Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat!
If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.
I am looking forward to some of that creative workmanship, and will link to it on my blog.
The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website.
The reason the format is mentioned in the article so prominently is the irony, as I stated above.
Exactly, Chabo.
This is a lawsuit meant to restrict the sharing of MP3's online.
This is a petition, within that lawsuit, to try and prevent making an oral argument in that lawsuit available online.
And the Court making the determination (a) makes its own oral arguments available online, and (b) the format in which it chooses to do so is MP3's, which are freely shareable, and even remixable. This oral argument could wind up as the soundtrack for some anti-RIAA movies on YouTube.
I knew you weren't asking it from your own perspective, but someone else out there might read the answer and be guided by it. I'm not comfortable with that, unless I know the person to whom I am speaking, for a number of reasons, including (a) I need to know who they are and where they're coming from, (b) usually I need to ask some followup questions to get the complete fact pattern, (c) the internet knows no geographical bounds, but my law license does, and (d) the RIAA lawyers pray for me to do something that could get me in trouble (since I am a model of probity, and a very conservative lawyer, their prayers will never be answered). Maybe that's the "country" in "NewYorkCountryLawyer"; that I need the face to face, or at least voice to voice.
Sorry but your comment is a request for legal advice, and I don't give legal advice over the internet. As I say in my profile:
Nothing I say on Slashdot, or anywhere else on the internet, should be construed as legal advice; for that you need to consult with a lawyer with whom you have a one-on-one relationship.
I was under the impression they generally target the older style of network, where the default is to seed a downloaded file indefinitely, and where any node will send a list of all the files it's sharing to any other node (although I would love to get some confirmation of this).
All of the RIAA's cases I have ever heard of involved allegations regarding either the FastTrack protocol (e.g. Kazaa) or the Gnutella protocol (LimeWire).
Maybe the client is of the opinion that he's screwed already (once bankrupt, does the scale of the debt matter?), so no longer has anything to lose - and hence is quite willing to take a really long shot that he hopes will also inflict maximum damage on the opposition.
In battle, a man who has accepted the inevitability of his death can be far more dangerous an adversary than the one who is still believes he may live, and is therefore hamstrung by fear.
So you're of the view that Joel Tenenbaum instructed his attorneys that he would prefer to lose the case, in order to make a statement?
Man, just talking about p2p music downloads and lawyers pop up!:-)...[I was smiling when I said that, good sir]
Thanks[again] for the relevant links in a timely fashion.
IMO, this is all just 'horse trading' in a way. Sooner or later, the extremes will negotiate to a mutually acceptable middle area....I hope.
Right now, the balance is tipped in favor of the labels/RIAA. Nesson is rabble rousing to try and tip it back towards the customers, or at least an even balance.
It's kind of like listening to Richard M. Stallman. Most people fall in the middle.
We are just watching to extremes squaring off. Maybe some good can come out of it. *crosses fingers*
Your thoughts are probably very comforting, and for mental hygiene purposes represent a perfect approach.
Unfortunately, to the imagination-challenged, faith-deprived, reality-based types like myself... it sounds like wishful thinking.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
The side of openness of information?
So if you hired a lawyer to represent you in a litigation, you would want that lawyer to be more concerned with the "openness of information" about your case than with protecting your interests?
You are a most unusual and wonderful person; I would like to meet you sometime.
Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA.
Which makes me wonder if Charlie Nesson might be leading the opposition down the garden path, attempting to bury any real leaks out of his student brain trust under a barrage of unrelated sideshow acts?
(I'm reminded of an alleged CIA tactic called "the second cover": You wrap the secret in TWO cover stories. The first is plausible, even if potentially easily detected as bogus. The second is the kind of stuff you read about in tabloids and certain late-night talk shows (some of which may be the fossils of old second cover stories). When somebody penetrates the first cover they find the second cover. At that point any of several things may happen, including: A) They believe the second cover. Hilarity ensues. B) They "recoil" back to the first cover. C) They become suspicious of any other reports on what is actually under the covers.)
(Then again, maybe Charlie's mind has finally gone. B-( )
As with NYCL's adversaries, we'll know what the Billion Dollar Charlie team's arguments REALLY are when we read them in the court papers. B-)
Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
I hope you're right, and it's all a clever diversionary tactic intended to confuse and distract friend and foe alike from the real objective.
Since most people don't RTFA, I thought I'd share this gem, where Ars quotes Ray Beckerman [slashdot.org]:
To you law students and young lawyers out there; please don't think you can learn anything from this case. Just ignore everything you are seeing from both sides. I have seen more bizarre filings from both sides' lawyers than I would imagine possible.
Sounds like this new exchange won't do anything to alter his opinion...
Although I have raised fair use as an affirmative defense in several cases, I haven't litigated any fair use defense scenarios yet, so I'm not going to be able to comment in depth, and I'm not going to get into any dialogue about it. Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA. When I have an argument to make, my adversaries can read about it in my court papers; and then we can chat about it on Slashdot until the cows come home.
But I will say this much for the benefit of my friends here:
1. Prof. Nesson and all of his assembled, learned advisors and cyberlaw scholars do the subject an injustice by overly simplifying the term "file sharing".
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
3. Some of those factual scenarios would clearly be entitled to a "fair use" defense; some clearly would not; some fall in a gray area. Contrary to what the 'content cartel' lackies would have you believe, and contrary to what Prof. Nesson's friends seem to think, we are at the beginning -- not the end -- of mapping out the boundaries of "fair use" in this area.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
I assumed you assumed I assumed you assumed I was kidding. In any event, you guys did a fantastic job for April Fools Day. The Microsoft one was my favorite. Keep up the great work.
I've never seen you, and this comment gave me an image of a fellow in a black suit with a briefcase laughing maniacally.
Frightening, it is.
I'm surprised no one tried "In a surprising twist of irony, renowned lawyer Ray Beckerman has taken on a role with the Recording Industry Association of America as chief litigator".
Because every well crafted April Fools joke has to have a large grain of truth and initially sound plausible; no one would have bought that one for a second.
I wasn't even aware that there was a "fight against running titles into the body". If I had known, I might have joined the struggle. (Of course I don't know which side I would have been on.)
I think the best that you could hope for might be the low digit count UIDs. I have the single digit UID achievement (5 points:) but there are rewards for 2, 3, 4, and 5. Once we hit 6 figures, we stop rewarding;)
Well in that case, Cmdr Taco, I repeat the question I asked here. (I would have repeated the question, but live in fear of being modded "Redundant".
Get fired from a job for reading slashdot instead of working.
How do I register for this achievement?
That would be a singular achievement indeed, since it would be rather remarkable for an avid Slashdot reader to be anything other than, shall we say, self employed.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone needs to heavily sample this and mix it into some house music, stat! If you think the RIAA is going nuts now just wait until that shows up on P2P.
I am looking forward to some of that creative workmanship, and will link to it on my blog.
The MP3 is the format that's being served up by the government's website.
The reason the format is mentioned in the article so prominently is the irony, as I stated above.
Exactly, Chabo.
This is a lawsuit meant to restrict the sharing of MP3's online.
This is a petition, within that lawsuit, to try and prevent making an oral argument in that lawsuit available online.
And the Court making the determination (a) makes its own oral arguments available online, and (b) the format in which it chooses to do so is MP3's, which are freely shareable, and even remixable. This oral argument could wind up as the soundtrack for some anti-RIAA movies on YouTube.
I knew you weren't asking it from your own perspective, but someone else out there might read the answer and be guided by it. I'm not comfortable with that, unless I know the person to whom I am speaking, for a number of reasons, including (a) I need to know who they are and where they're coming from, (b) usually I need to ask some followup questions to get the complete fact pattern, (c) the internet knows no geographical bounds, but my law license does, and (d) the RIAA lawyers pray for me to do something that could get me in trouble (since I am a model of probity, and a very conservative lawyer, their prayers will never be answered). Maybe that's the "country" in "NewYorkCountryLawyer"; that I need the face to face, or at least voice to voice.
Nothing I say on Slashdot, or anywhere else on the internet, should be construed as legal advice; for that you need to consult with a lawyer with whom you have a one-on-one relationship.
Everyone likes fairness, even if it is not fair.
Fair enough.
I don't get why people assert that they have the right to media in a different format to the format in which they purchased it.
It probably has something to do with this.
A company has made something and is selling it. You can accept the deal or not, but you can't override their right to set the terms of the sale.
The US Copyright Act disagrees with that. See, e.g. UMG v. Augusto.
Fair use is not a defense. Fair use is a sample of those things which copyright was never meant to stop.
In copyright law, fair use is considered a defense.
I don't get why we put so much emphasis on whether a person is a non-commercial infringer or a commercial infringer.
Commerciality is a factor in copyright law, including fair use analysis.
I was under the impression they generally target the older style of network, where the default is to seed a downloaded file indefinitely, and where any node will send a list of all the files it's sharing to any other node (although I would love to get some confirmation of this).
All of the RIAA's cases I have ever heard of involved allegations regarding either the FastTrack protocol (e.g. Kazaa) or the Gnutella protocol (LimeWire).
Maybe the client is of the opinion that he's screwed already (once bankrupt, does the scale of the debt matter?), so no longer has anything to lose - and hence is quite willing to take a really long shot that he hopes will also inflict maximum damage on the opposition. In battle, a man who has accepted the inevitability of his death can be far more dangerous an adversary than the one who is still believes he may live, and is therefore hamstrung by fear.
So you're of the view that Joel Tenenbaum instructed his attorneys that he would prefer to lose the case, in order to make a statement?
Man, just talking about p2p music downloads and lawyers pop up! :-)...[I was smiling when I said that, good sir]
Thanks[again] for the relevant links in a timely fashion.
IMO, this is all just 'horse trading' in a way. Sooner or later, the extremes will negotiate to a mutually acceptable middle area....I hope.
Right now, the balance is tipped in favor of the labels/RIAA. Nesson is rabble rousing to try and tip it back towards the customers, or at least an even balance.
It's kind of like listening to Richard M. Stallman. Most people fall in the middle.
We are just watching to extremes squaring off. Maybe some good can come out of it. *crosses fingers*
Your thoughts are probably very comforting, and for mental hygiene purposes represent a perfect approach.
Unfortunately, to the imagination-challenged, faith-deprived, reality-based types like myself... it sounds like wishful thinking.
But from your mouth to God's ear.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
The side of openness of information?
So if you hired a lawyer to represent you in a litigation, you would want that lawyer to be more concerned with the "openness of information" about your case than with protecting your interests?
You are a most unusual and wonderful person; I would like to meet you sometime.
I'm sure NYCL or someone else who knows all the ins and outs can correct or expand upon this.
Don't be so sure.
"Making available" isn't distribution. Check the NYCL threads, probable google "beckerman"+"making available"
I'll make it easier. Read Capitol v. Thomas, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, and LondonSire v. Does.
Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA.
Which makes me wonder if Charlie Nesson might be leading the opposition down the garden path, attempting to bury any real leaks out of his student brain trust under a barrage of unrelated sideshow acts? (I'm reminded of an alleged CIA tactic called "the second cover": You wrap the secret in TWO cover stories. The first is plausible, even if potentially easily detected as bogus. The second is the kind of stuff you read about in tabloids and certain late-night talk shows (some of which may be the fossils of old second cover stories). When somebody penetrates the first cover they find the second cover. At that point any of several things may happen, including: A) They believe the second cover. Hilarity ensues. B) They "recoil" back to the first cover. C) They become suspicious of any other reports on what is actually under the covers.) (Then again, maybe Charlie's mind has finally gone. B-( ) As with NYCL's adversaries, we'll know what the Billion Dollar Charlie team's arguments REALLY are when we read them in the court papers. B-) Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
I hope you're right, and it's all a clever diversionary tactic intended to confuse and distract friend and foe alike from the real objective.
Since most people don't RTFA, I thought I'd share this gem, where Ars quotes Ray Beckerman [slashdot.org]:
To you law students and young lawyers out there; please don't think you can learn anything from this case. Just ignore everything you are seeing from both sides. I have seen more bizarre filings from both sides' lawyers than I would imagine possible.
Sounds like this new exchange won't do anything to alter his opinion...
You got that right, Raven.
Although I have raised fair use as an affirmative defense in several cases, I haven't litigated any fair use defense scenarios yet, so I'm not going to be able to comment in depth, and I'm not going to get into any dialogue about it. Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA. When I have an argument to make, my adversaries can read about it in my court papers; and then we can chat about it on Slashdot until the cows come home.
But I will say this much for the benefit of my friends here:
1. Prof. Nesson and all of his assembled, learned advisors and cyberlaw scholars do the subject an injustice by overly simplifying the term "file sharing".
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
3. Some of those factual scenarios would clearly be entitled to a "fair use" defense; some clearly would not; some fall in a gray area. Contrary to what the 'content cartel' lackies would have you believe, and contrary to what Prof. Nesson's friends seem to think, we are at the beginning -- not the end -- of mapping out the boundaries of "fair use" in this area.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
I assumed you assumed I assumed you assumed I was kidding. In any event, you guys did a fantastic job for April Fools Day. The Microsoft one was my favorite. Keep up the great work.
Knowing, as you do, how I spend a great deal of my time, how could you possibly think I would have 2600 disposable dollars?
I've never seen you, and this comment gave me an image of a fellow in a black suit with a briefcase laughing maniacally. Frightening, it is. I'm surprised no one tried "In a surprising twist of irony, renowned lawyer Ray Beckerman has taken on a role with the Recording Industry Association of America as chief litigator".
Because every well crafted April Fools joke has to have a large grain of truth and initially sound plausible; no one would have bought that one for a second.
I wasn't even aware that there was a "fight against running titles into the body". If I had known, I might have joined the struggle. (Of course I don't know which side I would have been on.)
sounds like he april fooled you ;)
Actually it sounds more like I april fooled you; except that I didn't think anyone was going to actually believe me.
for having a good sense of humor. And further evidence of how bad my sense of humor is, is the fact that I found this article hysterical.
I think the best that you could hope for might be the low digit count UIDs. I have the single digit UID achievement (5 points :) but there are rewards for 2, 3, 4, and 5. Once we hit 6 figures, we stop rewarding ;)
Well in that case, Cmdr Taco, I repeat the question I asked here. (I would have repeated the question, but live in fear of being modded "Redundant".
Get fired from a job for reading slashdot instead of working. How do I register for this achievement?
That would be a singular achievement indeed, since it would be rather remarkable for an avid Slashdot reader to be anything other than, shall we say, self employed.