Wasn't there a post here on/. last year about the RIAA actively avoiding Harvard because of its legal talent and financial ability to fight? I always thought that epitomized this corporate bullying.
Yes. Like all schoolyard bullies they are cowards, and fear those who are
not afraid to fight back.
Ray,
Thanks for the updates -- with so little in the way of good things happening on various political and legal fronts, it is great that you spend the time to keep fellow readers informed and encouraged.
Thanks, Tasteless. But it's partly self interest. After spending so much time dealing with the RIAA ghouls, I have to have something to look forward to. Dealing with those guys can make you sour on the human race. Slashdot, on the other hand, makes me smile. Sometimes even laugh out loud. This is the fun part of my day.
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective?
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
Cool.
(And I say that at the risk of being modded "Overrated".)
Took them long enough to become exasperated. With the notable exception of Oregon - and even there it took more than one suit to get the State A.G. involved - all of these colleges/universities/bastions of free and open thinking and individual rights have been very slow to fight back against these spurious lawsuits.
Yes they have been too slow. But perhaps the sleeping giant has been finally awakened from its slumber.
How can any such order be justified in the light of the first amendment protection of free speech?
Because it is not absolute. It has never been absolute. It is balanced against other interests. A prior restraint of speech is legal if it is a proportionate response to a "clear and present danger". I can assure you that much less threatening 'speech' has been held to represent a "clear and present danger".
Oh, and the next to last thing they want to do is accept $200 per song file, and in so doing be deemed to have acquiesced in a reduction of their nationwide $750 per song file theory, which has informed every one of their 40,000 or so cases. So I guess you could say they're between a rock and a hard place.
Slashdot gives me very little space in which to put the headline. How would you have put it in the same amount of space?
By the way, I think the RIAA feels 'foiled'... the last thing they want to do is now start preparing for a trial, in San Antonio, Texas, of the issue of whether this sweet young lady was a deliberate copyright infringer. (1) It will cost the plaintiffs at least $50,000, maybe even more, the way their lawyers bill. (2) They will lose. (3) They will look like total idiots.
Why doesn't someone simply tell the judge about it?
Defendant is represented by counsel. I'm sure her counsel will tell the judge about it, if it comes up. If the RIAA takes the judge's offer, though, it might not come up.
When the judge figures it out, can he/she do anything about it?
Yes.
The real question is whether the judge will find out about it. If the case gets closed out now, he may never find out about it. If the case goes to trial, he likely will find out about it.
Well, when you do tip your hand I hope that the RIAA feels properly violated in a most uncomfortable fashion.
With your history here, I expect you will share the joy with us.
Keep fighting the good fight for us Ray, your efforts leave me all warm and fuzzy inside!:)
I have a hunch the RIAA's going to take their $200 and run. They don't want to be around when this judge figures out he's been sold a bill of goods.
The question is not whether there should be punishment, the question is whether the punishment fits the crime. $200 a song is outrageous (let alone the $750 normally fined). There is a huge difference between punishment and enslavement. This person would have to work forever to pay off this debt. That hardly fits the crime. Make him pay 2, 3, 4 or even 6 times the cost of the song and that would be punishment enough... but 200 times?!? That is unconscionable. The RIAA needs to be taken down a few notches and SHAME on the courts for allowing them to run their racket as long as they have.
I agree, decoy. Hopefully, though, the judges are starting to get wise to the fraud that has been put over on them.
I mean most people think, and correctly so in most cases, that if you pay for something, that means it is legal for you to use/have it.
That is so true. I remember a 'cable descrambler' case that occurred about 10 years ago. A guy bought this thing in a big chain electronics store; it was the featured item on display in the front of the store; it cost a small fortune, about 2 or 3 times what a VCR cost at the time; he assumed there was some kind of license fee built into it.
And when the defense brings up Atlantic v. Howell, we can hope that even the 'making available' bit goes away.
It's too late for the defense to raise new sources: the court has already ruled on this dispute. If they wanted to cite Atlantic v. Howell they should have done it already. Now the judge says that since it was agreed that files were "made available", infringement has already been established and all that remains is to decide on the damages. This is really serious -- the problem is the reverse of what you claim. Now whenever a defendants will cite Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA will cite Maverick v. Harper in return.
I don't think it's as serious as all that. But I can't go into detail, wouldn't want to tip my hand. The RIAA is not celebrating this decision; believe me.
"Stealing America : Vote by Vote" is an important movie that's out in theaters; it just premiered in New York City and is touring across the country. The HBO thing was good but this is better, and covers a number of things the HBO movie did not cover.
There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that 'copyright' is a 'natural right'. All that is in the Constitution is an authorization to Congress to grant limited copyrights if it so chooses. Congress is given permission, if it so chooses, to give authors and inventors, only for a limited time, certain rights, for the purpose of encouraging them to continue with their creative work. Congress was not given permission to grant the rights for more than a limited time, nor was there any grant of authority to encourage corporations, with perpetual lives, to accumulate copyrights for the sake of profit. Today's duration of copyrights, which exceeds the life expectancy of the authors, and goes well beyond anything necessary to encourage them to continue their work, is flagrantly unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
You gotta be kidding. I don't have the time for this. I'm a wreck.
Couldn't the people who did this just pin the blame on the RIAA itself and get off scot-free?
No.
It's not a defense to criminal liability that someone else hired you to commit the crime.
But the RIAA and its lawyers could be 'aiders and abettors'.
Slashdot, on the other hand, makes me smile. Sometimes even laugh out loud. This is the fun part of my day.
I'm not sure whether to say "You're welcome" or "oh I am so sorry to hear that!"
You know full well. It's the latter.
Wasn't there a post here on /. last year about the RIAA actively avoiding Harvard because of its legal talent and financial ability to fight? I always thought that epitomized this corporate bullying.
Yes. Like all schoolyard bullies they are cowards, and fear those who are
not afraid
to fight
back.
Ray, Thanks for the updates -- with so little in the way of good things happening on various political and legal fronts, it is great that you spend the time to keep fellow readers informed and encouraged.
Thanks, Tasteless. But it's partly self interest. After spending so much time dealing with the RIAA ghouls, I have to have something to look forward to. Dealing with those guys can make you sour on the human race. Slashdot, on the other hand, makes me smile. Sometimes even laugh out loud. This is the fun part of my day.
You must be new here.
Thanks, karnal. Of course he's new here. If he knew me better he'd know that I don't know what "exchange-connected" means.
I suggest you do a little reading about NYCL here before you try to bash him. He's contributed a whole hell of a lot more than you (or I) ever will.
Thank you for coming to my aid, woot.
If he knew me better he'd know I can't afford a tie.
I know, I was just trying to make a joke. IIRC, s/*/*/g is the Find/Replace command for ed [wikipedia.org]
I knew it was something like that, although I didn't know exactly. I didn't really think this was Billboard, either.
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective?
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
Cool.
(And I say that at the risk of being modded "Overrated".)
...RIAA's unlicensed investigator, SafeNet a/k/a MediaSentry, one of which...
This is Slashdot. Isn't that supposed to be: s/SafeNet/MediaSentry/g
Oh I thought this was Billboard. I was trying to say "SafeNet, the criminal formerly known as MediaSentry".
Took them long enough to become exasperated. With the notable exception of Oregon - and even there it took more than one suit to get the State A.G. involved - all of these colleges/universities/bastions of free and open thinking and individual rights have been very slow to fight back against these spurious lawsuits.
Yes they have been too slow. But perhaps the sleeping giant has been finally awakened from its slumber.
How can any such order be justified in the light of the first amendment protection of free speech?
Because it is not absolute. It has never been absolute. It is balanced against other interests. A prior restraint of speech is legal if it is a proportionate response to a "clear and present danger". I can assure you that much less threatening 'speech' has been held to represent a "clear and present danger".
it isn't like this situation posed a danger to anything other than the pocketbooks of the system being discussed
Well if the system that provides for public safety has its money ripped off, that would definitely endanger public safety.
Oh, and the next to last thing they want to do is accept $200 per song file, and in so doing be deemed to have acquiesced in a reduction of their nationwide $750 per song file theory, which has informed every one of their 40,000 or so cases. So I guess you could say they're between a rock and a hard place.
Slashdot gives me very little space in which to put the headline. How would you have put it in the same amount of space?
By the way, I think the RIAA feels 'foiled'... the last thing they want to do is now start preparing for a trial, in San Antonio, Texas, of the issue of whether this sweet young lady was a deliberate copyright infringer. (1) It will cost the plaintiffs at least $50,000, maybe even more, the way their lawyers bill. (2) They will lose. (3) They will look like total idiots.
Why doesn't someone simply tell the judge about it?
Defendant is represented by counsel. I'm sure her counsel will tell the judge about it, if it comes up. If the RIAA takes the judge's offer, though, it might not come up.
When the judge figures it out, can he/she do anything about it?
Yes.
The real question is whether the judge will find out about it. If the case gets closed out now, he may never find out about it. If the case goes to trial, he likely will find out about it.
Well, when you do tip your hand I hope that the RIAA feels properly violated in a most uncomfortable fashion. With your history here, I expect you will share the joy with us. Keep fighting the good fight for us Ray, your efforts leave me all warm and fuzzy inside! :)
I have a hunch the RIAA's going to take their $200 and run. They don't want to be around when this judge figures out he's been sold a bill of goods.
The question is not whether there should be punishment, the question is whether the punishment fits the crime. $200 a song is outrageous (let alone the $750 normally fined). There is a huge difference between punishment and enslavement. This person would have to work forever to pay off this debt. That hardly fits the crime. Make him pay 2, 3, 4 or even 6 times the cost of the song and that would be punishment enough... but 200 times?!? That is unconscionable. The RIAA needs to be taken down a few notches and SHAME on the courts for allowing them to run their racket as long as they have.
I agree, decoy. Hopefully, though, the judges are starting to get wise to the fraud that has been put over on them.
I mean most people think, and correctly so in most cases, that if you pay for something, that means it is legal for you to use/have it.
That is so true. I remember a 'cable descrambler' case that occurred about 10 years ago. A guy bought this thing in a big chain electronics store; it was the featured item on display in the front of the store; it cost a small fortune, about 2 or 3 times what a VCR cost at the time; he assumed there was some kind of license fee built into it.
Apparently, there wasn't.
And when the defense brings up Atlantic v. Howell, we can hope that even the 'making available' bit goes away.
It's too late for the defense to raise new sources: the court has already ruled on this dispute. If they wanted to cite Atlantic v. Howell they should have done it already. Now the judge says that since it was agreed that files were "made available", infringement has already been established and all that remains is to decide on the damages. This is really serious -- the problem is the reverse of what you claim. Now whenever a defendants will cite Atlantic v. Howell, the RIAA will cite Maverick v. Harper in return.
I don't think it's as serious as all that. But I can't go into detail, wouldn't want to tip my hand. The RIAA is not celebrating this decision; believe me.
I disagree with you that the issue which I presented has been decided by the US Supreme Court.
"Stealing America : Vote by Vote" is an important movie that's out in theaters; it just premiered in New York City and is touring across the country. The HBO thing was good but this is better, and covers a number of things the HBO movie did not cover.
No, 'moral right' is a specific concept that the author has the right to prevent people from altering his version.
There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that 'copyright' is a 'natural right'. All that is in the Constitution is an authorization to Congress to grant limited copyrights if it so chooses. Congress is given permission, if it so chooses, to give authors and inventors, only for a limited time, certain rights, for the purpose of encouraging them to continue with their creative work. Congress was not given permission to grant the rights for more than a limited time, nor was there any grant of authority to encourage corporations, with perpetual lives, to accumulate copyrights for the sake of profit. Today's duration of copyrights, which exceeds the life expectancy of the authors, and goes well beyond anything necessary to encourage them to continue their work, is flagrantly unconstitutional.