I'll have you know I don't even own a monkey suit.:-)
The dearly departed don't care what you wear, they're dead.
I've never been to a bar mitzvah.
For my only court appearance so far, I wore shorts and a T-shirt.
By the way, the article was written largely in March of this year. In June I submitted a proposed epilogue mentioning a few bits of late breaking news on the 'equal access to justice' issue. The Judges' Journal didn't have room to add it in, but here it is.
Yeah, it's called "being a good attorney". Being one yourself, you can certainly identify. The attorney's job is to present the client's arguments in the best possible light, and if he has to bend the law or ethics to do it, then that's his job. Breaking the law is OK too, as long as you don't get caught...
Maybe that's your definition of a good attorney. But it isn't mine.
How widely read is the ABA quarterly in the judging profession, and if it's not that high, how much would it cost to (and would it be worth doing to) send a dead-tree copy of the article to every judge in the country?
--Validity of Plaintiffs' Copyright Infringement Claim--
"Without actual distribution copies . . . there is no violation distribution right."
--William F. Patry, Patry Copyright, 2007.25
I assume that MediaSentry has some sort of signed agreement or license that gives the copies that they make in the course of thier "investigations-ha-ha-ha" the status of "authorized duplications". Without such a license or assignment of duplication rights, MediaSentry would be guilty of infringement themselves, would they not?
If said licenses or assignments do in fact exist, why can the "evidence" of the download transaction (a copy being made) be termed an act of "Unauthorized Distribution" if the party actively making the copy is explicitly "authorized" to make said copies?
A very thorough yet accessible article. Very well done- a wonderful job of putting together a complex set of factual and legal issues.
Do you suppose someone at the RIAA will read and (in any way) react to this?
My guess is that they've been reading it, and preparing a public relations counterattack. It's not in their nature to learn something from it; they're not programmed to learn.
Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun.
I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law.
Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.
The legal profession is just starting to catch up to Slashdot, but we'll come around.
I know of the shady tactics used by teh RIAA, but even thou I have been reading slashdot and groklaw for years, I was nto aware of the extent to which these companies have systematically and intentionally violated even the most basic court principles with the intention to scare ordinary people. Let them hang I say...
Oh, and well done Ray, I will be saving this article as an example of why we need due process.
Yes it's pretty astonishing the lengths to which they will go to make sure the defendant doesn't have a fair shake in court.
All I want to say is God Bless you, Ray Beckerman.. You are the lone voice crying in the wilderness against the RIAA/MPAA... May you continue fighting the good fight!!
Thank you for your kind words. But I am not alone. I have been joined in this fight by many fine men and women all across the country, lawyers and defendants alike. We learn from each other, and help and support and get strength from each other.
I'll second that! I'll never need this info personally, but feel this is for a greater good. The voice of NYCL is a breath of fresh air compared to the hostile assholes who are waging a war on potential customers and anyone who gets in their way. To bring some fairness to the people who are getting railroaded by the RIAA and their draconian tactics is a very, very good thing. Doing something helpful for someone you may never meet is commendable.
...let me modify the hypothetical just a little, to make it like an analogy:
Suppose instead I had a booth at the flea market, with a large library of all original CDs, and a duplication machine. I have a sign on the booth that says: "CD library - access $5/hour. Duplication machine rental - $3 per hour. Bring your own blank CDs."
Now am I a distributor? Bustable? I made it available for duplication. Is that more analogous to sharing files?
Good hypothetical (at least I hope it's hypothetical).
You're right--there's no doubt that they're hypocrites.
What I wonder is whether they won that argument when the shoe was on the other foot? I don't have any way to see whether or not they won that particular point.
In other words, the only reason they've been getting away with this for so long is uninformed judiciary.
Not really. The only reason they've gotten this far is that there haven't been more defendants fighting back. Once properly briefed, the judges are getting wise to what is going on. E.g., compare this decision, against a litigant who had no representation, to the subsequent decision in the same case, rendered after the litigant and the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought some of the applicable authorities to the judge's attention, or take a look at Judge Davis's painful realization in Minnesota that he had been misled by the RIAA's lawyers into committing a "manifest error of law".
Probably, neither of the initial judicial errors would have occurred had the issue been properly briefed in the first place.
Ours is an adversary system of justice; only if defendants fight back will the truth come out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have you know I don't even own a monkey suit. :-)
The dearly departed don't care what you wear, they're dead.
I've never been to a bar mitzvah.
For my only court appearance so far, I wore shorts and a T-shirt.
OK OK.
I take back the part about "just like you".
Not so. Artists who sell 50,000 albums direct to the public can make more money than if they sold 500,000 albums through a record label.
By the way, the article was written largely in March of this year. In June I submitted a proposed epilogue mentioning a few bits of late breaking news on the 'equal access to justice' issue. The Judges' Journal didn't have room to add it in, but here it is.
He gets paid to submit articles to Slashdot?
Don't I wish.
Ray, You rock! Great article! I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy. Seriously, I sent the link to both my friends!
Thanks for reminding me. I need to send it to my friend.
I? Who the fuck are you?
You must be new here.
I'm not a potential RIAA target (at least from anything I'VE done...),
That was also true for MOST of the people who HAVE been targeted.
Yeah, it's called "being a good attorney". Being one yourself, you can certainly identify. The attorney's job is to present the client's arguments in the best possible light, and if he has to bend the law or ethics to do it, then that's his job. Breaking the law is OK too, as long as you don't get caught...
Maybe that's your definition of a good attorney. But it isn't mine.
Please look again. I have no "foes".
How widely read is the ABA quarterly in the judging profession, and if it's not that high, how much would it cost to (and would it be worth doing to) send a dead-tree copy of the article to every judge in the country?
It's very widely read among judges.
--Validity of Plaintiffs' Copyright Infringement Claim-- "Without actual distribution copies . . . there is no violation distribution right." --William F. Patry, Patry Copyright, 2007.25 I assume that MediaSentry has some sort of signed agreement or license that gives the copies that they make in the course of thier "investigations-ha-ha-ha" the status of "authorized duplications". Without such a license or assignment of duplication rights, MediaSentry would be guilty of infringement themselves, would they not? If said licenses or assignments do in fact exist, why can the "evidence" of the download transaction (a copy being made) be termed an act of "Unauthorized Distribution" if the party actively making the copy is explicitly "authorized" to make said copies?
1. It's not a "distribution".
2. It's not "unauthorized".
5) None of the above.
A very thorough yet accessible article. Very well done- a wonderful job of putting together a complex set of factual and legal issues. Do you suppose someone at the RIAA will read and (in any way) react to this?
My guess is that they've been reading it, and preparing a public relations counterattack. It's not in their nature to learn something from it; they're not programmed to learn.
My understanding is that the RIAA downloads from their victims, then sues them for making those files available.
That's exactly right. Pretty pathetic, isn't it?
"I only wear the monkey suit for special events such as funerals, bar mitzvahs, and court appearances. I.e., just like you."
Eh, I dunno, the last bar mitzvah I went to, I dressed like a renaissance knight.
Well I'm not a trend-setter like you.
Funny, I didn't realize the ABA utilized slashcode.
I guess you didn't read my Slashdot interview and the comments which followed it, where I said quite clearly:
Thank you all for the interview, and for the rough and tumble comment period which followed it. I really enjoyed it. It was incredible fun. I've even learned an important new legal research method in the process. A lawyer can't just read a bunch of cases and statutes to know what the law is. He also needs to come to Slashdot, because if somebody here says something's the law, and it gets moderated to +5, then it's the law. Maybe lawyers don't know it, and Congress doesn't know it, and the judges don't know it, but sooner or later, I'm sure they'll come around.
The legal profession is just starting to catch up to Slashdot, but we'll come around.
music thieves and the large Internet criminal element do thank you, NewYorkCountryLawyer
Is that you, MediaSentry? I didn't know the internet criminal element were posting in this thread.
I know of the shady tactics used by teh RIAA, but even thou I have been reading slashdot and groklaw for years, I was nto aware of the extent to which these companies have systematically and intentionally violated even the most basic court principles with the intention to scare ordinary people. Let them hang I say... Oh, and well done Ray, I will be saving this article as an example of why we need due process.
Yes it's pretty astonishing the lengths to which they will go to make sure the defendant doesn't have a fair shake in court.
All I want to say is God Bless you, Ray Beckerman.. You are the lone voice crying in the wilderness against the RIAA/MPAA... May you continue fighting the good fight!!
Thank you for your kind words. But I am not alone. I have been joined in this fight by many fine men and women all across the country, lawyers and defendants alike. We learn from each other, and help and support and get strength from each other.
I'll second that! I'll never need this info personally, but feel this is for a greater good. The voice of NYCL is a breath of fresh air compared to the hostile assholes who are waging a war on potential customers and anyone who gets in their way. To bring some fairness to the people who are getting railroaded by the RIAA and their draconian tactics is a very, very good thing. Doing something helpful for someone you may never meet is commendable.
Thank you, count.
I'm a Sudoku fan myself.
That article has a picture of you. Do you know what that means? It means it's harder to make snarky comments.
No problem. You can keep on making snarky comments.
Now my replies need to be thought out!
Don't start on my account.
I mean, you look like one of us
I am one of you.
(except for the monkey suit).
I only wear the monkey suit for special events such as funerals, bar mitzvahs, and court appearances. I.e., just like you.
Saw your pic. I thought you were younger!
I used to be much younger. But that was quite a while ago.
...let me modify the hypothetical just a little, to make it like an analogy:
Suppose instead I had a booth at the flea market, with a large library of all original CDs, and a duplication machine. I have a sign on the booth that says: "CD library - access $5/hour. Duplication machine rental - $3 per hour. Bring your own blank CDs."
Now am I a distributor? Bustable? I made it available for duplication. Is that more analogous to sharing files?
Good hypothetical (at least I hope it's hypothetical).
You're right--there's no doubt that they're hypocrites. What I wonder is whether they won that argument when the shoe was on the other foot? I don't have any way to see whether or not they won that particular point.
They won. The Court agreed that 10 times the actual damages was unconstitutional.
In other words, the only reason they've been getting away with this for so long is uninformed judiciary.
Not really. The only reason they've gotten this far is that there haven't been more defendants fighting back. Once properly briefed, the judges are getting wise to what is going on. E.g., compare this decision, against a litigant who had no representation, to the subsequent decision in the same case, rendered after the litigant and the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought some of the applicable authorities to the judge's attention, or take a look at Judge Davis's painful realization in Minnesota that he had been misled by the RIAA's lawyers into committing a "manifest error of law".
Probably, neither of the initial judicial errors would have occurred had the issue been properly briefed in the first place.
Ours is an adversary system of justice; only if defendants fight back will the truth come out.