That's the Reagan myth which has been handed down, and which has caused our present crisis, that it's okay to have big corporations but not big government. It doesn't work that way. If you're going to have mega-corporations running business, you need big government to regulate them.
What I'll usually do if something in an ad does catch my attention is make a note of what it was and then go Google for it. That gives me a better feel for whether it's legit or not, and bypasses having to worry about the ad network and what it might be up to.
Then you'll be getting to the professionals, who buy Ad Words, are knowledgeable about SEO, etc. As opposed to amateurs like myself.
Well the last time we mentioned my PayPal button, some contributions came rolling in. So if you insist it's here.
Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising idea is I'm not asking for a handout, and it's not costing you anything. You buy stuff on the internet anyway. So why not check and see if you can buy it through one of my links and help ol' NewYorkCountryLawyer out, without it costing you a dime?
What if the RIAA lawyers are all on our side all along, and they were filling up their positions incompetently just to prevent people who actually want to do damage from doing so?
Hmmm. You are one Slashdot member who is not a cynic or skeptic. You're ascribing the highest and noblest of motives to them, looking for the best in your fellow man. I am impressed.
Perhaps you are right. There is certainly something to be said for that point of view. When one looks at their blunders, it is hard to imagine they were not intentional, now that you mention it.
Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.
Just trying to make a dollar or two. Sorry. I keep thinking that people who support my work would try to help me out by buying a product or signing up for something through my affiliate ads, but it hasn't really worked out that way.
this news is good and it's a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny little baby-step that's barely even measurable compared to all of the other things that need to change if the USA is going to once again become a sustainable country (financially and otherwise) that really celebrates freedom instead of paying lip service to it.
If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the brief [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed. If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'. If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans? Are there penalties for such behavior?
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not, since this brief was written with much greater integrity and respect for copyright law than their arguments ever exhibited.
I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.
Only time will tell. The two other government briefs of which I am aware in this type of litigation, which have been submitted by the government subsequent to the RIAA lawyers's going to work for the DOJ, were both quite poorly done, and took wild and crazy legal positions obviously calculated to please the RIAA overlords.
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's compar[a]tive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
Well I'm not ready to genuflect just yet. But this was a welcome bit of news.
If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot...
PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.
I am "humor impaired", and you had me there.
But seriously, the comments to my story so far demonstrate that this welcome bit of good news does nothing at all to dampen the raging cynicism and skepticism which seem to be the prevailing winds of Slashdot.
This news shows that TechCrunch was basically correct with its first article. I recall that many people were ready to believe the denials of last.fm and of CBS; I don't know why. Those who dumped all over TC last time owe it an apology. Last.fm is unsafe. Period.
I support the movement, but claiming that file sharing is protected under "fair use" is a horrible legal argument.
Actually the way you, and perhaps they, have expressed the issue is overly simplistic. "File sharing" is a broad term. There are many factual scenarios under its penumbra. Some of those scenarios would constitute fair use, some would not, and some would fall into a gray area to which we do not know the answer. There has been NO litigation of the "fair use" defense in the RIAA v. Individual cases, except for a single 2003 case in which the only question was whether running off unauthorized copies of unauthorized copies on a p2p file sharing network, and placing those in permanent hard copies on the defendant's computer, was a "fair use". The Court held that it was not. But there are many other possible fact patterns, none of which have presented themselves yet in a litigation context.
Meanwhile the constitutionality defense -- that the RIAA's theory of statutory damages fails to pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause due to the disproportionality to actual damages -- is certain to succeed, in my professional opinion, once the issue ripens.
NO, NO, NO!
NYCL it is 222k not 220
Those steelwork jurors needed rep[or]tedly so long to figure out that number when they found her liable already after the first 5 minutes of deliberation, don't spoil the fun for those stupid jurors by mentioning a wrong number!;-)
it was 222k for 24 songs = $9250 each!
hth
--
A_F
That was Alter_Fritz, folks. You'll have to excuse him. He reads very carefully, and loves to catch errors, even if they're mine. OK OK Alter_Fritz, I stand corrected. Sorreeeeeeeee.
This should be very interesting.
K.A.D. Camara is not only a very bright young lawyer, he also has credentials in computer science and would probably be accepted by the Court as an expert witness on the technology (except for the conflict of roles). Not that he would do that. Just that he could do that.
There is no question that he is going to be more knowledgeable about the technology than any other lawyer or judge involved in the RIAA cases. If Camara wants to rapidly establish himself as THE expert on IT law, this pro bono work is an excellent start.
The RIAA lawyers should be afraid. Very afraid. For whatever his reason might be, they are now facing a crusader who knows the landscape better than they do.
Also, unlike the first trial, this time he will have an expert witness, thanks to the grant Jammie received from the Free Software Foundation enabling her to hire an expert. See Expert Witness Report of Prof. Yongdae Kim.
What makes you think this is a high-profile case in any circle besides slashdot?
This particular case received a great deal of national, mainstream media, press coverage. Reports were sent out daily by the Associated Press, and it was covered in all of the major news outlets.
Slashdot Mirror
Now my comment headings have returned.
No you're not the only one. In my screen on Firefox the type got larger (nice) but the comment headings are missing (not nice).
Big government is bad.
That's the Reagan myth which has been handed down, and which has caused our present crisis, that it's okay to have big corporations but not big government. It doesn't work that way. If you're going to have mega-corporations running business, you need big government to regulate them.
What I'll usually do if something in an ad does catch my attention is make a note of what it was and then go Google for it. That gives me a better feel for whether it's legit or not, and bypasses having to worry about the ad network and what it might be up to.
Then you'll be getting to the professionals, who buy Ad Words, are knowledgeable about SEO, etc. As opposed to amateurs like myself.
A PayPal "Donate" button goes a long way..
Well the last time we mentioned my PayPal button, some contributions came rolling in. So if you insist it's here.
Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising idea is I'm not asking for a handout, and it's not costing you anything. You buy stuff on the internet anyway. So why not check and see if you can buy it through one of my links and help ol' NewYorkCountryLawyer out, without it costing you a dime?
What if the RIAA lawyers are all on our side all along, and they were filling up their positions incompetently just to prevent people who actually want to do damage from doing so?
Hmmm. You are one Slashdot member who is not a cynic or skeptic. You're ascribing the highest and noblest of motives to them, looking for the best in your fellow man. I am impressed.
Perhaps you are right. There is certainly something to be said for that point of view. When one looks at their blunders, it is hard to imagine they were not intentional, now that you mention it.
Just curious why you feel it's necessary to link the PDF in via a frame with some other stuff in the "sidebar" I could care less about.
Just trying to make a dollar or two. Sorry. I keep thinking that people who support my work would try to help me out by buying a product or signing up for something through my affiliate ads, but it hasn't really worked out that way.
this news is good and it's a step in the right direction, but it's a tiny little baby-step that's barely even measurable compared to all of the other things that need to change if the USA is going to once again become a sustainable country (financially and otherwise) that really celebrates freedom instead of paying lip service to it.
I agree.
Maybe we should appoint the judge whose opinion this is?
We?
If they knew how to tear it apart, and they did by my understanding of the brief [beckermanlegal.com], then they knew the original case was flawed. If the case was flawed, a reasonable person or persons would not attempt such a case in the first place with the intent on 'winning'. If they are not trying to win, then is it a fair and reasonable use of the courts for these ulterior motive shenanigans? Are there penalties for such behavior?
The specific lawyers who represented the RIAA and MPAA, and are now in the DOJ, are recused for two years from working on any of these types of matters. So they are not supposed to have had anything whatsoever to do with this brief. And from all appearances they did not, since this brief was written with much greater integrity and respect for copyright law than their arguments ever exhibited.
I guess I'm also wondering if this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense has implications in current or future litigation where the RIAA/MPAA or other content redistributors are the plaintiff.
Only time will tell. The two other government briefs of which I am aware in this type of litigation, which have been submitted by the government subsequent to the RIAA lawyers's going to work for the DOJ, were both quite poorly done, and took wild and crazy legal positions obviously calculated to please the RIAA overlords.
It is said that within a democracy, a people get the leader they deserve. I'm not entirely sure what Americans have done recently to deserve a leader with Obama's compar[a]tive level of decency, especially given that Bush was so far to the opposite, but even for us outside America, Obama's integrity is certainly very welcome.
Well I'm not ready to genuflect just yet. But this was a welcome bit of news.
If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism.
Yeah right. Like we're expected to believe what you think about slashdot's opinion. You know, it's summaries like this that prove we can't expect much change either from the government OR slashdot... PS: For the HUMOR impaired, the above was meant to be a skeptical, cynical comment. But THIS bit is actually sarcasm.
I am "humor impaired", and you had me there.
But seriously, the comments to my story so far demonstrate that this welcome bit of good news does nothing at all to dampen the raging cynicism and skepticism which seem to be the prevailing winds of Slashdot.
This news shows that TechCrunch was basically correct with its first article. I recall that many people were ready to believe the denials of last.fm and of CBS; I don't know why. Those who dumped all over TC last time owe it an apology. Last.fm is unsafe. Period.
I support the movement, but claiming that file sharing is protected under "fair use" is a horrible legal argument.
Actually the way you, and perhaps they, have expressed the issue is overly simplistic. "File sharing" is a broad term. There are many factual scenarios under its penumbra. Some of those scenarios would constitute fair use, some would not, and some would fall into a gray area to which we do not know the answer. There has been NO litigation of the "fair use" defense in the RIAA v. Individual cases, except for a single 2003 case in which the only question was whether running off unauthorized copies of unauthorized copies on a p2p file sharing network, and placing those in permanent hard copies on the defendant's computer, was a "fair use". The Court held that it was not. But there are many other possible fact patterns, none of which have presented themselves yet in a litigation context.
Meanwhile the constitutionality defense -- that the RIAA's theory of statutory damages fails to pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause due to the disproportionality to actual damages -- is certain to succeed, in my professional opinion, once the issue ripens.
This doesn't sound like MediaSentry. In this case they actually located an actual download. That's not MediaSentry's style.
NO, NO, NO! NYCL it is 222k not 220 Those steelwork jurors needed rep[or]tedly so long to figure out that number when they found her liable already after the first 5 minutes of deliberation, don't spoil the fun for those stupid jurors by mentioning a wrong number! ;-)
it was 222k for 24 songs = $9250 each!
hth
--
A_F
That was Alter_Fritz, folks. You'll have to excuse him. He reads very carefully, and loves to catch errors, even if they're mine. OK OK Alter_Fritz, I stand corrected. Sorreeeeeeeee.
Well there are those who have said that the best thing about my blog are the comments
The best thing about any blog is the comments. Who comes to Slashdot to read the articles?
Are you telling me there are people here who don't RTFA?
Now you tell me.
Or he could just phone of NYCL and ask him some questions... that or maybe he already reads his blog.
Or both.
I guess I'll just have to turn in my constitutional law geek card now.
I didn't even know they had those. Where do I go to buy one?
How do I describe the guy in the office next to mine who happens to be of African descent? I would refer to him as "the man in the office next to me."
Thank you for that. One of the best Slashdot comments I have ever seen.
Ask for BeckerBriefs(tm) by name! Available at your nearest office supply store.
Leave it to my friends at Slashdot to find a way for me to finally 'monetize'.
Which is why I said it was good enough for further investigation
Everything on the computer is "good enough for further investigation". This is not supposed to be a fishing expedition.
Yes, most of the RIAA nonsense has flown "under the radar" of the mainstream media; this particular case has not.
I think some good has already flown from it, as the bizarre and outlandish $220,000 verdict cast this litigation campaign into further disrepute.
This should be very interesting. K.A.D. Camara is not only a very bright young lawyer, he also has credentials in computer science and would probably be accepted by the Court as an expert witness on the technology (except for the conflict of roles). Not that he would do that. Just that he could do that. There is no question that he is going to be more knowledgeable about the technology than any other lawyer or judge involved in the RIAA cases. If Camara wants to rapidly establish himself as THE expert on IT law, this pro bono work is an excellent start. The RIAA lawyers should be afraid. Very afraid. For whatever his reason might be, they are now facing a crusader who knows the landscape better than they do.
Also, unlike the first trial, this time he will have an expert witness, thanks to the grant Jammie received from the Free Software Foundation enabling her to hire an expert. See Expert Witness Report of Prof. Yongdae Kim.
What makes you think this is a high-profile case in any circle besides slashdot?
This particular case received a great deal of national, mainstream media, press coverage. Reports were sent out daily by the Associated Press, and it was covered in all of the major news outlets.