universities. After all, as we recently discussed on Slashdot, in a story also posted by Soulskill, they sued an ISP in Ireland for not using Doug Jacobson's "Audible Magic" software.
Verified:
Jacobson's Deposition [blogspot.com], Pages 5-7 - It says he sells packet monitoring software to universities, through his company Palisade Systems [palisadesys.com]
.
I just love how obviously un-impartial this guy truly is (not to mention the well established ineptitude of his methodology and statements, which has been discussed on slashdot a number of times before). Yes, and the letters mysteriously stop as soon as the university coughs up $76,000 to buy his software. Definitely something to look into.
Yeah they have a problem here. The main problem is they have a judge who (a) cares, and (b) reads. That's a deadly combination for the RIAA's litigation meat grinder.
You have an interesting definition of "losing", I fear. Hmmm. Accomplishing nothing whatsoever for your clients.... getting the whole underlying theory of your litigation campaign blown out from under you.... getting hit with attorneys fee awards in two cases.... being brought up on charges of a Rule 11 violation by a Magistrate..... getting caught in lies..... finding out that your investigators, upon whose 'investigation' your entire campaign is based, happen to be operating illegally.... finding out that your 'expert witness' passes none of the Daubert reliability tests.... incurring millions and millions of dollars in attorneys fees, while receiving much less than that back in settlements and/or recoveries.... "deterring" no one, although "deterrence" was your goal.... watching your company's stock go into the toilet...... having to defend a nationwide class action.... having to deal with criminal investigations for using unlicensed investigators which will probably probe your role as an 'aider and abettor'.... being made a laughingstock throughout the world.... being able to win only cases where the defendant doesn't show up, where the defendant can't afford a lawyer, or where the lawyer is not competent, and even then losing some cases where the defendant never even bothered to show up, or where the defendant had to represent himself because he couldn't afford a lawyer..... losing money on every single litigation you bring. It may or may not fit your criteria for "losing", but it sure doesn't sound like it would fit anyone's definition of "winning".
After several years of obvious abuse of the legal system, it seems like a small number of court cases might finally put an end to a tactic that has been pretty much unethical from the start. Winning and losing don't happen overnight, it takes time. You win some battles, you lose some battles, but somewhere along the line someone wins the war. "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."
However, I'll wager that there are still plenty of people who have settled in the last month, presumably paying out silly sums of money, as a result of the RIAA's legal tactics. Definitely. But I would wager that every month the percentage of people fighting, rather than settling, is greater than in the month before.
How much has the RIAA paid to anyone in return, apart from its own lawyers? We don't know that. There have been confidential settlements where attorneys fees were probably paid to the defendant, but since they're confidential we'll never know the amount. We do know that (a) there has been a $68,685 attorneys fee payment by the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster, and (b) there will be an attorneys fee payment in Atlantic v. Andersen (we don't know the amount yet, but Ms. Andersen's lawyer put in more than $150,000 worth of time). I.e., if an innocent person hangs in there, fights, and wins, he or she will probably get attorneys fees. And why do you say "apart from its own lawyers"? If the RIAA collects $5 million a year in settlements, and pays only $250,000 a year out in attorneys fee awards, but pays $10 million a year to "its own lawyers", why would that be a "win" for the RIAA? I can't imagine that my clients would think that was a "win" -- paying me more than twice what I collected for them. It's a "win" all right, but it's a win for the lawyers only. If the question is how are the RIAA lawyers doing, then the answer is 'yes they're winning'. They're the only 'winners' in this fiasco. But I believe that where lawyers collect a lot of money for doing lousy work and accomplishing nothing, they usually wind up paying a price for that down the road. In the short term, though, the RIAA's lawyers are concededly raking it in.
If the answer isn't greater, it's hard to see how the RIAA are "losing". It's more than they're winning by slightly less now. In the words of Bob Dylan, "time will tell who has fell.... and who's been left behind.... you go your way.... I'll go mine." I believe time will tell that the RIAA fell.
And THIS is why the RIAA has lost... they didn't lose the case, which can be tried in a fair manner and penalties awarded bast on the Judge's findings. What they lost was the ability to use a shotgun approach to finding infringers... this now increases the odds that each lawsuit they bring will result in a protracted trial instead of a quick settlement. The RIAA does NOT want this, and likely can't afford to support such a scheme for very long.
The problem so far is that people haven't felt that their case would be tried on its own merit -- instead the case would be tried based on the RIAA's own rules of guilt, which are often inaccurate. Having summary judgement denied in this case means that other cases in Arizona will likely have to go to court when previously they would have ended in a settlement. Maybe that's why they have their flacks are out there working overtime attacking Judge Wake's decision.
I've always suspected that the senior RIAA lawyers have a sneaking admiration for Sun Tzu. Several of the most significant quotations from The Art of War boil down to saying you should only fight the fights you can win, and you should rely on deception to reduce your opponent's resistance. If they are such astute strategists, why are they losing?
I'm not sure the rules you mentioned are necessarily the path to victory.
(a) Many of the greatest events in military history were improbable upsets by small bands of theoretically overmatched fighters who, on paper, couldn't win.
(b) The master of deception was Hitler. Look where he wound up. He won a bunch of battles, but lost the war. I wonder what have been the results of a poll taken among citizens of Berlin in 1946 as to the question: "Was Adolf Hitler a military genius?"
I'm curious as to your opinion on whether judge or jury trial is more to the defendant's benefit in these cases?
A lawyer/judge of my acquaintance once advised me that in cases where the average man knows little or nothing about the subject the case addresses, you're better off to only have to convince one ignorant person (the judge) rather than having to convince 12 ignorant persons (the jury).
But I'm not sure how valid that is for the RIAA cases. I can't answer that question in the abstract. It would depend on the particular case. Usually such a decision is for the client. However, it's always a good idea to formally demand a jury from the outset, because otherwise the jury trial right is usually deemed waived.
The question I have is why the RIAA dropped cases against a bunch of UofA students recently That was misunderstood by the press. The RIAA always drops the John Doe case after it gets the subpoena response. Then it goes after the people individually... divide and conquer.
Sheer genius, a major blow to RIAA tyranny. The judge ruled that an actual infringement needed to take place... Judges just following the law. That's all it will take to shut the RIAA's beserk campaign down.
Err. Happen to look at the subject line Ray? Attention to detail is essential when chastising. Sorry 'bout that. Thanks for listing the culprits. I just don't have time. (I like your acronym too. Almost as good as kdawson's note "from the schmaking-available dept.")
Why don't you do it yourself instead of making extra work for others? Look at the court papers, jot down the names of the plaintiff record companies, and list them here.
All that was denied here was a shot at summary judgement. Yes the case will turn on its particular facts. But at least we can take comfort that the correct legal standards will be applied in determining those facts.
By the way, one of the interesting things about this case: it will NOT be a jury trial. Mr. Howell never demanded a jury trial. Judge Wake, not a jury, will be the trier of the facts.
If the defendant is found to be innocent does the Judge's decision today set a decent precedent? Today's decision is an important precedent no matter what happens at the trial. It is the clearest and most comprehensive decision to date on the RIAA's campaign to enlarge the 17 USC 106(3) distribution right. This decision, unlike Judge Karas's decision in Barker, is mainstream. It takes the statute, the caselaw, and the legal scholarship, and brings it all home.
I am impressed by the judge. It is nice to see a case where the defendant was not at the mercy of expensive lawyers, and the judge actually took a look at the case law before making a decision. Me too. This was a good day for the rule of law.
Already exists: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ Thank you, hsmyers. But my humble blog is an amateur effort by one 60-year-old guy who doesn't have the time, or all of the skills, or any of the money, to do the job right.
It is a great idea for -a larger number of people, -with a diversity of backgrounds, including the web design background which I do not have, and the tech background which I do not have, and the time and financial resources which I do not have, -of varying ages, some of them hopefully younger, -to come together and create something more powerful, more sturdy, and more long lasting.
Imagine a web site where one could go to find legal information by subject matter, or obtain a highly qualified expert witness for a specific task to rebut the RIAA's "junk science", or send in emails to ones' Congressperson, or so many other resources that are needed.
Yes my blog has been a pain in the butt to the RIAA, and I am proud of what I have done, but something bigger and better might be what we need to finally eradicate these vermin.
Yes, it is our fault but not for the reason you give. It is our fault because we give corporations, an immortal entity, the rights of a mortal man. Worse, because those corporations have no motivation beyond greed, they wield their power to feed that greed even to the detriment of real people. Corporations don't have motivations; they're not sentient. The shareholders, directors and employees choose how they act, are through whom they act and who take their profits have motivations. They're not sinister supernatural beings; they're just collections of humans being collectively human and responding to the incentives put on them and that they put on each other. And, of course, real humans are greedy, especially when they don't see the sharp end of their greed. If you want to change the behaviour of corporations you have to do it by changing the incentives on real people. And that can only be done through people - en masse - voting, buying, working and investing differently. It isn't going to happen by everyone pretending they're battling a monster from outer space. xelah, what you are saying is reasonable, but the GP had a good point. Essentially, under our legal system, a corporation is
-a creation with a perpetual life,
-whose primary function is to serve its shareholders' financial interests.
I.e, it is an immortal sociopath.
While consumer disinterest, etc., can have an effect, it is important in our society that the government -- which creates such 'immortals' -- regulate them quite carefully. To assume that market forces are alone sufficient to deter their excesses is just wrong.
If doing harm is profitable, corporations are programmed to do harm. They are programmed to do anything they can get away with. It is up to the government which created these extraordinary creatures to limit what they can get away with.
Regrettably, our courts have not yet shut down the RIAA's excesses, and our Congress -- far from shutting them down -- has shown itself to be quite deferential to the recording companies' wish to steal the internet from those who made it what it is.
Yes but my work is not enough. I am just one 60 year old guy who has to also try to make a living. It is important for the community to come together, and to establish a major web site or wiki type of operation coordinating information.
It is also for the community to get involved in (1) establishing panels of expert witnesses to work for modest fees on the internet issues and hard drive forensics issues, and (2) major fundraising to assist in the legal defense of these folks.
Slashdot Mirror
universities. After all, as we recently discussed on Slashdot, in a story also posted by Soulskill, they sued an ISP in Ireland for not using Doug Jacobson's "Audible Magic" software.
like
University of Oregon,
Marshall University,
University of Maine Law School,
University of San Francisco Law School, and
Harvard University Law School.
Yeah they have a problem here. The main problem is they have a judge who (a) cares, and (b) reads. That's a deadly combination for the RIAA's litigation meat grinder.
Yes but the RIAA lawyers can't be bothered with little details like that. Spoilsport.
I'm not sure the rules you mentioned are necessarily the path to victory.
(a) Many of the greatest events in military history were improbable upsets by small bands of theoretically overmatched fighters who, on paper, couldn't win.
(b) The master of deception was Hitler. Look where he wound up. He won a bunch of battles, but lost the war. I wonder what have been the results of a poll taken among citizens of Berlin in 1946 as to the question: "Was Adolf Hitler a military genius?"
They weren't asked whether the copies were "unauthorized", they were asked whether the copies were "unlawful", a question to which they gave a nonresponsive answer.
Why don't you do it yourself instead of making extra work for others? Look at the court papers, jot down the names of the plaintiff record companies, and list them here.
By the way, one of the interesting things about this case: it will NOT be a jury trial. Mr. Howell never demanded a jury trial. Judge Wake, not a jury, will be the trier of the facts.
Yeah, that was a phony post by some RIAA troll. They can't even bother to change the words.
I would estimate that the cases break down like this:
70% default judgments
25%+ settlements
less than 5%: fight back.
It is a great idea for
-a larger number of people,
-with a diversity of backgrounds, including the web design background which I do not have, and the tech background which I do not have, and the time and financial resources which I do not have,
-of varying ages, some of them hopefully younger,
-to come together and create something more powerful, more sturdy, and more long lasting.
Imagine a web site where one could go to find legal information by subject matter, or obtain a highly qualified expert witness for a specific task to rebut the RIAA's "junk science", or send in emails to ones' Congressperson, or so many other resources that are needed.
Yes my blog has been a pain in the butt to the RIAA, and I am proud of what I have done, but something bigger and better might be what we need to finally eradicate these vermin.
-a creation with a perpetual life,
-whose primary function is to serve its shareholders' financial interests.
I.e, it is an immortal sociopath.
While consumer disinterest, etc., can have an effect, it is important in our society that the government -- which creates such 'immortals' -- regulate them quite carefully. To assume that market forces are alone sufficient to deter their excesses is just wrong.
If doing harm is profitable, corporations are programmed to do harm. They are programmed to do anything they can get away with. It is up to the government which created these extraordinary creatures to limit what they can get away with.
Regrettably, our courts have not yet shut down the RIAA's excesses, and our Congress -- far from shutting them down -- has shown itself to be quite deferential to the recording companies' wish to steal the internet from those who made it what it is.
Yes but my work is not enough. I am just one 60 year old guy who has to also try to make a living. It is important for the community to come together, and to establish a major web site or wiki type of operation coordinating information.
It is also for the community to get involved in (1) establishing panels of expert witnesses to work for modest fees on the internet issues and hard drive forensics issues, and (2) major fundraising to assist in the legal defense of these folks.