Actually I love it. I'm an egalitarian kind of guy, who comes from a family where there was nothing we enjoyed more than a good argument. So I find it amusing when a Slashdotter tries to tell me I'm wrong when I've been in this field for more than 32 years, and the person telling me has never even opened a law book. And the funny thing is, I wouldn't mind it in the least if he or she were actually right, and could prove me wrong, or teach me something, or could actually back up his or her opinion with authority or information....
But I'll go back to what I said after my September Slashdot interview, and the rough-and-tumble "Q&A" that ensued, where I was viciously excoriated for (a) telling people that there was not yet a definitive answer to their question, (b) telling them that the law was contrary to what they thought it was, and (c) being 'short' with user ID's I suspected of use by RIAA trolls:
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.
Well I know of one good way for the judges to reduce the amount of unnecessary litigation going on in the federal court system: shut the RIAA's illegal litigation campaign down.
Thank you for explaining it. What you are saying is exactly true. And a society that allows scum like the RIAA to walk all over someone like Ms. Schwartz is truly ailing.
They shouldn't. And I think as the judges are starting to understand what is going on, they will start to shut this thing down. The problem is that our system in order to work requires that there be someone fighting back. Almost everyone, until now, has defaulted or settled. Growing numbers of people are deciding to fight back, and I believe that -- since the RIAA campaign is fundamentally contrary to elementary principles of copyright law -- the judges will get it, and will get rid of it.
I know. I was just sticking up for a system which, when it's working right, happens to be a thing of beauty.
Our democracy has been a beacon of light in many respects to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, while we may have led the way, we are presently ourself lagging in many respects (Compare, e.g. 2004 elections in Ohio and the Ukraine).
Our right to a jury trial is one of the most expensive and inefficient things we have; but it is also perhaps the most beautiful thing we have.
A few good rulings from some of these judges, and we'll all feel better again.
Just because one monstrous litigant is abusing the court system right now doesn't mean that the relatively easy access to the courts which our country provides should be scrapped.
I don't agree that suing someone every other Tuesday is our national tradition.
I do think that the rule of law is our crown jewel, and is the bedrock of our democracy, and that in our common law system the law evolves in part through judicial decisionmaking. Respect for law, to my mind, suggests that we should respect the courts, and not litter them with frivolous litigation as the RIAA has done.
I am hopeful that the judges will take action against these bullies.
Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster, where the judge has the opportunity to hit them with a big attorneys fee award, and Elektra v. Barker, where the judge is considering whether the RIAA even has a sufficient claim to warrant filing a lawsuit.
What can I say? My sense of humor may not be my forte. I was thrilled when I got 2 comments modded funny. The problem is that I wasn't trying to be funny.
Why not both? Everything they say about Kazaa in the Lewan complaint is demonstrably true. And Kazaa made a settlement for itself with the RIAA, leaving its customers hanging.
We don't yet know how big a win it is. It was only on liability, not damages.
I was just correcting the GP's reference to wins against the p2p "companies" in the plural. A settlement is not a win. A pending case is not a win. A win is a win.
Actually the reason it's not happening in Canada is that the Canadian courts recognized that the MediaSentry investigation was not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for allowing the ISP's to divulge confidential customer information. BMG v. Doe. Since the RIAA's Canadian counterpart hasn't been able to find out the names and addresses, they haven't been able to bring lawsuits. The Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent. Foundation v. UPC Nederland.
Class action lawyers are the ones taking the financial risk. They don't get paid unless they win or settle. There is absolutely no money in it for the plaintiff's firm unless there is a victory or a settlement.
There are many different types of file sharing behaviors, some of which may no doubt are copyright infringements, some of which clearly are not copyright infringements, and some of which might go either way when the Courts get around to processing this overload of new information. So as to knowing what is "illegal", only time will tell.
A 70 year old author who knew that his copyright would last 25 years would have plenty of financial incentive. I don't think anyone is suggesting a copyright should end at the author's death. But it should have a reasonable span, not an unreasonable one, so that the copyright can fulfill the second half of a copyright's mission, which is to return the work of art to the garden from which it sprang: humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I love it. I'm an egalitarian kind of guy, who comes from a family where there was nothing we enjoyed more than a good argument. So I find it amusing when a Slashdotter tries to tell me I'm wrong when I've been in this field for more than 32 years, and the person telling me has never even opened a law book. And the funny thing is, I wouldn't mind it in the least if he or she were actually right, and could prove me wrong, or teach me something, or could actually back up his or her opinion with authority or information....
But I'll go back to what I said after my September Slashdot interview, and the rough-and-tumble "Q&A" that ensued, where I was viciously excoriated for (a) telling people that there was not yet a definitive answer to their question, (b) telling them that the law was contrary to what they thought it was, and (c) being 'short' with user ID's I suspected of use by RIAA trolls:
Well I know of one good way for the judges to reduce the amount of unnecessary litigation going on in the federal court system: shut the RIAA's illegal litigation campaign down.
I think they deliberately misled the judge.
It's a tool which is in part designed to deceive the user, and which was promoted in such a way as to deceive the user.
Correct. Thank you.
Please disregard my previous post. I hadn't read your post carefully. Sorry about that.
She didn't pirate anything. Why are you fictionalizing? This lady never even heard of file sharing until the RIAA came after her. Why don't you read?
Thank you for explaining it. What you are saying is exactly true. And a society that allows scum like the RIAA to walk all over someone like Ms. Schwartz is truly ailing.
Well those are the reasons I am "biased against the RIAA"....
1. They don't have anything together before filing their case.
2. They lie all the time to strengthen their case.
They shouldn't. And I think as the judges are starting to understand what is going on, they will start to shut this thing down. The problem is that our system in order to work requires that there be someone fighting back. Almost everyone, until now, has defaulted or settled. Growing numbers of people are deciding to fight back, and I believe that -- since the RIAA campaign is fundamentally contrary to elementary principles of copyright law -- the judges will get it, and will get rid of it.
I know. I was just sticking up for a system which, when it's working right, happens to be a thing of beauty.
Our democracy has been a beacon of light in many respects to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, while we may have led the way, we are presently ourself lagging in many respects (Compare, e.g. 2004 elections in Ohio and the Ukraine).
Our right to a jury trial is one of the most expensive and inefficient things we have; but it is also perhaps the most beautiful thing we have.
A few good rulings from some of these judges, and we'll all feel better again.
Just because one monstrous litigant is abusing the court system right now doesn't mean that the relatively easy access to the courts which our country provides should be scrapped.
Good one.
Thank you.
I disagree. A quality lawyer serves his client, but within the bounds of decency and fairness. Good lawyers know where to draw the line.
I don't agree that suing someone every other Tuesday is our national tradition.
I do think that the rule of law is our crown jewel, and is the bedrock of our democracy, and that in our common law system the law evolves in part through judicial decisionmaking. Respect for law, to my mind, suggests that we should respect the courts, and not litter them with frivolous litigation as the RIAA has done.
I am hopeful that the judges will take action against these bullies.
Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster, where the judge has the opportunity to hit them with a big attorneys fee award, and Elektra v. Barker, where the judge is considering whether the RIAA even has a sufficient claim to warrant filing a lawsuit.
I must confess it was intentional.
What can I say? My sense of humor may not be my forte. I was thrilled when I got 2 comments modded funny. The problem is that I wasn't trying to be funny.
You're welcome.
Why not both? Everything they say about Kazaa in the Lewan complaint is demonstrably true. And Kazaa made a settlement for itself with the RIAA, leaving its customers hanging.
We don't yet know how big a win it is. It was only on liability, not damages.
I was just correcting the GP's reference to wins against the p2p "companies" in the plural. A settlement is not a win. A pending case is not a win. A win is a win.
Actually the reason it's not happening in Canada is that the Canadian courts recognized that the MediaSentry investigation was not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for allowing the ISP's to divulge confidential customer information. BMG v. Doe. Since the RIAA's Canadian counterpart hasn't been able to find out the names and addresses, they haven't been able to bring lawsuits. The Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent. Foundation v. UPC Nederland.
Class action lawyers are the ones taking the financial risk. They don't get paid unless they win or settle. There is absolutely no money in it for the plaintiff's firm unless there is a victory or a settlement.
They didn't win against the p2p companies. The only win of which I am aware at this point is Streamcast.
Sounds like you have a bit of a bias there, Ed.
There are many different types of file sharing behaviors, some of which may no doubt are copyright infringements, some of which clearly are not copyright infringements, and some of which might go either way when the Courts get around to processing this overload of new information. So as to knowing what is "illegal", only time will tell.
A 70 year old author who knew that his copyright would last 25 years would have plenty of financial incentive. I don't think anyone is suggesting a copyright should end at the author's death. But it should have a reasonable span, not an unreasonable one, so that the copyright can fulfill the second half of a copyright's mission, which is to return the work of art to the garden from which it sprang: humanity.