I know the DMCA is a attack to free speech. It has been abused many times to take down parodies or something someone did not personally like.
I respectfully disagree. It is not the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, it is abuse of the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, and this is something that needs to be stopped.
eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent?
Ray Beckerman, with all due respect, that is not at all how I see it. I have just resigned myself to the fact that a court case with a billion dollars at stake will not be lost because a California judge knocked down an infringement case about ten pornographic videos that were immediately taken down anyhow. Lawyers do not say goodbye to a billion that easily!
Of course that is not why the YouTube case will be lost. The YouTube case will be lost because the California judge was right.
You are the lawyer however! It would bring me great joy to hear otherwise but I would expect Viacom's lawyers to play the same card they played in their press release--attempting to convince the judge that there are too many differences between these cases to consider Io Vs Veoh to be precedence.
Thing is, they can say anything they want to in a press release. In court, though, it's not so easy. If you make factual claims that aren't so, you will get burned. And if you make legal arguments that aren't supportable, you will get burned. Unfortunately, all Viacom has to work with is factual claims that aren't so, and legal arguments that aren't supportable. The end result of the YouTube case, if it is not settled, will be a multimillion dollar attorneys fee award against the plaintiffs.
It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.
The MPAA has a suit against YouTube? What is it? All I know of is Viacom's suit and, though a member, they are not every single Movie Picture Association of America Member.
You are right, I stand corrected. I had remembered it as being a gang of plaintiffs, but actually it was just a few.
Also, I think the 'nail in the coffin' phrase is being used to soon here. The cases I've been following seem to point to the entire US Justice System being in **AA's pet attack dog in witch trials. While there's been a few cases of common sense, the vast majority of cases are being settled out of court because the judge is a corporate pawn and insolent technology-wise.
Well point me to some monstrous decision, of recent vintage, supporting your thesis (and in doing so please confine yourself to cases where the defendant could afford a lawyer).
One would think that this builds up Google's defense against Viacom. I hope Google doesn't back down or cut a deal with Viacom. This case is proof they are in the right.
I agree. YouTube is clearly entitled to the "safe harbor" afforded by the DMCA, and the Viacom case should be thrown out. The mere pendency of such cases partially defeats the purpose of the DMCA, since it costs time and money to defend this nonsense.
The best thing about Io v. Veoh is that it dismisses the case on summary judgment, avoiding the necessity for a trial. Hopefully the Courts will start dismissing these types of cases even earlier, at their very outset.
I read this in Wired and found this quote from YouTube:
"It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights," YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine said in a statement. "YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online."
And this quote from Viacom:
"Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement â" conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA."
Probably not far from what one would expect either to say but I'm afraid this isn't going to do much for YouTube.
eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent? Do you really think the judge in Viacom v. Youtube cares about the press releases?
If so, I beg to differ. Not all the press releases in the world can deflect the clear and faultless reasoning exhibited by Judge Lloyd. We are having a suddenoutbreak of sanity and respect for the plain meaning of statutes. This is so important. It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.
The information comes from MediaSentry's lawyer. If it's neither "informative" or "true" that is par for the course. MediaSentry is known for making contradictorystatements.
Or in establishing the case and penalties in a RICO countersuit... It seems to me that this lawlessness qualifies for RICO counteraction, against both MediaSentry and RIAA. (and could it be a class action??)
Very technical question. It's all quite new. American judicial history has never seen a litigation campaign like this one before, all based upon conduct which violates various states' licensing laws, some of which make violation a felony, some of which make violation a misdemeanor. Probably you should follow Andersen v. Atlantic and Atlantic v. Raleigh for some specific instances of RICO litigation, and UMG v. Del Cid and Atlantic v. Boyer, on civil conspiracy to commit crime of unlicensed investigation, but nothing is definitive at this point. It will be years before we know the answer to your question.
MediaSentry refers to itself in court papers as "SafeNet, Inc, f/k/a MediaSentry, Inc.", which would connote a name change. See, e.g., the March 17, 2008, letter by Thomas Mullaney published here. So I didn't "lie", I merely took MediaSentry/Safenet's attorney at his word. So please do not be so quick to accuse me of lying. I do not lie.
I wasn't lying; I just made the mistake of relying upon RIAA/Safenet/MediaSentry's court papers which refer to Safenet and say "formerly known as MediaSentry". In reexamining them, I note that in at least one of those documents (PDF) the phrase "formerly known as" could be read to be modifying Safenet, or it could be read to be modifying just "the MediaSentry product development unit of Safenet". So if it is so that MediaSentry was acquired by Safenet I apologize and stand corrected.
Michigan *law* prohibited unlicensed investigations without the need for a court order to explicitly stop each occurrence, which should have been as much legal proscription as these bozos needed. Similarly, burglars generally aren't sent subpoenas or C&Ds in connection with breaking into people's houses.
What makes me feel good is that these additional instances of violating the law, after they were informed by the DLEG that they need a license, will weigh against them at their sentencing.
Just so people are aware, MediaSentry is owned by a greater company, SafeNet. SafeNet controls their operations and is headquartered in Belcamp, MD (1/2 mile from me, as it turns out).
Actually SafeNet is MediaSentry; MediaSentry just changed its name to SafeNet.
They haven't had any injunctions against them or any court orders to stop... so why would they quit? They may be a scummy company, but I can't really blame them for not stopping when they're just being investigated, but no one is forcing them to stop. However, my hope is that the investigation will make them have to pay fines for each infraction, and that any evidence found in every single case they help with will be thrown out.
They weren't exactly ordered to stop but they were gently reminded on February 22nd.
I would especially point you to this part of the article you are discussing, which I think makes it clear that Jon put the blame on the RIAA, not on the kids or their families:
Questions
A number of questions go begging, however.
* Did the kids appearing in the commercials know exactly what the script would have them saying - specifically, that the word 'prosecuted' would be used? And did they know there'd be suggestive overlays superimposed while their images flashed up?
* Did the 'actors' or their parents or their guardians or lawyers see and OK the ads - and the various elements such as the overlays - in writing after they'd been edited and approved for airing by Pepsi and Apple?
* Were they given the option of backing out if they didn't like the look of the final cut, if they indeed saw it?
* Was the agreement between BBDO and the teenagers carefully crafted and honestly written to protect them?
* Or was it a standard 'name and likeness for a fee' boilerplate or worse, a cold and cynical contract made by a calculating team of highly paid lawyers and account executives with 16 naive and easily impressed youngsters to insulate Pepsi, iTunes and CBS from possible libel suits filed by the teenagers after the ad was cut?
The best coverage of this has been on p2pnet.net, where Jon Newton has been trying to get answers out of these people as to (1) where this drivel comes from, (2) who is responsible for it, and (3) when is it going to be corrected or withdrawn? See, e.g,
here, , and here.
whether the ESA's hiring of this guy is a sign that they are about to go to war against end users like the RIAA has been doing, or whether it's just an ordinary personnel-type move.
"The same RIAA executive who defended a $222,000 verdict over 24 song files at an academic conference back in March, Kenneth Doroshow, is leaving the RIAA"
I'm pretty sure if he didn't defend that verdict, as an RIAA executive, he wouldn't have been an RIAA executive for very long. Maybe he's leaving the RIAA since he's realized their business practices are shit, and he got tired of defending them? I don't know, but it's possible.
When I mention that he defended it, I mention it to show that he is shameless, and would defend the indefensible. He brought up the subject. He did not have to bring up the subject of a verdict of $222,000 over $23.76 worth of song files, where the copyright infringement -- if it occurred at all -- caused damage in the neighborhood of $8. When I mentioned at the conference that the verdict had made us a laughingstock in the international community, our copanelist -- a Copyright Law professor from Australia -- agreed.
And how did he defend the verdict, by stating -- falsely -- that she 'might' have distributed '10,000,000' copies through Kazaa. As anyone familiar with software knows, her files probably could not have been copied by 100 people, let alone 10,000,000.
Part of me -- I guess my heart -- would like to believe that he left the RIAA because he was tired of defending them. But my brain tells me otherwise.
All I can say is... that if my husband tries to have another wife he most certainly will not live longer. He might very well not live to see another sunrise.
Well I guess that answers my question.
I was wondering whether I should try showing this article to my wife.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the DMCA is a attack to free speech. It has been abused many times to take down parodies or something someone did not personally like.
I respectfully disagree. It is not the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, it is abuse of the DMCA that is an attack on free speech, and this is something that needs to be stopped.
eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent?
Ray Beckerman, with all due respect, that is not at all how I see it. I have just resigned myself to the fact that a court case with a billion dollars at stake will not be lost because a California judge knocked down an infringement case about ten pornographic videos that were immediately taken down anyhow. Lawyers do not say goodbye to a billion that easily!
Of course that is not why the YouTube case will be lost. The YouTube case will be lost because the California judge was right.
You are the lawyer however! It would bring me great joy to hear otherwise but I would expect Viacom's lawyers to play the same card they played in their press release--attempting to convince the judge that there are too many differences between these cases to consider Io Vs Veoh to be precedence.
Thing is, they can say anything they want to in a press release. In court, though, it's not so easy. If you make factual claims that aren't so, you will get burned. And if you make legal arguments that aren't supportable, you will get burned. Unfortunately, all Viacom has to work with is factual claims that aren't so, and legal arguments that aren't supportable. The end result of the YouTube case, if it is not settled, will be a multimillion dollar attorneys fee award against the plaintiffs.
It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.
The MPAA has a suit against YouTube? What is it? All I know of is Viacom's suit and, though a member, they are not every single Movie Picture Association of America Member.
You are right, I stand corrected. I had remembered it as being a gang of plaintiffs, but actually it was just a few.
Also, I think the 'nail in the coffin' phrase is being used to soon here. The cases I've been following seem to point to the entire US Justice System being in **AA's pet attack dog in witch trials. While there's been a few cases of common sense, the vast majority of cases are being settled out of court because the judge is a corporate pawn and insolent technology-wise.
Well point me to some monstrous decision, of recent vintage, supporting your thesis (and in doing so please confine yourself to cases where the defendant could afford a lawyer).
One would think that this builds up Google's defense against Viacom. I hope Google doesn't back down or cut a deal with Viacom. This case is proof they are in the right.
I agree. YouTube is clearly entitled to the "safe harbor" afforded by the DMCA, and the Viacom case should be thrown out. The mere pendency of such cases partially defeats the purpose of the DMCA, since it costs time and money to defend this nonsense.
The best thing about Io v. Veoh is that it dismisses the case on summary judgment, avoiding the necessity for a trial. Hopefully the Courts will start dismissing these types of cases even earlier, at their very outset.
I read this in Wired and found this quote from YouTube:
"It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights," YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine said in a statement. "YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online."
And this quote from Viacom:
"Even if the Veoh decision were to be considered by other courts, that case does nothing to change the fact that YouTube is a business built on infringement that has failed to take reasonable measures to respect the rights of creators and content owners. Google and YouTube have engaged in massive copyright infringement â" conduct that is not protected by any law, including the DMCA."
Probably not far from what one would expect either to say but I'm afraid this isn't going to do much for YouTube.
eldavojohn, with all due respect..... do you seriously think that just because they put out conflicting press releases that somehow nullifies the power of this decision as a judicial precedent? Do you really think the judge in Viacom v. Youtube cares about the press releases?
If so, I beg to differ. Not all the press releases in the world can deflect the clear and faultless reasoning exhibited by Judge Lloyd. We are having a sudden outbreak of sanity and respect for the plain meaning of statutes. This is so important. It is another nail in the coffin of the MPAA's frivolous suit against YouTube.
IMHO.
That's a good idea. I ought to start doing something like that, using "NewYorkCountryLawyer" merchandise as a fundraiser.
on the comic book debacle.
from p2pnet.net
The information comes from MediaSentry's lawyer. If it's neither "informative" or "true" that is par for the course. MediaSentry is known for making contradictory statements.
Or in establishing the case and penalties in a RICO countersuit... It seems to me that this lawlessness qualifies for RICO counteraction, against both MediaSentry and RIAA. (and could it be a class action??)
Very technical question. It's all quite new. American judicial history has never seen a litigation campaign like this one before, all based upon conduct which violates various states' licensing laws, some of which make violation a felony, some of which make violation a misdemeanor. Probably you should follow Andersen v. Atlantic and Atlantic v. Raleigh for some specific instances of RICO litigation, and UMG v. Del Cid and Atlantic v. Boyer, on civil conspiracy to commit crime of unlicensed investigation, but nothing is definitive at this point. It will be years before we know the answer to your question.
MediaSentry refers to itself in court papers as "SafeNet, Inc, f/k/a MediaSentry, Inc.", which would connote a name change. See, e.g., the March 17, 2008, letter by Thomas Mullaney published here. So I didn't "lie", I merely took MediaSentry/Safenet's attorney at his word. So please do not be so quick to accuse me of lying. I do not lie.
I wasn't lying; I just made the mistake of relying upon RIAA/Safenet/MediaSentry's court papers which refer to Safenet and say "formerly known as MediaSentry". In reexamining them, I note that in at least one of those documents (PDF) the phrase "formerly known as" could be read to be modifying Safenet, or it could be read to be modifying just "the MediaSentry product development unit of Safenet". So if it is so that MediaSentry was acquired by Safenet I apologize and stand corrected.
Michigan *law* prohibited unlicensed investigations without the need for a court order to explicitly stop each occurrence, which should have been as much legal proscription as these bozos needed. Similarly, burglars generally aren't sent subpoenas or C&Ds in connection with breaking into people's houses.
What makes me feel good is that these additional instances of violating the law, after they were informed by the DLEG that they need a license, will weigh against them at their sentencing.
It's both interesting and disturbing that "several legal scholars" would green-light a publication that depicts file-sharing as criminal infringement.
I guarantee that no "legal scholars" reviewed it, and that their claim that it was reviewed by "legal scholars" is fantasy.
Just so people are aware, MediaSentry is owned by a greater company, SafeNet. SafeNet controls their operations and is headquartered in Belcamp, MD (1/2 mile from me, as it turns out).
Actually SafeNet is MediaSentry; MediaSentry just changed its name to SafeNet.
They haven't had any injunctions against them or any court orders to stop... so why would they quit? They may be a scummy company, but I can't really blame them for not stopping when they're just being investigated, but no one is forcing them to stop. However, my hope is that the investigation will make them have to pay fines for each infraction, and that any evidence found in every single case they help with will be thrown out.
They weren't exactly ordered to stop but they were gently reminded on February 22nd.
Questions
A number of questions go begging, however.
* Did the kids appearing in the commercials know exactly what the script would have them saying - specifically, that the word 'prosecuted' would be used? And did they know there'd be suggestive overlays superimposed while their images flashed up?
* Did the 'actors' or their parents or their guardians or lawyers see and OK the ads - and the various elements such as the overlays - in writing after they'd been edited and approved for airing by Pepsi and Apple?
* Were they given the option of backing out if they didn't like the look of the final cut, if they indeed saw it?
* Was the agreement between BBDO and the teenagers carefully crafted and honestly written to protect them?
* Or was it a standard 'name and likeness for a fee' boilerplate or worse, a cold and cynical contract made by a calculating team of highly paid lawyers and account executives with 16 naive and easily impressed youngsters to insulate Pepsi, iTunes and CBS from possible libel suits filed by the teenagers after the ad was cut?
Mr. Beckerman, is it cool for a non-profit to front for a for-profit corporation?
It depends on what type of non-profit it is. If it's a 501(c)(3) corporation, it's definitely not "cool" (read not "legal").
Shill.
Definitely. Any post that starts out "I'm no friend of the RIAA, but...." is a dead giveaway.
I had no idea what you were talking about, but I went and read the link you provided, and I think your characterization of it is way, way off base.
The best coverage of this has been on p2pnet.net, where Jon Newton has been trying to get answers out of these people as to (1) where this drivel comes from, (2) who is responsible for it, and (3) when is it going to be corrected or withdrawn? See, e.g, here, , and here.
But this one was my favorite.
whether the ESA's hiring of this guy is a sign that they are about to go to war against end users like the RIAA has been doing, or whether it's just an ordinary personnel-type move.
"The same RIAA executive who defended a $222,000 verdict over 24 song files at an academic conference back in March, Kenneth Doroshow, is leaving the RIAA"
I'm pretty sure if he didn't defend that verdict, as an RIAA executive, he wouldn't have been an RIAA executive for very long. Maybe he's leaving the RIAA since he's realized their business practices are shit, and he got tired of defending them? I don't know, but it's possible.
When I mention that he defended it, I mention it to show that he is shameless, and would defend the indefensible. He brought up the subject. He did not have to bring up the subject of a verdict of $222,000 over $23.76 worth of song files, where the copyright infringement -- if it occurred at all -- caused damage in the neighborhood of $8. When I mentioned at the conference that the verdict had made us a laughingstock in the international community, our copanelist -- a Copyright Law professor from Australia -- agreed.
And how did he defend the verdict, by stating -- falsely -- that she 'might' have distributed '10,000,000' copies through Kazaa. As anyone familiar with software knows, her files probably could not have been copied by 100 people, let alone 10,000,000.
Part of me -- I guess my heart -- would like to believe that he left the RIAA because he was tired of defending them. But my brain tells me otherwise.
is any analysis of whether the more long-lived men in a polygamous society are those with multiple wives, or those with no wives.
All I can say is... that if my husband tries to have another wife he most certainly will not live longer. He might very well not live to see another sunrise.
Well I guess that answers my question.
I was wondering whether I should try showing this article to my wife.
I guess I'd better not.
there is no -1 Disagree
Now you tell me.