Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis. I disagree with it, though, because under Capitol v. Foster, the discontinuance of the case by the plaintiffs does not exonerate them from having to litigate their attorneys fee liability.
Her having MS is relevant to me. If it's not relevant to you, well everyone's entitled to their opinion.
I have a hunch it's relevant to the RIAA, too, and that it's got something to do with their rather peculiar motion to silence her counterclaim... but of course I can only speculate on what's in their minds.
I agree with you that the RIAA's intended motion is merely over a technicality. I ask you to ask yourself why are they doing it, then? Why is it so important to them to try to get the counterclaim out of there?
The lady has never downloaded any songs and has never done any file sharing. She doesn't even know what file sharing is. For the RIAA to continue a suit against someone who they know is innocent is unconscionable. To do it against a person who is gravely disabled is that much more unconscionable. I.e. this particular case is even more despicable than their usual cases against innocent people.
To answer your question, since you're so big on getting answers to your questions, I definitely do believe that the "helpless and infirm" should be protected, rather than persecuted, in a civilized society.
Thank you for your kind words. (Hope you and I both don't get modded down for not having more informative, interesting, insightful, funny, and underrated things to say.).
Exactly. Why are they going to such efforts to bury the counterclaim, since they are acknowledging that the same attorneys fee award can come about without a counterclaim? What are they afraid of?
Thank you for sticking up for me. You are right about my reasoning, and I guess I'm a little impatient with someone who does 5 minutes of research and thinks he's on to something, and is challenging me to "rebut" him. It seems disrespectful, to my way of thinking. I wouldn't do 5 minutes of research on quantum physics and then challenge someone who's been a quantum physicist all his life. I'd wait until I'd put in 5 or 10 years myself, and had some basis for what I was talking about.
That being said, I shouldn't have been so curt with him, but should have answered his question... not so much for his sake, but for the sake of other Slashdot readers.
Going back to my original post, I think the reason I included the reference to her Multiple Sclerosis is to suggest that the RIAA may be especially nervous about her counterclaim... not nervous enough to do the right thing and drop the case, but nervous enough to try to make a preemptive strike at getting the counterclaim dismissed.
Sorry if I was curt with you. Parents are not liable for their children's copyright infringement. If you want to do research read MGM v. Grokster. It will spell out for you in great detail what a plaintiff needs to prove to hold X liable for Y's copyright infringement. You won't find anything in there about X being Y's parent. If you want to read further, you might want to look at this essay published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on parental liability.
If you don't think that compassion and decency have a place in the law, I feel sorry for you.
I don't share that outlook. I wouldn't have gone into the legal profession I did. I came here to help make the world a better place, not a worse place.
Ms. Schwartz is a very sick woman who didn't infringe anyone's copyrights. The RIAA's lawyers are aware of both of those facts. They should have dropped this case, but they and their lawyers are ghouls. In my view anyone who doesn't get that it's wrong to persecute helpless people this way isn't my kind of people.
I left out what I think their real reason is: it's the one they can't admit to. It's part of their attempt to monopolize online digital music. As most of you know, they are failing in that attempt, and are actually stimulating competition by creating a whole new class of consumer: those specifically looking for non-RIAA music.
Only the RIAA knows for sure, but I'm estimating that (1) less than 25% of the cases settle, (2) they make a modest amount of money from the settlements, probably enough to break even with their litigation machine, (3) they lose money on the default judgments, and (4) they lose more money on the contested cases.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 3 kinds of readers on Slashdot:
those who can add, and
those who can't.
:)
I hope I don't get modded down for this response, but....
:)
1. What actions? She didn't do anything.
2. Yes.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis. I disagree with it, though, because under Capitol v. Foster, the discontinuance of the case by the plaintiffs does not exonerate them from having to litigate their attorneys fee liability.
Her having MS is relevant to me. If it's not relevant to you, well everyone's entitled to their opinion.
I have a hunch it's relevant to the RIAA, too, and that it's got something to do with their rather peculiar motion to silence her counterclaim... but of course I can only speculate on what's in their minds.
I agree with you that the RIAA's intended motion is merely over a technicality. I ask you to ask yourself why are they doing it, then? Why is it so important to them to try to get the counterclaim out of there?
The lady has never downloaded any songs and has never done any file sharing. She doesn't even know what file sharing is. For the RIAA to continue a suit against someone who they know is innocent is unconscionable. To do it against a person who is gravely disabled is that much more unconscionable. I.e. this particular case is even more despicable than their usual cases against innocent people.
To answer your question, since you're so big on getting answers to your questions, I definitely do believe that the "helpless and infirm" should be protected, rather than persecuted, in a civilized society.
I'm expecting them to get slapped down big time. We're early in the game.
Thank you for your kind words. (Hope you and I both don't get modded down for not having more informative, interesting, insightful, funny, and underrated things to say.).
Exactly. Why are they going to such efforts to bury the counterclaim, since they are acknowledging that the same attorneys fee award can come about without a counterclaim? What are they afraid of?
There's nothing lowly about a law student. Look at the excellent contribution made by J. Cam Barker when he was in law school.
Thank you for sticking up for me. You are right about my reasoning, and I guess I'm a little impatient with someone who does 5 minutes of research and thinks he's on to something, and is challenging me to "rebut" him. It seems disrespectful, to my way of thinking. I wouldn't do 5 minutes of research on quantum physics and then challenge someone who's been a quantum physicist all his life. I'd wait until I'd put in 5 or 10 years myself, and had some basis for what I was talking about.
That being said, I shouldn't have been so curt with him, but should have answered his question... not so much for his sake, but for the sake of other Slashdot readers.
Exactly. It's all about attempted monopolization.
Going back to my original post, I think the reason I included the reference to her Multiple Sclerosis is to suggest that the RIAA may be especially nervous about her counterclaim... not nervous enough to do the right thing and drop the case, but nervous enough to try to make a preemptive strike at getting the counterclaim dismissed.
Sorry if I was curt with you. Parents are not liable for their children's copyright infringement. If you want to do research read MGM v. Grokster. It will spell out for you in great detail what a plaintiff needs to prove to hold X liable for Y's copyright infringement. You won't find anything in there about X being Y's parent. If you want to read further, you might want to look at this essay published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on parental liability.
This is your very first comment on Slashdot and that is the way you start off? You're not only a troll.... you're an inept troll.
If you don't think that compassion and decency have a place in the law, I feel sorry for you.
I don't share that outlook. I wouldn't have gone into the legal profession I did. I came here to help make the world a better place, not a worse place.
Ms. Schwartz is a very sick woman who didn't infringe anyone's copyrights. The RIAA's lawyers are aware of both of those facts. They should have dropped this case, but they and their lawyers are ghouls. In my view anyone who doesn't get that it's wrong to persecute helpless people this way isn't my kind of people.
I suggest you read what Jordan Glass had to say about these lawsuits in an excellent article on p2pnet.net.
Sorry if you feel I "weaseled" out of answering the question. I think I did answer it.
I think they're more interested in monopolizing digital online music.
I think you were both right.
The RIAA has lawyers in every city they need one, and can hire more.
I left out what I think their real reason is: it's the one they can't admit to. It's part of their attempt to monopolize online digital music. As most of you know, they are failing in that attempt, and are actually stimulating competition by creating a whole new class of consumer: those specifically looking for non-RIAA music.
Only the RIAA knows for sure, but I'm estimating that (1) less than 25% of the cases settle, (2) they make a modest amount of money from the settlements, probably enough to break even with their litigation machine, (3) they lose money on the default judgments, and (4) they lose more money on the contested cases.
I guess that makes you an expert.
I guess you're not familiar with the law. Please don't pretend to be.
She didn't download any music.