If the current legal framework, followed to the letter, does not protect someone's legal rights, then by definition the current legal framework is inadequate. If your heart bleeds for the 4 recording companies and 6 motion picture companies who are behind this wave of litigation, then you should be the one suggesting a better legal framework. I (along with almost everyone else in the world) think these companies are more than adequately protected by United States copyright law, which is probably the MOST protective copyright law in the world.
Look, you can't just assume. You have to prove damages. Spoilsport. That type of thinking would bring the RIAA litigation campaign to a crashing halt. Want to put the RIAA's lawyers out of business?
I have to say way to go for NewYorkCountryLawyer to have the balls for telling it like it is to the VP of the RIAA. The fact that an Australian professor also agreed to the statements should have been a wake up call to Kenneth Doroshow that these tactics are ludicrous.
However, it probably went in one ear of Dorshow and out the other. Sadly greed and power tend to block things like common sense and intelligence. My impression was that it did not go in one ear and out the other. My impression is that Mr. Doroshow is well aware of how stupid he and his clients look.... and are. They are professional advocates, and will never back down until their clients call them off. But don't confuse what he says with what he knows, because if he believes what he says then he would have to be stupid; and I do not think he is stupid, far from it. If you look carefully at his 'keynote' address you will see that it almost entirely avoids addressing the primary subject of the panel, which was "statutory damages". Instead he talked about the facts of the Jammie Thomas case, a subject on which he could say whatever he wants since nobody in the room knows about the factual record as well as he. Prof. Samuelson immediately jumped on this rather gaping omission. Why did he avoid the subject? Because he has no non-ludicrous thing to say about it.
I have to say, going into a den of lions like that and holding your own in an environment of scorn and ridicule takes serious guts. Thanks, magus. But I don't think there was as much "scorn and ridicule" there as the naked transcript suggests. Only Prof. Hansen was playing that game, and I don't think he really in his heart felt either "scorn" or "ridicule"; I think he was just trying to utilize his 'bully pulpit' for the purpose of propagandizing. There were people in the audience whom he wished to influence, including the Register of Copyrights, MaryBeth Peters. He was quite respectful to me at all other times, as were Mr. Doroshow, Mr. Schlesinger, and Ms. Peters, and everyone else. All of the people to whom I spoke appeared to be very aware of the weakness of the "making available" theory, and the ludicrousness and probable illegality of statutory damages that are 23,000 times the actual damages. And I am certain that Prof. Hansen is well aware of both.
Who is NewYorkCountryLawyer, and why does he talk about himself in third person? You must be new here. Bra-vo! Three different layers of humor, and doubly self-referential, in four words. Nice. Thanks.
I don't think he really thought it was an ad hominem. I think he was being ironic, i.e. saying that my saying they were "best paid by large content owners" was an "ad hominem".
You actually said this about America with a straight face: The law runs the country. This is a nation of law, not a country of lawyers who are best paid by large content owners. Yes. I said it with a straight face. The law runs the country. Yes there are 4 record companies and 6 motion picture companies who are doing their best to distort the law, but in the end the law will prevail. The federal judiciary was caught off guard by this bizarre litigation onslaught, but more and more judges are doing their homework and getting wise to what is going on. The RIAA is losing.
I'm curious why "Professor Hansen" would take a position. As an academic, I would have expected him to be neutral, or at least biased in favor of some interpretation of law. Any opinion?
Is it possible that he considered himself smarter than you because you're just a attorney and he's just a lawyer?;) 1. Personally, I think a moderator should put his own biases aside when acting as a moderator, but Prof. Hansen has been very successful in putting this together, so who am I to say?
2. Most likely the reason he's biased is that he has been representing some large content owning companies.
3. No I don't think he considered himself smarter than me. He's just afraid that I'm right. In fact, I think he knows that I'm right, but wants to persuade the legal community to think otherwise.
4. Two things that never really come across in transcripts are (a) humor and (b) irony. In my opinion, Hugh Hansen is a very funny, self-effacing, guy with a good sense of humor, and the transcript doesn't really do that justice. He knew that the things I was saying were important, and represented valid views of the law; that's why he invited me as a speaker. And he invited other people, as well, who are not in agreement with his views.
That being said, I would prefer speaking in an environment where the moderator treats my views with respect, and where the conference does not have an agenda of propagandizing for the moderator's viewpoint. Many of the attendees, many of whom were lawyers from foreign countries, may have been misled by the intellectually dishonest presentation Michael Schlesinger gave.
All in all, this experience was a little like being on the Bill O'Reilly Show.
Well if you haven't read the decision of Judge Neil V. Wake in Atlantic v. Howell yet, I commend it to your attention. Good work deserves to be recognized.
By the way, I have never claimed to be a "rational and intelligent" person. I just claimed to be right.
As to me as a "person", I'm just a regular guy, no more "rational" or "intelligent" than anyone else.
Only on my blog and p2pnet.net. I submitted it to Slashdot on March 26th, but it was rejected.
My stories, which are usually submitted under "yro" -- "Your Rights Online" -- sometimes go through mysterious voting patterns in Firehose. Sometimes I'll submit a story, it immediately starts ascending in the Firehose, and then all of a sudden it starts plummeting.
I guess Mr. Beckerman really touched a nerve. You bet I did. But the nerve was touched several years ago, when people started fighting back against this massive campaign to rewrite copyright law.
My favorite quote so far: You reject the idea that the intellectual elite, which I think is fairly represented here, should not run this country?
MR. BECKERMAN: The law runs the country. This is a nation of law, not a country of lawyers who are best paid by large content owners. Ad-hominem or not, that just made my day. Thanks, Sanity. Much appreciated.
Actually I would wager that the GP Anonymous Coward post is an RIAA employee or lawyer, because he keeps putting in the same post almost every time I submit a story, not even changing the words. Only RIAA flunkies are that stupid that they can't think of a few new words.
You must be new here. I am suing you for cleaning the sprayed coffee out of my keyboard. You have been served.Ray, you are now officially one of us - for better or for worse. I throw myself on the mercy of the Court. (Always wanted to say that)
Thing is, although I can't locate the pocket protectors I used to wear, and never was able to figure out how to tape my broken eyeglasses, I have felt at home on Slashdot, from the first day I happened here back in 2005.
You must be new here. I am suing you for cleaning the sprayed coffee out of my keyboard. You have been served.
Ray, you are now officially one of us - for better or for worse. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. (Always wanted to say that.)
Was that the transcript of the entire discussion? Yes, except that the 'keynote address' from the "making available" panel was omitted, which is odd, but perhaps not when one
considers how off base they were.
Was that the transcript of the entire discussion? It seems a bit odd to me that the organizers would go to the trouble of assembling the panel and an audience including some foreign lawyers only to have what appeared to be a brief twenty (20) minute discussion and then take no questions at the end. Perhaps Professor Hansen didn't like how the discussion was unfolding and cut it short so that he wouldn't lose the debate. Isn't it a bit unusual and irregular for the moderator to take a position up front anyway? What ever happened to the impartial and unbiased moderator concept? The panel was scheduled for 30 minutes. It probably ran a bit shorter than that. Yes it is unusual, when in the moderator role, to "take a position up front" like that. I'd never seen that before. My constructive advice to Hugh -- who doesn't need my advice -- would be to chill on the partisanship next time. He's a very funny guy, so maybe he thinks it's more entertaining this way.
PROF. HANSEN: Okay, Ray. Thanks. You reject the idea that the intellectual elite, which I think is fairly represented here, should not run this country?
MR. BECKERMAN: The law runs the country. This is a nation of law, not a country of lawyers who are best paid by large content owners.
PROF. HANSEN: Ray, let's not get ad hominem. You know what ad hominem means? You've got a losing argument and you're desperate. So just stick to the merits. Jane?
I am not an expert on rhetoric, but this seems wrong to me - Beckerman apparently wasn't discrediting the argument, "the law runs the country" is the statement he uses to counter the question by Hansen. As I see it, the suffix statement rather serves to state the alternative, not to attack the Prof. personally. You are quite right. There was nothing whatsoever "ad hominem" about what I was saying. Prof. Hansen had taken a vote among the audience participants (?!), most of whom were lawyers who represent large companies who are large content owners as to how they thought the "making available" issue would play out, and then suggested to me that the vote was authoritative. I was just reminding him that we are a nation of laws. Fortunately, 3 federal judges also reminded him of that during the ensuing month.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Follow the Copyright Act.
2. Follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Follow the US Constitution and make sure that statutory damages are not violative of the Due Process clause.
4. Follow normal, traditional practices of the copyright bar, in seeking to avoid, rather than rushing to precipitate, litigation.
I think that would be "fair", "reasonable", and "practical". Why don't you?
I don't think they're detractors. I think its record company shills or employees.
I don't think he really thought it was an ad hominem. I think he was being ironic, i.e. saying that my saying they were "best paid by large content owners" was an "ad hominem".
He meant to say "You reject the idea that the intellectual elite, which I think is fairly represented here, should run this country?"
I think he was just kidding around.
2. Most likely the reason he's biased is that he has been representing some large content owning companies.
3. No I don't think he considered himself smarter than me. He's just afraid that I'm right. In fact, I think he knows that I'm right, but wants to persuade the legal community to think otherwise.
4. Two things that never really come across in transcripts are (a) humor and (b) irony. In my opinion, Hugh Hansen is a very funny, self-effacing, guy with a good sense of humor, and the transcript doesn't really do that justice. He knew that the things I was saying were important, and represented valid views of the law; that's why he invited me as a speaker. And he invited other people, as well, who are not in agreement with his views.
That being said, I would prefer speaking in an environment where the moderator treats my views with respect, and where the conference does not have an agenda of propagandizing for the moderator's viewpoint. Many of the attendees, many of whom were lawyers from foreign countries, may have been misled by the intellectually dishonest presentation Michael Schlesinger gave.
All in all, this experience was a little like being on the Bill O'Reilly Show.
Well if you haven't read the decision of Judge Neil V. Wake in Atlantic v. Howell yet, I commend it to your attention. Good work deserves to be recognized.
By the way, I have never claimed to be a "rational and intelligent" person. I just claimed to be right.
As to me as a "person", I'm just a regular guy, no more "rational" or "intelligent" than anyone else.
Only on my blog and p2pnet.net. I submitted it to Slashdot on March 26th, but it was rejected.
My stories, which are usually submitted under "yro" -- "Your Rights Online" -- sometimes go through mysterious voting patterns in Firehose. Sometimes I'll submit a story, it immediately starts ascending in the Firehose, and then all of a sudden it starts plummeting.
Actually I would wager that the GP Anonymous Coward post is an RIAA employee or lawyer, because he keeps putting in the same post almost every time I submit a story, not even changing the words. Only RIAA flunkies are that stupid that they can't think of a few new words.
Thing is, although I can't locate the pocket protectors I used to wear, and never was able to figure out how to tape my broken eyeglasses, I have felt at home on Slashdot, from the first day I happened here back in 2005.
it's not their styles to pick on people who can fight back. And colleges and universities are people who can fight back.