(a)Correct answers which accurately state the law? or
(b)Answers which sound like the responder knows what the answer is when he doesn't?
It's real easy to do (b).
I don't play that.
The reality is
-the law is uncertain and in flux;
-it will be hammered out in cases where the corporate content cartel has all of the marbles;
-unless the tech industry gets wise and starts getting behind the victims of the RIAA/MPAA suits financially, the legal issues which are in flux may all be resolved in favor of the corporate content cartel; and
-the answer to every question will wind up being no, instead of what it is now: maybe.
So instead of getting on my case, do something about helping me win.
Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.
We are in a time of flux, and the issues are being hammered out in cases where the content providers have all the money for expert witnesses, teams of lawyers, etc., and their opponents have nothing.
If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist. See amicus brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.
The law is unsettled. In order to get the US Supreme Court not to be frightened of its aggressiveness the RIAA represented at oral argument in MGM v. Grokster that making personal copies like that was ok. Now they've been saying it's not.
If they think they can win on it, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that personal copies are an infringement.
You would be cheered up immeasurably by buying non-RIAA music. The following companies should be avoided like the plague: SONY, UMG, Warner, Arista, Interscope, Motown, Elektra, Priority, Maverick, Loud.
The RIAA's managing the cases but technically the plaintiffs are the record labels which own sound recording copyrights. You may ask (1) why is the RIAA involved? (2) is that the proper function of a trade association? (3) is its presence to ensure that the record companies act in lockstep? These are all questions the antitrust law enforcement agencies should be pursuing. I personally am convinced that the RIAA is there as an enforcer to make sure the cartel acts like a cartel.
It is a very clever strategy suing the defenseless. They will get the judges to issue bad rulings that expand and distort the copyright law, unless the tech community gets behind the RIAA victims financially. They are doing it because it is what bullies do best. They do not like to fight against people who can fight back.
Thank you, StilkyPad. I don't laugh much these days. You really got a laugh out of me with that one. This was definitely the best comment I've seen on Slashdot yet.
Thank you!!!!
Declaring bankruptcy would discharge a debt based on copyright infringement unless the creditor can prove the copyright infringement was malicious and willful. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has recently written an interesting article on the subject. It would be extremely difficult, and quite cost-ineffective, for the RIAA to try to do that in these cases.
Defendant is going to lose this motion........ if Defense counsel thought she was going to win on this motion, she's a moron.......
What's most interesting about this whole thing is not that Defendant will lose this motion, but that Defendant is probabl[y] going to get his case set on an expedited schedule, have his deposition taken, and then fight over the inevitable discovery compliance motion RIAA will file when Defendant tries to avoid allowing an expert to examine his hard drive to see whether he actually downloaded the tunes, or ripped them as he stated under oath..........
How can you be so sure? I've been a litigation lawyer for around 28 years, and I never know how things are going to turn out, until they do.
Sure the judge could deny the motion and feel that plaintiffs should be entitled to some pretrial discovery.
But he's under no requirement to do so, especially since the plaintiffs have zero evidence to begin with.
Bear in mind that the plaintiffs need more than "surmise" and "conjecture" to defeat a summary judgment motion, they're supposed to have at least some hard core evidence.
I don't know what's going to happen, but all I can say is "stay tuned" to the case file; I'll update it when something does happen.
beadfulthings said........I still believe the RIAA is going on fishing expeditions at the expense of folks who can ill afford to fight back. So my hat's off to Ms. Saper however she's being compensated.
I know Slashdot moderators might moderate me down for just agreeing with you, "beadfulthings", but I agree with you on all counts: (1) the cases are fishing expeditions, (2) the defendants can ill afford to fight back, and (3) Daliah Saper deserves our respect for what she's doing.
Just to try to keep my karma by being "informative", and "interesting", here's a great article on Paul Wilke's fight against the evil empire, and a helpful link to his lawyer Daliah Saper, just in case you ever have legal trouble in Chicago.
einhverfr said:.....
Summary judgement is appropriate where any disagreement about the nature of the facts in a case is insufficient to overrule the legal standing. In short, summary judgement is like saying "Your honor, even if everything they say is true, the law is still on my side."......
No, that's a dismissal motion, not a summary judgment motion, that you're referring to.
A summary judgment motion is "Your honor, here are the facts which support your dismissing the case." Then it is up to the plaintiffs to come up with opposing evidence raising genuine, triable, material issues of fact.
The plaintiffs here said to the judge "We don't have enough evidence to successfully oppose the motion unless you give us pretrial discovery. Then maybe we'll find evidence with which to oppose the motion (and maybe we won't)."
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by real answers?
(a)Correct answers which accurately state the law? or
(b)Answers which sound like the responder knows what the answer is when he doesn't?
It's real easy to do (b).
I don't play that.
The reality is
-the law is uncertain and in flux;
-it will be hammered out in cases where the corporate content cartel has all of the marbles;
-unless the tech industry gets wise and starts getting behind the victims of the RIAA/MPAA suits financially, the legal issues which are in flux may all be resolved in favor of the corporate content cartel; and
-the answer to every question will wind up being no, instead of what it is now: maybe.
So instead of getting on my case, do something about helping me win.
Thanks for the clarification, sorry if my response was a bit shrill.
The law is unsettled at this point. Better that people should know that.
Well I must confess that I was probably being facetious because I was annoyed at his question. I was annoyed that (a) he was counseling young people when his own view of copyright law is basically fictional, (b) he's counseling them on issues that even experienced copyright lawyers don't know the answer to, because the law is unsettled, and (c) he's going around spreading false ideas that will just get people into more trouble. So I apologize. I should have been more respectful.
We are in a time of flux, and the issues are being hammered out in cases where the content providers have all the money for expert witnesses, teams of lawyers, etc., and their opponents have nothing.
If the computer industry doesn't get into the fight of helping the RIAA victims, the copyright law is going to be expanded and twisted to such an extent that the internet as we know it will cease to exist. See amicus brief of US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker.
Association of Music Podcasting (AMP) BoycottRIAA.com "Non-RIAA" List
Creative Commons
Defective by Design's List of DRM-Free Music Sites
dmusic
Electronic Frontier Foundation List of "Artists Online"
emusic.com
Fading Ways Records
FreeCulture.org
harveydanger.com
Janis Ian.com
last.fm
Lime Light Radio
live365.com free downloads
MagnaTune
myspace.com
Nettwerk Download Store
R.evolution I.n P.rogress
RIAARadar.com
uncoolcentral.com
Vision Metal Records
I keep a list on my blog and welcome more suggestions.
No that's excellent. Some people need to know there's a whole world of music outside the RIAA cartel.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry, Aaron. Would you rather I just told you what you want to hear?
I believe you are absolutely right that this has contributed to depression and even suicide.
You're wrong, there's a giant universe of indy music.
The law is unsettled.
Grow up.
Don't shoot the messenger for telling you what reality is.
The law is unsettled. In order to get the US Supreme Court not to be frightened of its aggressiveness the RIAA represented at oral argument in MGM v. Grokster that making personal copies like that was ok. Now they've been saying it's not.
If they think they can win on it, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that personal copies are an infringement.
Also avoid Atlantic, Capitol, BMG, Fonovisa, Virgin, & Universal.
You would be cheered up immeasurably by buying non-RIAA music. The following companies should be avoided like the plague: SONY, UMG, Warner, Arista, Interscope, Motown, Elektra, Priority, Maverick, Loud.
See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.
The RIAA's managing the cases but technically the plaintiffs are the record labels which own sound recording copyrights. You may ask (1) why is the RIAA involved? (2) is that the proper function of a trade association? (3) is its presence to ensure that the record companies act in lockstep? These are all questions the antitrust law enforcement agencies should be pursuing. I personally am convinced that the RIAA is there as an enforcer to make sure the cartel acts like a cartel.
I don't consider it legal. I do consider it extortion.
It is a very clever strategy suing the defenseless. They will get the judges to issue bad rulings that expand and distort the copyright law, unless the tech community gets behind the RIAA victims financially. They are doing it because it is what bullies do best. They do not like to fight against people who can fight back.
Stop.
Thank you, StilkyPad. I don't laugh much these days. You really got a laugh out of me with that one. This was definitely the best comment I've seen on Slashdot yet. Thank you!!!!
Declaring bankruptcy would discharge a debt based on copyright infringement unless the creditor can prove the copyright infringement was malicious and willful. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has recently written an interesting article on the subject. It would be extremely difficult, and quite cost-ineffective, for the RIAA to try to do that in these cases.
Here's a nice profile of Mr. Wilke's lawyers.
I doubt Defendant will prevail..........
Defendant is going to lose this motion........ if Defense counsel thought she was going to win on this motion, she's a moron.......
What's most interesting about this whole thing is not that Defendant will lose this motion, but that Defendant is probabl[y] going to get his case set on an expedited schedule, have his deposition taken, and then fight over the inevitable discovery compliance motion RIAA will file when Defendant tries to avoid allowing an expert to examine his hard drive to see whether he actually downloaded the tunes, or ripped them as he stated under oath..........
How can you be so sure? I've been a litigation lawyer for around 28 years, and I never know how things are going to turn out, until they do.
Sure the judge could deny the motion and feel that plaintiffs should be entitled to some pretrial discovery.
But he's under no requirement to do so, especially since the plaintiffs have zero evidence to begin with.
Bear in mind that the plaintiffs need more than "surmise" and "conjecture" to defeat a summary judgment motion, they're supposed to have at least some hard core evidence.
I don't know what's going to happen, but all I can say is "stay tuned" to the case file; I'll update it when something does happen.
I know Slashdot moderators might moderate me down for just agreeing with you, "beadfulthings", but I agree with you on all counts: (1) the cases are fishing expeditions, (2) the defendants can ill afford to fight back, and (3) Daliah Saper deserves our respect for what she's doing.
Just to try to keep my karma by being "informative", and "interesting", here's a great article on Paul Wilke's fight against the evil empire, and a helpful link to his lawyer Daliah Saper, just in case you ever have legal trouble in Chicago.
einhverfr said: .....
Summary judgement is appropriate where any disagreement about the nature of the facts in a case is insufficient to overrule the legal standing. In short, summary judgement is like saying "Your honor, even if everything they say is true, the law is still on my side." ......
No, that's a dismissal motion, not a summary judgment motion, that you're referring to.
A summary judgment motion is "Your honor, here are the facts which support your dismissing the case." Then it is up to the plaintiffs to come up with opposing evidence raising genuine, triable, material issues of fact.
The plaintiffs here said to the judge "We don't have enough evidence to successfully oppose the motion unless you give us pretrial discovery. Then maybe we'll find evidence with which to oppose the motion (and maybe we won't)."
Under the Copyright Act, the judge can award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. It is not mandatory, however.