...the problem is not that the RIAA is re-writing the copyright laws... I beg to differ. Here's just one example. The RIAA insists that "making available" is the same as copyright infringement. But take a look at Title 17 USC 106(3) [cornell.edu] which defines the exclusive distribution right as "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". This is the statute that the RIAA uses to sue, that is, they claim their exclusive distribution right granted by this statue is being infringed. But note, this statute clearly indicates a "sale or other transfer of ownership", and courts have consistently ruled that this means an actual transfer must take place to be considered infringement. The RIAA was successful in getting the judge in the Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] case to instruct the jury [wired.com] that "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.". So it may be true that the RIAA is not literally rewriting copyright law (they have lobbyists that do that), but they sure are trying to rewrite copyright law by establishing precedents via cases against those who can't afford to defend themselves. Beautiful comment, Dr_Art. MYSBAL (maybe you should be a lawyer) IYCATCIP (if you could afford the cut in pay).
Not necessarily. THe defense they are mounting at this point is essentially pure issue of law. No facts to try to dispute, no witnesses to depose, no jury to persuade... all things that an experienced attorney will excel at over a novice. Pure law and legal theories OTOH, are the bread and butter of the academic legal environment. The students may not be as efficient at research in the subject area as an attorney who has 20 years experience in IP law and knows the leading cases by heart, but they are more open to theories and arguments to research that may be out of the mainstream (for now). They are devoted to the cause and will spend hundreds of hours pouring over research and caselaw that a practicing lawyer will not spend. The RIAA can't spend the other side into the ground because they are not racking up billable/noncollectable hours. Exactly correct. Except the part about "theories and arguments...out of the mainstream (for now)". In my opinion it's the RIAA that's premised its legal position on "theories and arguments... out of the mainstream". The brief the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic filed is (a) superb, and (b) conservative. It's the RIAA lawyers that are the radicals here.
It looks to me... like the RIAA stepped in something squishy right over the top of their shoe, and they're at that point where they're praying it's just mud, and afraid to look down.
How did they ever get caught pulling their crap at a university with a whole faculty devoted to making lawyers? Can't you just see it...all those sweet little law students looking hopefully up at them, like a school of piranha that have learned how when their owner taps on the tank, a pork chop will be along shortly? Yep, I think the RIAA made a mistake taking on the college and university world. Right now there are a lot of envious law students all across the country wishing their law school was doing the same thing. I don't think it will be long before you see a lot more of this. I think a great sleeping giant has been awakened.
1. They're not college students, they're law school students.
2. They're not in it alone, they're working under the supervision of a very eminent lawyer.
3. Many if not most of the best briefs written in the legal profession are written in large part by young people working under the supervision of a more experienced lawyer. The younger lawyers and law students may have more time for scholarship and writing than us oldsters who are so busy taking phone calls and meetings and sending out bills and supervising youngsters.
Why would it be tacky for me to post an important story from p2pnet that happens to quote me? Usually I'm posting important stories from my own blog which quotes me even more heavily.
Even if the Court dismisses, the RIAA will file an amended complaint that meets the Twombly pleading standard (which with a little effort they could probably do, it isn't that much higher a standard than Conley). I respectfully disagree. I have seen their new complaint. It suffers from the same infirmities as their original complaint. For an example, see the amended complaint in Interscope v. Rodriguez. I believe this new version likewise fails to state a claim for copyright infringement and is subject to dismissal.
There is a reason why no amount of amending can cure the RIAA's problem. It is that the RIAA simply does not have evidence of a copyright infringement by the defendant.
I think what p2pnet was referring to when it called it a "revolution" was the fact that this was the first time a university's law school legal clinic has gone to bat for the university's students, thus levelling the playing field a bit. A level playing field is the death knell of the RIAA's entire litigation campaign, which relies exclusively upon a massive economic imbalance in every case, to keep the defendants from correcting the RIAA's (a) false statements of fact, and (b) bizarre legal theories.
... it's a pretty obvious troll, given away by saying "if you couldn't get it for free, you'd be paying for it". We all know that isn't true for nearly all cases.... Isn't it amazing how obvious and predictable the trolls are?
I think it[...] would be a quite impressive credential indeed for a law student to take on a media cartel and win. Indeed it would. I'm hoping that these fine up and coming legal scholars will have that credential on their resumes.
Thank you. The thing is, I learned the other day, when I tried to designate someone as a "Friend" and couldn't, that we have a limit on Slashdot -- 400 "Friends" and "Foes". That forced me to think how I feel about this whole "Foe" thing. And I was thinking it's more important to have "Friends" than "Foes". Then when I got named to Slashdot's "Hall of Fame" I said to myself, "what the heck", and declared a general amnesty on all my "Foes". Now that I've done that, I'm now free to call you a "Friend", which you clearly are. So I'm adding you to my list of "Friends", twitter. Thanks again.
How would you suggest I do it? Slashdot only allows very small headlines. The case names are listed here. The plaintiffs are the bad guys.
There is nothing inaccurate by saying the cases are run by the RIAA. The cases, including settlement negotiations, are completely managed by the RIAA cartel.
If you're suggesting that I add a list of 5 to 8 record company names to every post, I don't agree... it would be a bunch of extra work on my part, to produce a very boring sentence.
As you know I use the word "RIAA" as shorthand for the 4 largest record companies -- EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Bros., and Vivendi/Universal -- and their affiliates. I link to the actual legal documents where the actual names of the record companies in any given case are enumerated.
The fact that an organization the size of the RIAA, with its nearly unlimited resources, would effectively throw up their hands and walk away should speak volumes to other victims and consumers in general, and I'm certain the brightest legal minds in the US are reviewing this case with a fine-toothed comb to discover exactly what the perceived weaknesses were. Well I don't know about the "brightest legal minds" but I'm certainly "reviewing it" and don't think I need a "fine-toothed comb" to discover the weakness. It's the fact that their entire house of cards is built on something that's inadmissible in evidence.
"In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies."
So piracy wouldn't be used to describe a TV station that broadcast a copy of a show and sold ads without the paying for that right?
As much as I don't like the RIAA and MPAA many web sites like Pirate's Bay do just that. No it wouldn't, because the term was coined long before something like that would have been possible... in those dark days before the dawning of the digital age.
3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings. I bet Glen Miller, Artie Shaw, Louis Armstrong, et al. are all greatly relieved at this news... :)
None of the cases are about 'piracy'. In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies. Not a single case brought by the RIAA has involved 'piracy'. It is the MPAA/RIAA propagandists who have been trying to rewrite the definition of the term 'piracy'.
Well, so much for equal justice under the civil law (I guess that only applies to criminal cases and even there money makes some people more equal than others). Isn't this precisely the sort of abuse that class action was designed to prevent? Perhaps some enteprising lawyers will find a way to collect from the RIAA on behalf of this class of defendants, well we can hope anyway. Thank you NewYorkCountryLawyer for answering my question. There is a class action going on. Andersen v. Atlantic.
Slashdot Mirror
...the problem is not that the RIAA is re-writing the copyright laws... I beg to differ. Here's just one example. The RIAA insists that "making available" is the same as copyright infringement. But take a look at Title 17 USC 106(3) [cornell.edu] which defines the exclusive distribution right as "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". This is the statute that the RIAA uses to sue, that is, they claim their exclusive distribution right granted by this statue is being infringed. But note, this statute clearly indicates a "sale or other transfer of ownership", and courts have consistently ruled that this means an actual transfer must take place to be considered infringement. The RIAA was successful in getting the judge in the Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com] case to instruct the jury [wired.com] that "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.". So it may be true that the RIAA is not literally rewriting copyright law (they have lobbyists that do that), but they sure are trying to rewrite copyright law by establishing precedents via cases against those who can't afford to defend themselves. Beautiful comment, Dr_Art. MYSBAL (maybe you should be a lawyer) IYCATCIP (if you could afford the cut in pay).I disagree. The RIAA's entire litigation campaign is based upon an invented legal principle which exists neither in the statute, nor in the caselaw.
1. They're not college students, they're law school students.
2. They're not in it alone, they're working under the supervision of a very eminent lawyer.
3. Many if not most of the best briefs written in the legal profession are written in large part by young people working under the supervision of a more experienced lawyer. The younger lawyers and law students may have more time for scholarship and writing than us oldsters who are so busy taking phone calls and meetings and sending out bills and supervising youngsters.
Why would it be tacky for me to post an important story from p2pnet that happens to quote me? Usually I'm posting important stories from my own blog which quotes me even more heavily.
The problem with your analysis:
Q. How many times has the RIAA sued a college or university?
A. None.
It goes against the RIAA credo to pick on someone who can fight back. Colleges and universities would fight back.
There is a reason why no amount of amending can cure the RIAA's problem. It is that the RIAA simply does not have evidence of a copyright infringement by the defendant.
I think what p2pnet was referring to when it called it a "revolution" was the fact that this was the first time a university's law school legal clinic has gone to bat for the university's students, thus levelling the playing field a bit. A level playing field is the death knell of the RIAA's entire litigation campaign, which relies exclusively upon a massive economic imbalance in every case, to keep the defendants from correcting the RIAA's (a) false statements of fact, and (b) bizarre legal theories.
Actually 3 of the 4 corporations behind this litigation campaign are not American: SONY BMG, EMI, and Vivendi/Universal.
... it's a pretty obvious troll, given away by saying "if you couldn't get it for free, you'd be paying for it". We all know that isn't true for nearly all cases.... Isn't it amazing how obvious and predictable the trolls are?Their brief was excellent! You would be lucky to have people of this quality representing you.
Thank you. The thing is, I learned the other day, when I tried to designate someone as a "Friend" and couldn't, that we have a limit on Slashdot -- 400 "Friends" and "Foes". That forced me to think how I feel about this whole "Foe" thing. And I was thinking it's more important to have "Friends" than "Foes". Then when I got named to Slashdot's "Hall of Fame" I said to myself, "what the heck", and declared a general amnesty on all my "Foes". Now that I've done that, I'm now free to call you a "Friend", which you clearly are. So I'm adding you to my list of "Friends", twitter. Thanks again.
By the way, I removed your "Foe" designation the other day.
How would you suggest I do it? Slashdot only allows very small headlines. The case names are listed here. The plaintiffs are the bad guys.
There is nothing inaccurate by saying the cases are run by the RIAA. The cases, including settlement negotiations, are completely managed by the RIAA cartel.
If you're suggesting that I add a list of 5 to 8 record company names to every post, I don't agree... it would be a bunch of extra work on my part, to produce a very boring sentence.
As you know I use the word "RIAA" as shorthand for the 4 largest record companies -- EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Bros., and Vivendi/Universal -- and their affiliates. I link to the actual legal documents where the actual names of the record companies in any given case are enumerated.
Yeah, but contributions strategically made to the right cases can lead to important precedents that will reverberate across the country.
Well their estates are, anyway.
None of the cases are about 'piracy'. In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies. Not a single case brought by the RIAA has involved 'piracy'. It is the MPAA/RIAA propagandists who have been trying to rewrite the definition of the term 'piracy'.
This particular grandmother had never heard of filesharing.