA members raised the wholesale price from $0.65/song to $0.70/song while the second largest distributor of music, eMusic, was wholesaling at $0.25/song. In the stereotypical "normal free market", competition as well as decreased production costs would lead to lower prices.
I love people who actually read the stuff. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus, we can conclude that your previous statement
the courts have repeatedly explored and rejected his claims
was, and is, a lie. You're consequently not a troll, but a simple liar.
Well I'm glad you said it; I was afraid if I said something like that, it would sound impolite.
I don't disagree with a single thing you said. I don't defend the actions of the RIAA or the ludicrous judgements that have been rendered. I would think that the burden of proof should be on the RIAA to demonstrate that files were successfully and illegally shared. The only evidence that is ever presented is (1) files were made available and (2) files were shared with an agent of the RIAA who was granted the rights to download [and share], which makes that exemplar invalid...
You are exactly right.
The RIAA has no evidence of "uploading", except to their unlicensed private investigators. If there was any such evidence, then those folks should/would be parties to the suit.
To be a distribution it has to be "to the public" and it has to have been through a "sale or other transfer of ownership" or through a "rental, lease or lending". None of the above were shown to have occurred.
I don't remember the exact figures and I'm too lazy to look it up, but if I recall, 4 members of the Department of Justice was actually hired from the RIAA by Obama.
At least 6, and 2 of them occupy the 1st and 2nd highest positions under Holder
It seems to me that you guys missed out on the whole youth revolution thing, and only went through the motions back in the sixties.
1. We were not going through the motions. It really happened.
2. I guess you didn't notice that we're the ones who started the youth revolution you're referring to.
Sigh. I don't know why NYCL and everyone else fails to understand that there were TWO separate and independent infringements, and Tenenbaum was found liable for both
Sigh. I don't know why the 3 trolls working this thread fail to understand that there were TWO separate and independent allegations of infringement, that neither of them was "uploading" or "downloading", that neither "uploading" or "downloading" is a copyright infringement, that the allegations were copying and distributing, and that while copying was proved, there was no proof of distribution.
Sigh.
I think putting Obama at the front of the article instead of just focusing on the DOJ itself is sensationalist.
I disagree. I deliberately downplayed the 2 briefs served by Obama's DOJ in RIAA cases when he'd been in office just a few months, because I know that lawyers need time to get up to speed on things. Those 2 early briefs were copy and paste jobs from the Bush administration.
I was deeply interested in what they would do after they'd had some time to think things through. A year was enough time to think things through. This brief tells me that the Obama DOJ is going to be exactly what we feared it would be, just as ignorant and servile as the Bush DOJ.
NYCL clearly has his "side". The statements in it should be considered to be nothing more than opinion, as they are, rather than statements of fact or actual precedent
True
because the courts have repeatedly explored and rejected his claims
False. The issue has never been decided in any of the RIAA cases. The only RIAA case in which it has been litigated to any extent was UMG v. Lindor, where
-the RIAA argued that it was a frivolous defense,
-I argued that it was not a frivolous defense, and
-the Judge agreed with me and rejected the RIAA's argument.
I think the problem is that the $22,750 in statutory damages for each of the 30 infringements that the court ruled to be just, could be construed as excessive.
The Court has NOT 'ruled it to be just'. The jury rendered that verdict, and the judge established a briefing schedule for the parties to submit papers on whether it was unconstitutional or otherwise excessive. The Court has yet to determine that it is just, and in my opinion will almost undoubtedly determine that it is not just, based on about 700 years of legal precedent.
If legally permitted (I'm Canadian) I'll donate $100 to the Democratic Party if they appoint NewYorkCountyLawyer to head up the Department of Justice.
And I'll pay you $100 to remember I'm NewYorkCountryLawyer, not NewYorkCountyLawyer. [Just kidding. I wouldn't even know what $100 looks like]
So.. you're asserting that the DOJ is filing briefs for the defense in every case to ever land in federal court? Somehow, I doubt that is in fact occuring. This is not the DOJ's case, and the federal government is not a party to the case. The filing is contrary to the supreme law of the land. You know.. the constitution. And the DOJ can either be aware of the Constitution, its previously noted interpretations by the court, and the legal code (in which case it is acting unethcially) or the DOJ can be unaware of some/all of that and thus be acting ineptly.
Or both.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the DOJ does not file a brief in every case, and does not always agree with the outcome of all cases tried in court. When the DOJ files a brief, this has nothing to do with their activities in the enforcement of the law, but rather their opinion about the judgement of the court after the fact. In this case, this was a civil suit, right? What enforcement of the "law as passed" was every required of the DOJ in this case?
None whatsoever.
Leave OBAMA alone
He's our president and we'll do what we want with him, including criticize his bad acts, and praise his good ones.
I did not say that it was unconstitutional to award statutory damages; I challenge the amount. Under United States Supreme Court standards, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded something in the neighborhood of $1.40 per infringed work.
Folks, what part of "The RIAA is in your pocket, and in your life" are you not getting?
Oh, I think we're getting it, all right.
Why is it the "Obama DOJ" when last year it wasn't the "Bush DOJ"?
I used the term "Obama DOJ" because
-Mr. Obama when campaigning, did so upon a platform of "change"
-he campaigned as though he would be working on behalf of the people, rather than large corporations, and
-there was a great deal of skepticism about his appointment of RIAA lawyers to many of the highest positions in the DOJ.
So I think it is a legitimately significant point to note that on this issue there has been no "change", and that the DOJ continues to act as an intellectually dishonest rubber stamp for Pres. Obama's RIAA overlords.
It'd be far worse if the DOJ started picking and choosing which laws they wanted to enforce/defend.
You misunderstand what the Constitution is. It is a law. And it is the highest law, in the sense that any law which conflicts with it is invalid. The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the laws, and has determined that the Constitution does not permit damage awards which are 'disproportioned' to the actual damage sustained. The DOJ, as attorneys, swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as did the President, as did the Supreme Court justices.
This is the President's job folks: to defend the laws passed by Congress
The requirement to defend the Constitution comes first.
Exactly, Culture20. The Constitution is our highest law, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that the 5th Amendment does not tolerate excessive 'punitive awards'.
People, the DOJ's job is to defend the laws as standing as passed.
Yes. PS The Constitution of the United States happens to be one of our laws. In fact, it's our highest law. Any "law" which conflicts with it is invalid.
They would not be doing their jobs if they said, "nah, you're right, this law should be overturned."
Yes they would be doing their jobs. By ignoring the Constitution, they are failing to do their jobs. The United States Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly that punitive awards of this nature violate the Constitution.
It is behavior and outcomes like this that cost his party Mass. last night, and may well cost him his re-election bid in 2012. Pollingplace.com showed that last night in Mass., 37% of voters that voted for this independent that won, did so in protest of Democrats favoring Wall Street in the bailout. The lesson is simple: Either the DOJ and the Obama administration stop taking sides against Main Street and for the big corporate interest, or they will keep losing.
Very interesting point, GPLDAN. I focus on the legal side of it, but you make a very good point about the political ramifications of what President Obama is doing when he consistently sides with the major corporations against .... the voters.
before we cheer too loudly over this, keep in mind that the DOJ is still top-heavy with RIAA attorneys
The DOJ has nothing to do with this case; it's a private class action.
I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations are true, and can easily be proven. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.
The question of if the RIAA loses and if they make a settlement and on how favorable of terms probably has less to do with their guilt and the law than it has to do with who is running the show. The justice department is loaded with ex-employees of RIAA at the highest levels.
This is a private class action; it has nothing to do with the justice department. It would have to do with what the lawyers work out, whether class members object, and whether the judge approves of the deal.
... eventually, NYCL WILL come over to the Darkside - it's only a matter of time.
Someone put a transponder inside NYCL and keep a lock on it at all times! Be sure that he's accompanied by 10 bodyguards at all times, and beam him back if he's alone for more than 2 minutes.
Ye of little faith.
The summary was entirely factual, and didn't contain any "anti-RIAA propaganda". Your quote was for a reader comment, not from the original summary. Read the Starr vs Sony decision linked in the summary and you'll discover that the appeals judges found the evidence is strong that RIAA members have been colluding using illegal (under antitrust law) methods such as price fixing [wikipedia.org]. E.g., they ask why RIAA members raised the wholesale price from $0.65/song to $0.70/song while the second largest distributor of music, eMusic, was wholesaling at $0.25/song. In the stereotypical "normal free market", competition as well as decreased production costs would lead to lower prices.
I love people who actually read the stuff. Thank you.
Thanks for keeping us in the loop NYCL. These seem to be serious allegations. I hope there's action taken this time.
I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations
are true, and
can easily be proven.
If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.