Infringement of the distribution right entails (a) dissemination (b) of copies or phonorecords (c) to the public (d) by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending. All 4 components are required. The RIAA can show none of the 4.
Thanks, cyphergirl. Sorry I don't remember what was objectionable in the deleted comment, other than that it misstated the content of the RIAA brief.
On the "logic" point you had written
The key word there is "and". The copies were authorized until they shared them on a peer-to-peer network. Am I missing something here? I responded
Dear "nothing noteworthy"....
Yes you are missing something here.
Logic.
The judge was asking if the RIAA contended that the making of the copies was itself unauthorized.
In that question he was not asking about what was done with the copies; he was asking about the copying.
The RIAA lawyers didn't want to concede that the copies were legal, so they stuck in that fudged sentence. You were analyzing their response as though it existed in isolation, when it was in fact the response to a question. The question was "were the copies themselves unauthorized". The RIAA answered "yes". They fudged it, undoubtedly deliberately, but they were answering the question that way in order to make it difficult for the judge to distinguish the Howell case from the Hotaling case where the copies themselves had, admittedly, been illegally made, before they were 'distributed'.
It depends on the version of copyright you follow. The one from the beginning of the country or the licensing bullshit of the last 40 years or so. Correction. The 2 versions are: 1. copyright law as it appears in the statutes, caselaw, and legal scholarship, and 2. copyright law as the RIAA and MPAA would like it to be, and can sometimes make it appear to be by winning ex parte cases, default cases, and cases where the defendant can't afford a lawyer.
What is especially insulting about your remark is that I put in a great deal of uncompensated time almost every day uploading the actual legal documents to a legal publisher and linking to them, to encourage people to actually read the actual documents. Almost every article on my blog, and the majority of my posts on Slashdot, contains a link to the actual legal documents. I know of no other person who has done more to encourage people to read the underlying documents.
Don't you see how offensive it is to accuse me of disparaging someone because he or she actually read the document I spent so much time making available to him or her, and to you?
While the RIAA is undoubtedly trying not to give a straight answer, the judge should parse this out and ask them specifically which part they are claiming was unauthorized. They combined the act of ripping from the CD with putting the files into the shared folder in their answer, and do not specify which part is unauthorized. Am I authorized to rip the files if they don't go into my shared folder? That's what the judge should make them answer. He already did that. And that's the answer they gave. Hopefully the Judge is aware of who he is dealing with here.
You defended "troll" by saying that I was accusing him or her of being a troll because he or she had read the brief. Thank you for conceding that the troll had misstated the contents of the brief. And please don't insult my integrity. I accused him or her of being a troll because he or she lied about the contents of the brief.
They were asked if the copies themselves were unauthorized. They responded "yes". That is a separate question from the question of what was done with the copies afterwards. You know that. And they know that. And the Court knows that. Because that was a key distinguishing factor in the Hotaling case, which is not present in the Howell case. Which is why the RIAA said "yes".
The troll Slashdot User you were defending made 2 elaborate false representations about the contents of the brief. If you've read the brief twice you should be able to point us to the passages to which he or she was referring. If not you should apologize for making the statement that the troll had read the brief, and that I was only calling him or her a troll because he or she had read the brief. Don't you see that that was an insulting thing to accuse me of??
I know that you personally are not a troll, I am just urging you to be more careful. There are professional liars afoot, both in the courtroom and here on Slashdot.
I deleted your second comment on the blog because it had a false statement of fact about the contents of the plaintiffs' brief.
The reasons I said "troll alert" are 1. the user just signed up today 2. the post misstates the contents of the brief... nowhere in the brief does it contain any of the statements which he or she attributed to it.
The troll said
The complaint is not saying that ripping MP3s from your CDs is an infringement. It, in fact, acknowledges that doing so is fair use. Where does the brief or the "complaint" say anything of the kind? It then goes on to say
it continues by saying that then making those MP3s available for download by others destroys that fair use. Where in the brief or the "complaint" is that statement contained?
Obviously you never read the brief either.
I notice that you are littering my blog with similarly sloppy comments there under your user id "nothing noteworthy". Please either do your homework, or stop wasting my time.
Thanks, Syp der..... Much appreciated. Unfortunately I've reached my 'friends & foes' limit at Slashdot, otherwise I'd have added you already as a friend.
The brief was in response to the judge's questions. One of the questions was in substance 'do you content that the copies themselves were unauthorized?'. That question had nothing to do with what Mr. Howell did with the copies afterwards. That was a separate issue.
Every so often I see a golden example of why I would need a lawyer, rather than representing myself were I to land in court. While the distinction is obvious once you point it out, I thought the exact same thing as a dozen other posters on this thread. Thanks, mooingyak.
Yes there is a reason why they didn't want to answer the question. In the Napster case, the Hotaling case was distinguished for the very reason that the copies themselves in Hotaling had been illegally made. See, e.g, discussion in Elektra v. Barker on page 9 of defendant's reply memorandum.
If you read the actual document, you will find that the poster's editing makes it sound far worse than it is. It was an exact quote from the legal document.
The RIAA was deliberately fudging it, and you're trying to clarify it for them. Believe me, their high-priced lawyers could have expressed it if that's what they wanted to say. They were asked by the judge if the copies were themselves unauthorized. The truthful answer would have been "no". Instead they lied and said "yes".
it seems like the RIAA isn't actually claiming that the fact that he ripped them makes them unauthorized, but the fact that they're in his "shared" folder makes them unauthorized. Don't you think the RIAA lawyers are clever enough to have said that, if that's what they intended to say? The judge asked them if the copies on the computer were unauthorized copies. They said yes. He wasn't asking whether what was done with the copies was unauthorized. He was asking whether the making of the copies was unauthorized. (The reason he was asking that was that the Hotaling case has been distinguished on the ground that the copies allegedly being distributed were admittedly illegal copies. UNLIKE the copies in this case, which were all authorized copies.).
They would have to prove that
(a) actual copies or phonorecords were distributed (b)to the public
(c)by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending....
They would have to prove that (a) actual copies or phonorecords were distributed (c)by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending....
It was decided against Howell initially. Then Mr. Howell submitted a motion for "reconsideration", in which he submitted some of the briefs from other cases. The Court granted the reconsideration motion and vacated its prior order.
I know nothing about the ins and outs of the legislative process, being a Manhattan country lawyer, but I am hoping that someone talks some sense into whoever put this garbage together, and that it dies a quick death.
Slashdot Mirror
Infringement of the distribution right entails (a) dissemination (b) of copies or phonorecords (c) to the public (d) by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending. All 4 components are required. The RIAA can show none of the 4.
Thank you, cyphergirl. Sorry if I was curt or otherwise obnoxious.
On the "logic" point you had written The key word there is "and". The copies were authorized until they shared them on a peer-to-peer network. Am I missing something here? I responded Dear "nothing noteworthy".... Yes you are missing something here. Logic. The judge was asking if the RIAA contended that the making of the copies was itself unauthorized. In that question he was not asking about what was done with the copies; he was asking about the copying. The RIAA lawyers didn't want to concede that the copies were legal, so they stuck in that fudged sentence. You were analyzing their response as though it existed in isolation, when it was in fact the response to a question. The question was "were the copies themselves unauthorized". The RIAA answered "yes". They fudged it, undoubtedly deliberately, but they were answering the question that way in order to make it difficult for the judge to distinguish the Howell case from the Hotaling case where the copies themselves had, admittedly, been illegally made, before they were 'distributed'.
1. copyright law as it appears in the statutes, caselaw, and legal scholarship, and
2. copyright law as the RIAA and MPAA would like it to be, and can sometimes make it appear to be by winning ex parte cases, default cases, and cases where the defendant can't afford a lawyer.
What is especially insulting about your remark is that I put in a great deal of uncompensated time almost every day uploading the actual legal documents to a legal publisher and linking to them, to encourage people to actually read the actual documents. Almost every article on my blog, and the majority of my posts on Slashdot, contains a link to the actual legal documents. I know of no other person who has done more to encourage people to read the underlying documents.
Don't you see how offensive it is to accuse me of disparaging someone because he or she actually read the document I spent so much time making available to him or her, and to you?
You defended "troll" by saying that I was accusing him or her of being a troll because he or she had read the brief. Thank you for conceding that the troll had misstated the contents of the brief. And please don't insult my integrity. I accused him or her of being a troll because he or she lied about the contents of the brief.
They were asked if the copies themselves were unauthorized. They responded "yes". That is a separate question from the question of what was done with the copies afterwards. You know that. And they know that. And the Court knows that. Because that was a key distinguishing factor in the Hotaling case, which is not present in the Howell case. Which is why the RIAA said "yes".
The troll Slashdot User you were defending made 2 elaborate false representations about the contents of the brief. If you've read the brief twice you should be able to point us to the passages to which he or she was referring. If not you should apologize for making the statement that the troll had read the brief, and that I was only calling him or her a troll because he or she had read the brief. Don't you see that that was an insulting thing to accuse me of??
I know that you personally are not a troll, I am just urging you to be more careful. There are professional liars afoot, both in the courtroom and here on Slashdot.
I deleted your second comment on the blog because it had a false statement of fact about the contents of the plaintiffs' brief.
The reasons I said "troll alert" are
1. the user just signed up today
2. the post misstates the contents of the brief... nowhere in the brief does it contain any of the statements which he or she attributed to it.
The troll said The complaint is not saying that ripping MP3s from your CDs is an infringement. It, in fact, acknowledges that doing so is fair use. Where does the brief or the "complaint" say anything of the kind? It then goes on to say it continues by saying that then making those MP3s available for download by others destroys that fair use. Where in the brief or the "complaint" is that statement contained?
Obviously you never read the brief either.
I notice that you are littering my blog with similarly sloppy comments there under your user id "nothing noteworthy". Please either do your homework, or stop wasting my time.
Thank you.
Thanks, Syp der..... Much appreciated. Unfortunately I've reached my 'friends & foes' limit at Slashdot, otherwise I'd have added you already as a friend.
Interesting that this was your very first post, and that you have no profile. Obvious RIAA troll.
The brief was in response to the judge's questions. One of the questions was in substance 'do you content that the copies themselves were unauthorized?'. That question had nothing to do with what Mr. Howell did with the copies afterwards. That was a separate issue.
Yes there is a reason why they didn't want to answer the question. In the Napster case, the Hotaling case was distinguished for the very reason that the copies themselves in Hotaling had been illegally made. See, e.g, discussion in Elektra v. Barker on page 9 of defendant's reply memorandum.
The RIAA was deliberately fudging it, and you're trying to clarify it for them. Believe me, their high-priced lawyers could have expressed it if that's what they wanted to say. They were asked by the judge if the copies were themselves unauthorized. The truthful answer would have been "no". Instead they lied and said "yes".
Troll alert.
Either the copies were authorized or they were unauthorized.
What was done (or not done) with them afterwards is a separate issue.
They would have to prove that
(a) actual copies or phonorecords were distributed
(b)to the public
(c)by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending....
They would have to prove that
(a) actual copies or phonorecords were distributed
(c)by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by license, lease, or lending....
It was decided against Howell initially. Then Mr. Howell submitted a motion for "reconsideration", in which he submitted some of the briefs from other cases. The Court granted the reconsideration motion and vacated its prior order.
It appears to be totally insane.
I know nothing about the ins and outs of the legislative process, being a Manhattan country lawyer, but I am hoping that someone talks some sense into whoever put this garbage together, and that it dies a quick death.
I'm collecting links to the actual bill.