I've actually been collecting a list of links to sources of non-RIAA music on my blog; I call it "Liberated Music". Any suggestions for additions to the list?
I give up on trying to build a consensus here between you and Garwulf. There isn't as much common ground as I thought there was.
For the record, my only "goal" was to try to build that consensus, so you two could narrow the issue to whatever is really bugging you, so I could find out what it is.
But I failed. So on to other projects, like doing battle with the RIAA and the MPAA. Being a lawyer by profession, defining "what the law should be" isn't really my primary focus. Enforcing the law as it is, is what I primarily do.
Unfortunately, while you and Garwulf expend energy battling over the proper scope of copyright law, the law is being rewritten in such a way that will appall both of you when the dust settles, by a series of cases in which the RIAA economically overpowers its victims and confuses the judges as to (a) what the law is, and (b) what the technology is.
Still not clear on whether or not we are in agreement on all 5 principles. Are you agreeing with 1, 2, and 5, and disagreeing with 3 and 4 because you don't think there's such a thing as "stealing" ephemeral intellectual property? (By "stealing" I guess I would be referring to (a) plagiarism, and (b) pirating.)
I'm not sure I understand you. I was merely trying to see if there were 5 basic principles on which we could agree. I'm not sure which ones you disagree with, or in what respect you disagree with them.
You and Garwulf are talking at each other rather than to each other. I would like to try and lay out a few principles, and see if we are all in agreement on them:
1. Sharing is a universal human trait. Even the worst, and most selfish, human beings, engage in sharing activities with at least some other people.
2. Stealing is an antisocial behavior which some, but not all, people engage in.
3. The creative process is enhanced by sharing, and impeded by stealing.
4. Copyright law should encourage orderly sharing, and discourage outright stealing.
5. Copyright law distinguishes between raw data or information on the one hand, and creative input on the other.
Neither has any evidence one way or the other because the RIAA hasn't publicized it, and in fact will probably try to keep it confidential. Having 32 years of experience in the field, however, I think I know pretty much how things work.
I think it is part of human nature to share music and other creative work, and that all creative work is derivative and collaborative in that it builds upon the work of others. All musicians learn from other musicians. All writers learn from things they've read. When a group of playwrights hung out at the Mermaid Tavern and shared ideas, the result was an explosion the world still hasn't recovered from.
Today with hip-hop and rap, the "sampling" takes place is a crucial part of the creative process, and one that is really hard to cover by the copyright laws.
There was a time when the "fair use" defense gave people a sense that they could borrow bits and pieces of the work of others, and build on them.
But today the brutal over-enforcement by the content cartel, and the control of the creative process by corporations and insurance companies which assume the fair use defense is nonexistent, and require clearances for everything, is making for a lot of difficulty, and threatens the creation of new things.
I do think that sharing is an integral part of human nature, while stealing is an unfortunate trait of some humans, but not one that promotes human life.
walnutmon writes:.....
I am not very impressed by this story as a whole... The article references slashdot for discussion. That doesn't make any sense to me.
There just isn't much information in this story, it doesn't even say if anyone paid out at all. Could it have been a settlement? What did this guy ACTUALLY do? I doubt he is being sued for literally nothing. Any news article that sites P2P websites is not really very fair or balanced.
Next time you read something like this, please send a link to a real article, not just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site. Standards people, standards!
Dear walnutmon:
I am the author of the blog post that the article references. My blog is basically limited to reporting on factual legal events. The only known public fact is that the RIAA withdrew its case in the face of Mr. Wilke's motion for summary judgment. What more can I do than give you the known facts?
I could speculate but that is not the style of my blog, and it is not its function. Its function is to give hard information about what is going on in the litigation wars with the RIAA. Also it provides resources to help people who are defending themselves and to lawyers who are defending clients.
You are right that the known facts raise more questions than they answer. The stipulation of dismissal that was filed is clearly a form document and does not tell the whole story. What really happened? Did Mr. Wilke pay the RIAA anything? Did the RIAA have to pay Mr. Wilke anything? Who knows? There is probably a confidential settlement agreement that neither side is permitted to talk about.
I specifically asked Mr. Wilke's lawyer point blank whether any money had changed hands.
In response she gave me what was obviously a scripted, agreed response "Plaintiffs, the RIAA, and SBC worked cooperatively and amicably to resolve this dispute."
I'm sorry you're frustrated but I don't think your criticism of my article is fair. It is a "real article". I am not "just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site". I got the information directly from Mr. Wilke's attorney and from the filed court documents. (PS I don't even know what a torrent site is).
The reference to Slashdot for discussion is that sometimes, if there is a lot of discussion going on about my post on the internet, I sometimes add links to some of the more interesting discussions for people who want to pursue "commentary and discussion".
I've been doing this 32 years. I have a pretty good idea of how things work. I'm certain they are being paid by the hour.
It will probably be a long, long time before we get documentation of that. It would probably only come out in a scenario like this: -motion for attorneys fees by defendant; -RIAA opposes motion and attacks hourly rate as being unreasonable; -defendant's lawyer demands discovery of RIAA's lawyer's bills to see how much they're getting paid; -RIAA tries to get confidentiality order for it, judge denies it.
It will probably be a long time before one of those scenarios occurs. The RIAA lawyers are probably getting a LOW hourly rate, and probably will not question the defendants' lawyers' hourly rates.
The reason I'm pretty sure their hourly rate is low is that the firm they were using before -- the Kansas City, MO, firm -- was famous for being the low bidder on complex litigations.
But if you want evidence, sorry, I don't know of any. Just as there's no evidence for your theory either.
I commend you for reading the Department of Justice's "Statement of Interest" in.Elektra v. Barker. It is important to point out that it only addressed a very narrow point that had been made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and specifically declined to take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument. In fact, the government stated in the brief that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available' and that its only prosecutions had been against actual pirates.
Secondly, I want to let you know that "with prejudice" means they cannot come back and sue him again. ("Without prejudice" would have meant that they could sue him again.).
I've been building a list of sources for non-RIAA music which I call "Liberated Music". If you have any good ideas for additions to it, would appreciate your passing them along. Thanks.
The withdrawal was clearly consensual and mutual. Yes undoubtedly Mr. Wilke could have insisted that the case continue. Usually, though, when the plaintiffs want to drop the case, the judge will let them. However, they might still be liable for attorneys fees. See Capitol v. Foster.
Of course they are under a legal obligation to sue the right person, just as they are under a legal obligation to research the case before rather than after bringing suit against innocent people.
But to suggest that people should ignore a lawsuit is really bad advice.
You can't take chances like that. In such a situation closing the door on the process server won't help you one bit. You'll wind up with a judgment against you.
Slashdot Mirror
I've actually been collecting a list of links to sources of non-RIAA music on my blog; I call it "Liberated Music". Any suggestions for additions to the list?
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I give up on trying to build a consensus here between you and Garwulf. There isn't as much common ground as I thought there was.
For the record, my only "goal" was to try to build that consensus, so you two could narrow the issue to whatever is really bugging you, so I could find out what it is.
But I failed. So on to other projects, like doing battle with the RIAA and the MPAA. Being a lawyer by profession, defining "what the law should be" isn't really my primary focus. Enforcing the law as it is, is what I primarily do.
Unfortunately, while you and Garwulf expend energy battling over the proper scope of copyright law, the law is being rewritten in such a way that will appall both of you when the dust settles, by a series of cases in which the RIAA economically overpowers its victims and confuses the judges as to (a) what the law is, and (b) what the technology is.
Still not clear on whether or not we are in agreement on all 5 principles. Are you agreeing with 1, 2, and 5, and disagreeing with 3 and 4 because you don't think there's such a thing as "stealing" ephemeral intellectual property? (By "stealing" I guess I would be referring to (a) plagiarism, and (b) pirating.)
I'm not sure I understand you. I was merely trying to see if there were 5 basic principles on which we could agree. I'm not sure which ones you disagree with, or in what respect you disagree with them.
The generalization should be broad enough to include the motion picture industry as well.
Sharing is a norm; stealing is not.
You and Garwulf are talking at each other rather than to each other. I would like to try and lay out a few principles, and see if we are all in agreement on them:
1. Sharing is a universal human trait. Even the worst, and most selfish, human beings, engage in sharing activities with at least some other people.
2. Stealing is an antisocial behavior which some, but not all, people engage in.
3. The creative process is enhanced by sharing, and impeded by stealing.
4. Copyright law should encourage orderly sharing, and discourage outright stealing.
5. Copyright law distinguishes between raw data or information on the one hand, and creative input on the other.
Neither has any evidence one way or the other because the RIAA hasn't publicized it, and in fact will probably try to keep it confidential. Having 32 years of experience in the field, however, I think I know pretty much how things work.
Thanks, sinclair 44, much appreciated.
I think it is part of human nature to share music and other creative work, and that all creative work is derivative and collaborative in that it builds upon the work of others. All musicians learn from other musicians. All writers learn from things they've read. When a group of playwrights hung out at the Mermaid Tavern and shared ideas, the result was an explosion the world still hasn't recovered from.
Today with hip-hop and rap, the "sampling" takes place is a crucial part of the creative process, and one that is really hard to cover by the copyright laws.
There was a time when the "fair use" defense gave people a sense that they could borrow bits and pieces of the work of others, and build on them.
But today the brutal over-enforcement by the content cartel, and the control of the creative process by corporations and insurance companies which assume the fair use defense is nonexistent, and require clearances for everything, is making for a lot of difficulty, and threatens the creation of new things.
I do think that sharing is an integral part of human nature, while stealing is an unfortunate trait of some humans, but not one that promotes human life.
If you want a more juicy article you might want to try p2pnet.net
Dear walnutmon:
I am the author of the blog post that the article references. My blog is basically limited to reporting on factual legal events. The only known public fact is that the RIAA withdrew its case in the face of Mr. Wilke's motion for summary judgment. What more can I do than give you the known facts?
I could speculate but that is not the style of my blog, and it is not its function. Its function is to give hard information about what is going on in the litigation wars with the RIAA. Also it provides resources to help people who are defending themselves and to lawyers who are defending clients.
You are right that the known facts raise more questions than they answer. The stipulation of dismissal that was filed is clearly a form document and does not tell the whole story. What really happened? Did Mr. Wilke pay the RIAA anything? Did the RIAA have to pay Mr. Wilke anything? Who knows? There is probably a confidential settlement agreement that neither side is permitted to talk about.
I specifically asked Mr. Wilke's lawyer point blank whether any money had changed hands.
In response she gave me what was obviously a scripted, agreed response "Plaintiffs, the RIAA, and SBC worked cooperatively and amicably to resolve this dispute."
I'm sorry you're frustrated but I don't think your criticism of my article is fair. It is a "real article". I am not "just some web-blogger who heard something from a torrent site". I got the information directly from Mr. Wilke's attorney and from the filed court documents. (PS I don't even know what a torrent site is).
The reference to Slashdot for discussion is that sometimes, if there is a lot of discussion going on about my post on the internet, I sometimes add links to some of the more interesting discussions for people who want to pursue "commentary and discussion".
No I don't as a matter of fact. Who is the "GP"? I was wondering about that.
By the way, what is the "GP"?
I've been doing this 32 years. I have a pretty good idea of how things work. I'm certain they are being paid by the hour.
It will probably be a long, long time before we get documentation of that. It would probably only come out in a scenario like this:
-motion for attorneys fees by defendant;
-RIAA opposes motion and attacks hourly rate as being unreasonable;
-defendant's lawyer demands discovery of RIAA's lawyer's bills to see how much they're getting paid;
-RIAA tries to get confidentiality order for it, judge denies it.
It will probably be a long time before one of those scenarios occurs. The RIAA lawyers are probably getting a LOW hourly rate, and probably will not question the defendants' lawyers' hourly rates.
The reason I'm pretty sure their hourly rate is low is that the firm they were using before -- the Kansas City, MO, firm -- was famous for being the low bidder on complex litigations.
But if you want evidence, sorry, I don't know of any. Just as there's no evidence for your theory either.
Dear Deamuxx:
.Elektra v. Barker. It is important to point out that it only addressed a very narrow point that had been made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and specifically declined to take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument. In fact, the government stated in the brief that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available' and that its only prosecutions had been against actual pirates.
I commend you for reading the Department of Justice's "Statement of Interest" in
Secondly, I want to let you know that "with prejudice" means they cannot come back and sue him again. ("Without prejudice" would have meant that they could sue him again.).
I've been building a list of sources for non-RIAA music which I call "Liberated Music". If you have any good ideas for additions to it, would appreciate your passing them along. Thanks.
The withdrawal was clearly consensual and mutual. Yes undoubtedly Mr. Wilke could have insisted that the case continue. Usually, though, when the plaintiffs want to drop the case, the judge will let them. However, they might still be liable for attorneys fees. See Capitol v. Foster.
My guess is they won't be messing with Mr. Wilke anytime soon.
Of course they are under a legal obligation to sue the right person, just as they are under a legal obligation to research the case before rather than after bringing suit against innocent people.
But to suggest that people should ignore a lawsuit is really bad advice.
You can't take chances like that. In such a situation closing the door on the process server won't help you one bit. You'll wind up with a judgment against you.
Yes it means they cannot sue him again.
I think Mr. Wilke was truly innocent. No gray area at all.
No that's an MPAA movie case you're thinking of, Universal v. Sean Hogan, discussed here and here on Slashdot.
This case, Elektra v. Wilke, was discussed on Slashdot here when the RIAA admitted it did not have enough evidence.
I told you they are getting paid by the hour. If you don't believe me, tough.
Nope, they are paying them by the hour.