Even though I'm the lawyer you're dumping on, I have to agree with you. This is a terrific, informative, and insightful interview.
In my defense, however, I must say that this interview is marked by good questions, while mine was dominated by two troll-like questions, and a lot of people beating me up because they didn't like my answers to those two absurd questions.
Secondly, because of the fact that I was a lawyer and the troll-like questions were asking me for legal advice, it would have been unprofessional for me to respond. People shouldn't have been asking me for legal advice, because I can't come here and do that.
The interview would have been a lot more useful if the questioners had asked me for information about what was going on out there in the RIAA v. Consumer litigations, or in the post MGM v. Grokster legal landscape, which is the subject I could have dispensed a lot of information about. Nobody seemed interested in that. Everyone seemed more interested in how I might be able to advise them how to skirt the law by making illegal copies, or getting illegal downloads from Russian web sites.
I would not be surprised to learn that the 'interview' was controlled by some RIAA trolls.
But getting back to this one, the questioners and the interviewee all deserve a lot of praise. The questions are thoughtful, and the answers are very informative.
In my opinion, the "manifesto" (*PDF) published recently by the British Libarary, and called to my attention by this GrokLaw story, on the subject of DRM, best explains how DRM is harmful to our culture, and inconsistent with our tradition of creativity, from which tradition we may distill the adage nihil sub solum novum.
Even if this report is good science, how is it news? It was reported in March, 2005, a year and a half ago. See, e.g., Reuters and National Geographic reports from March, 2005.
I'm a bit skeptical about this report. It just doesn't add up to me. This is the report:
"This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible." I don't really think tissue of that type could survive 70,000,000 years. Also, since when are bone cells soft tissue? Would there be blood vessels inside a bone?
And so does religion. And so does one's race. And so does gender. And so does one's sexual preference. They all affect how a person looks at things. But if I want to challenge something someone says I would address the thing they said, not ask them what their national origin, religion, race, gender, or sexual preference is. It's a cheap debater's trick. You should just admit it to yourself, apologize, and move on to the next subject, and avoid doing it again in the future. Don''t reflexively defend it. Your followup posts demonstrate clearly that you were 'pulling the foreigner card', and that you have something against 'foreigners' who criticize the U.S., as if only U.S. citizens have a right to do so. I think everyone has a right to criticize any government. We in the U.S. do it all the time. We're 'foreigners' too, to someone who lives in another country. Get over it.
[1] the Congress shall have Power... [8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries....
I'm trying to understand why this discussion is being pushed towards everything but the antitrust issues which are the subject of the post.
Yesterday evening a critically important major antitrust suit was brought against the big 4 record labels. If this case is seen through to conclusion it will probably result in the breaking of the Big Music cartel's attempt to put a stranglehold on online digital music throughout the world.
And yet it seems that we are talking about everything but.
We are not even talking about the copyright issues that will be in play as a result of the RIAA's complaint which was filed 2 months ago.
I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.
"I think we need to be VERY careful about how we say things. I think what you meant to say is that people should avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs, without the copyright holders permission to do so."
Yes, but I think you should be careful about your phrase "permission to do so". Some people reading this might construe that as indicating that if you lawfully purchased the song file, then it's ok to share it.
A correct statement would be: the only way I know to avoid this wave of litigation is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs unless you have the copyright holders' permission to share those songs over the internet with others. If they are songs from the major record labels, you definitely do not have such permission.
I notice that there seem to be some members who are not aware that this is a call for interview questions, and are answering the questions, or making comments.
This is part of the interview process, and is for folks to submit questions to Prof. Jay Rosen, and for the moderators to moderate the questions. Thanks.
I am convinced that online media have made a huge contribution to getting out the truth when the corporate media are seeking to suppress the truth. While there are a growing number of people aware of this phenomenon, reports in the 'blogosphere' just do not get the same respect and currency received by reports in the 'major' or 'corporate' media. What do we, as a community, need to do to enhance the respect internet journalists receive in the world at large?
If this goes to a jury trial, I expect to win the jury trial without the need for "jury nullification". Ms. Lindor has never even used a computer in her life. There is no way the RIAA can prove its case, and they know it. The only reason they are keeping the case open is that a pending litigation is a very convenient platform for an investigation, because it gives the RIAA lawyers subpoena power.
I understand your frustration at being engaged in a legal debate with people who are not legally trained, who may be a bit overconfident, and who may have overstated the defendant's case; but don't you think you have overreacted a bit by suggesting that the defendant has the burden of proving that thirty eight (38) alleged files "are not what they purport to be". I know you know that plaintiff has the burden of proof as to everything it is alleging.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though I'm the lawyer you're dumping on, I have to agree with you. This is a terrific, informative, and insightful interview.
In my defense, however, I must say that this interview is marked by good questions, while mine was dominated by two troll-like questions, and a lot of people beating me up because they didn't like my answers to those two absurd questions.
Secondly, because of the fact that I was a lawyer and the troll-like questions were asking me for legal advice, it would have been unprofessional for me to respond. People shouldn't have been asking me for legal advice, because I can't come here and do that.
The interview would have been a lot more useful if the questioners had asked me for information about what was going on out there in the RIAA v. Consumer litigations, or in the post MGM v. Grokster legal landscape, which is the subject I could have dispensed a lot of information about. Nobody seemed interested in that. Everyone seemed more interested in how I might be able to advise them how to skirt the law by making illegal copies, or getting illegal downloads from Russian web sites.
I would not be surprised to learn that the 'interview' was controlled by some RIAA trolls.
But getting back to this one, the questioners and the interviewee all deserve a lot of praise. The questions are thoughtful, and the answers are very informative.
In my opinion, the "manifesto" (*PDF) published recently by the British Libarary, and called to my attention by this GrokLaw story, on the subject of DRM, best explains how DRM is harmful to our culture, and inconsistent with our tradition of creativity, from which tradition we may distill the adage nihil sub solum novum.
Even if this report is good science, how is it news? It was reported in March, 2005, a year and a half ago. See, e.g., Reuters and National Geographic reports from March, 2005.
I'm a bit skeptical about this report. It just doesn't add up to me. This is the report: "This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible." I don't really think tissue of that type could survive 70,000,000 years. Also, since when are bone cells soft tissue? Would there be blood vessels inside a bone?
And so does religion. And so does one's race. And so does gender. And so does one's sexual preference. They all affect how a person looks at things. But if I want to challenge something someone says I would address the thing they said, not ask them what their national origin, religion, race, gender, or sexual preference is. It's a cheap debater's trick. You should just admit it to yourself, apologize, and move on to the next subject, and avoid doing it again in the future. Don''t reflexively defend it. Your followup posts demonstrate clearly that you were 'pulling the foreigner card', and that you have something against 'foreigners' who criticize the U.S., as if only U.S. citizens have a right to do so. I think everyone has a right to criticize any government. We in the U.S. do it all the time. We're 'foreigners' too, to someone who lives in another country. Get over it.
OK Dirtside, I was planning to do that anyway. I was kind of brought up that way. But thanks for the encouragement.
That was an unfair debating tactic. If you disagree with someone, speak to it on the merits, don't ask him his nationality.
Well now I know to whom I must pay special respect instead of just being my usual irreverent self.
Additionally, what about the fact that they do all their litigations TOGETHER? Don't competitors usually do things SEPARATELY?
Thanks. So does a 4-digit UID indicate someone has been here a long long time?
What's the 5-digit UID signify?
You should not be getting your legal advice from Slashdot discussions. That would be most unwise.
Here's what it actually says:
_ 8.html
[1] the Congress shall have Power... [8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries....
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8
Good one!
And I thank you, Shawn, as well, for bringing a smile to my face. It was a really fun experience.
But I do have to question something you've said.
On the legal points, I'm sure you're right.
But about +5 Funny.... I really don't think that what Slashdot moderators think of as funny will go over so well on mainstream TV.
But maybe that's just me.
Yesterday evening a critically important major antitrust suit was brought against the big 4 record labels. If this case is seen through to conclusion it will probably result in the breaking of the Big Music cartel's attempt to put a stranglehold on online digital music throughout the world.
And yet it seems that we are talking about everything but.
We are not even talking about the copyright issues that will be in play as a result of the RIAA's complaint which was filed 2 months ago.
I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.
gosand said:
"I think we need to be VERY careful about how we say things. I think what you meant to say is that people should avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs, without the copyright holders permission to do so."
Yes, but I think you should be careful about your phrase "permission to do so". Some people reading this might construe that as indicating that if you lawfully purchased the song file, then it's ok to share it.
A correct statement would be: the only way I know to avoid this wave of litigation is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs unless you have the copyright holders' permission to share those songs over the internet with others. If they are songs from the major record labels, you definitely do not have such permission.
Why would Reuters, which is part of the mainstream press, contribute $100,000 to NewAssignment.net?
I am intrigued by your new project, NewAssignment.Net. How exactly does it work?
This is part of the interview process, and is for folks to submit questions to Prof. Jay Rosen, and for the moderators to moderate the questions. Thanks.
I am convinced that online media have made a huge contribution to getting out the truth when the corporate media are seeking to suppress the truth. While there are a growing number of people aware of this phenomenon, reports in the 'blogosphere' just do not get the same respect and currency received by reports in the 'major' or 'corporate' media. What do we, as a community, need to do to enhance the respect internet journalists receive in the world at large?
If this goes to a jury trial, I expect to win the jury trial without the need for "jury nullification". Ms. Lindor has never even used a computer in her life. There is no way the RIAA can prove its case, and they know it. The only reason they are keeping the case open is that a pending litigation is a very convenient platform for an investigation, because it gives the RIAA lawyers subpoena power.
I understand your frustration at being engaged in a legal debate with people who are not legally trained, who may be a bit overconfident, and who may have overstated the defendant's case; but don't you think you have overreacted a bit by suggesting that the defendant has the burden of proving that thirty eight (38) alleged files "are not what they purport to be". I know you know that plaintiff has the burden of proof as to everything it is alleging.
Exhibit B to the complaint is the screenshot.