When did it become up to people to pay what they feel like paying? It's always been that way. If you want free, you listen to the artists on the radio. If you want to pay a $1/song, you buy from iTunes or similar service. If you want to pay $9,250/song, you get sued by the RIAA and lose.:-(
No one here (except Ray of course) seems to be getting the Oregon AG's point. The plaintiffs were allowed to issue a subpoena to the University that said essentially "for each of these IP addresses we want you to identify the infringer". That is, the University must decide who is responsible for the alleged deeds, not just provide a linkage between IP address and a user. They reply essentially "we can't prove the plaintiffs case for them, so the subpoena should be quashed". Now the plaintiffs -- the arrogant bastards that they are -- can't admit they are wrong. They could simply reissue the subpoena to say essentially "what user (provide a name) was assigned this IP address at this time and date". But instead, they throw irrelevant tantrums about procedure. I expect the judge will simply narrow the scope of the subpoena, but I hope he plays along and lets the AG have her discovery.
I think quality in general has gone down over the years. In IT, I've seen that pushing quality is career limiting. There's definitely a lot of people making lots of money with the current state of things. I'd suggest you do what you can to improve your own code quality and soon you'll stand above the others.
I don't think you read it very closely, as the analogy wasn't referring to the infringement at all, but to the award. The assertion in some of these cases is that the statutory damages are unconstitutional based on due process precedent.
I think in your bootleg DVD example you are referring to civil action, correct? If so, it's still true you have to have evidence that an infringement transaction took place.
In your murder example, I've seen several stings on reality-TV where people are soliciting murder. The cops are usually careful to make sure some money changes hands. Conspiracy may be prosecutable in such cases, but having evidence of a real transaction caught on tape makes a much stronger case.
In the US, it's a violation of due process, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In short, all laws issued by government must be fairly applied to all people, and all of a persons legal rights must be respected when depriving them of life, liberty and/or property. In particular here, fairness includes the concept that "the punishment must fit the crime". There is fairly substantial legal precedent that punitive damages must be of the same relative magnitude of actual harm done. Any excess is a violation of due process. When a big company gets a judgment against it of millions or billions of dollars, this is usually the basis of their appeal. Large judgments are routinely reduced because of this.
I think your assessment of "ridiculous" further confirms the unconstitutionality of this verdict.
You can buy the file in iTunes for $0.99. So 24 x $0.99 = $23.76. That is the retail worth of the file. If you buy the CD and it has 15 songs that's 15 x $0.99 = $14.85 (same order of magnitude as you'd find in any retail store). You can always buy at a lower price (e.g., used, Wally World bargain bin, allofmp3.com, etc.), but the point is that the file is worth at most on the order of $0.99.
The thing you're talking about is the distribution right. E.g., what does Apple pay in order to have the right to distribute the file at $0.99? Notice, the RIAA et al. had no proof of any downloading by defendant, no proof that she distributed anything other than her admitting to making a couple of mix CDs. There's no proof that the "thousands" of files she was "making available" were even copyrighted works owned by the plaintiffs. It's obvious to me that in this case the jury made their verdict in error. I respectfully think the judge's orders to the jury misrepresented the law and standards that should have been used to come to the verdict. The judge still has a chance to overturn or modify the jury's verdict. If he doesn't, then that's why there is an appeal process to remedy such errors.
You say that it's been established in law that "making available is copyright infringement". That's not true. There is existing legal precedent that an actual transfer must take place to establish infringement, and that matches the literal wording in the copyright statute. I haven't read anywhere yet that says this case has had final judgment entered, and once entered then there is still the appeal process. Even so, if this judgment stands, then this will be a precedent only for that federal district. It takes more cases across other federal districts, appellate court decisions, and/or a supreme court ruling, to reverse the existing precedent. So it's still premature to make such a claim.
Nobody is saying that the "dude, I just snarfed a bunch of tunez" crowd is immune to prosecution or final judgment for their actions. The point is that's not who the RIAA et al. is suing. If they are successful at getting a $222,000 judgment without providing any tangible evidence of infringement (in my opinion) by the actual person they are suing, then that is the injustice that effects all of us who buy music legally, since we can just as easily be sued. I'd think that if you're not in the "tunez" crowd (no offense intended), that you'd also be interested in fighting for justice.
For policy level (i.e., political) activities, check out the EFF or the FSF. These are likely to be tax deductible.
For actual cases, you'll need to send a check to the lawyer. See Ray's blog for many of the cases and other related information. The Lindor case is relatively important, and there's a link there for paypal donations. These are likely not tax deductible, but probably have more impact.
I think it will make great justification for an appeal, if the jury finds for the RIAA.
It's also interesting if you think about MediaSentry and it's use of Kazaa to fish for people. As soon as they download the song, now they are making it available. Can you say "attractive nuisance"?:-)
This is sad, because the "making available" argument has no basis in law except when a person is actively promoting infringement (see the Grokster case). There's no proof Jammie ever encouraged infringement.
I started reading your post and the fact that you're posting to slashdot AND you say you have a girlfriend made me confused. What were you saying again?
I don't see how the blogger is liable for anything HIPAA related. The complaint references criminal law and Essent's own responsibility to keep patients' information private, nothing relevant to a blogger or the independent actions of Essent's employees. E.g., Essent could fire the employees under the confidentiality agreement, but they reference no matter of law that says the employees are otherwise liable. There may be some other documents or law not mentioned by the complaint, but I don't see how the blogger is a party to such matters, especially since he/she likely never signed the employees' confidentiality agreements. Also, I don't see how Essent has standing to prosecute federal HIPAA violation in state civil court.
I don't know why the blogger and the other Does are joined in a lawsuit as well. Any HIPAA violation between Essent and employees would be a distinct event from the publishing of any such information on the blog. As in the RIAA lawsuits, it seems this would be a valid way to appeal the imminent order from the judge. (Although remember this is state district court and the RIAA lawsuits are federal district court.) Also note that the blogger's lawyer has come forward (see lawyer's Aug letter, although the judge's Sept order says he has not), so the case can continue on it's merits without the need to disclose the blogger's identity.
I also don't see any specific allegations of defamation. Defamation is hard to prove, and I don't see anything in the complaint that couldn't be interpreted as opinion by a reasonable person, or is simply disclosing internal happenings in the hospital, which would be known to a lot of the hospital's employees and patients. If a hospital employee relates false information on the blog or to the blogger, then that employee would be the defamer, and not the blogger. E.g., who would reasonably assume that an anonymous blogger would be an authority on the inner workings of Essent, and use that one blogger's opinion to judge Essent? Of course, it's possible the blogger is an employee. It's also possible that the blogger and all other Does are patients.
Finally, I was amused by a couple of things in the complaint. First, to see an employer refer to the employees' "breaches of the employees' duty of loyalty". What?!? Employers and employees have a legal obligation of loyalty? I sure haven't seen many employers show loyalty to their employees, but then that's another thread... Second, the complaint says the blog is publicly available (that's how the hospital's business would supposedly be harmed), and that "...the blog has as it's sole purpose to conduct a one-sided attack and disparagement of the Hospital, PRMC, and their employees and doctors, and is in no manner intended to be an open and fair discussion of issues." OK, so that's why you filed a lawsuit instead of posting to the publicly available blog your open and fair rebuttal of the issues raised?!?!
I don't know the blogger, the other Does, or Essent, and IANAL, so I can only hope the truth of this matter comes out in court.
If I understand your general point correctly, it is that illegal copyright infringement is bad, and let the courts decide if it is indeed copyright infringement on a case by case basis. I agree completely, except for any implication that we shouldn't be allowed to discuss the case here. Unfortunately, you obviously haven't been following events very closely, and especially the Lindor case.
Innocence is ultimately put to the test in a court of law. Presumptions of innocence or guilty don't change that role of the government.
No, evidence is put to the test in a court of law, especially since these are all typically civil cases, and the standard of proof needed to win is "preponderance of evidence". My point is that the RIAA has no evidence of any instances of infringement by any actual person. All they have is a suggestion that an IP address is involved and their "method" of linking it to actual persons is flawed. In the Lindor case, the defendant is a computer novice, her hard drive was inspected by plaintiffs, and it showed no evidence of file sharing. There was also no evidence to suggest she wiped the hard drive after the fact. I think it is fair to characterize her as an innocent target of the RIAA. It is up to them to provide indisputable evidence that proves otherwise. And according to Rule 11(b)3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they have an obligation to have sufficient evidence for a case (or a likelyhood of being determined at discovery) before they file it. (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm/) If they were truly interested in finding and suing illegal file sharers, then after examining the hard drive and finding no evidence, they should have immediately dropped the case and paid the defendant's costs.
First removing one's own IP isn't fabricated.
That's partly why I put the quotes around that word, sorry if my meaning wasn't explicit. The fact is the plaintiffs modified the screen shots to hide their own IP address. In an adversarial court system, how can the defendants trust the plaintiffs to have stopped short of making further modifications of the screen shot, or to have done proper due diligence to make sure the IP address wasn't spoofed or incorrectly associated with the defendant?
I'd like to see the proof of the "unknown" aspect.
So would I. It's the plaintiffs burden to prove the files displayed are their copyrighted works, and that there was a specific instance where the defendant distributed same. This has been absent in all of their cases in this campaign.
As for the "association between IP and owner". While there can be disconnects between the two by someone determined to do so. The majority of those who engage in illegal copyright violations don't make the effort to do so.
Yes, IPs can be spoofed. It's up to the plaintiffs to prove that wasn't the case here. It's hard when the defendant's computer has no evidence of any file sharing software having ever been installed. I'm interested to see your evidence to support how you know how "the majority" of illegal file sharers behaves. Anyway, that's irrelevant with respect to this case, unless of course you believe in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
SHARING them with the rest of the planet contrary to copyright is illegal.
OK, so doing illegal things is illegal. So how is that relevant to this case. There's no evidence the defendant ever shared anything, much less the plaintiffs material.
Why would a jury trial necessarily be in the best interest of the court system? (note: court system, not plaintiffs or defendants).
Idealistically, the courts are interested in truth, fairness, justice, etc. Rea
I think some of you are missing the point. The "misuse of copyright" defense is not about penalizing the RIAA and their member companies (I'll just collectively refer to them as RIAA) for being greedy bastards (although that would be nice), or about antitrust activities (although that could be argued as well). It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts". The EFF has described RIAA's strategy in it's amicus brief (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/a micus_in_support_of_fees.pdf/ - warning: PDF). RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement. None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice). In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights. It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights. The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights.
Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction".
So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways.
IANAL, but it appears that dia-RIAA has the option to appeal the judge's order. The defendant needs to get an official judgement in order for the clock to start ticking. Otherwise dia-RIAA can just wait forever.
Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it's hearing from its customers.
Microsoft: You're not going to bail on me are you? You love me don't you?
Customer: No, I wouldn't do that. You're really "nice".
Microsoft: You mean it? I mean, you're not still upset with me about the chair throwing thing, right?
Customer: Of course not. I mean, I'm still using you on some of my desktops...
Microsoft: So why are you still using XP? You hate me, right?
Customer: Er, uh, well, uh, we were planning on upgrading but we've been a little busy with our Linux migration in the data center and all, and, uh, well would you look at the time! I've got to get going. I'll see you soon...
Microsoft: See, he really does love me! That darned study is just not representative of him!
Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of MS-in-de-nial...
>It seems hard to believe that many despicable people would get elected:P Surely you'd hit a worthy guy eventually.
While I'm sure we have enough proverbial "monkeys typing on typwriters" working in the government, I'm not sure even they would be able to produce a "worthy guy" in our lifetime.
You will have a higher risk of being cut since your work is not core to the business. You will be both admired and hated by the non-R&D folks. You will work on cool stuff and have lots of fun. You'll likely have lower pay and advancement opportunities since your compensation is getting to work on cool stuff and having lots of fun. You will have a higher chance of using Nerf(TM) toys at work. You probably don't have a girlfriend. You will have a conversation about Sci-Fi at least once a week. You will feel that you would be more appreciated and arguably at lower risk (other than company viability...) if you work for a small startup tech company rather than doing R&D in the IT universe.
The important thing is to follow your heart and do what you are passionate about. If you do that, everything else you want will likely follow. Well, maybe not the girlfriend...:-)
IBM = I've Been Mumbai-ed (i.e., my job was sent to Mumbai)
IBM-GS = I've Been Mumbai-ed, Gujarati Software
No offense intended to our fine quality Indian software developer brothers, it's just that in Western countries the term "going out for some South Indian" used to mean where you were going for lunch, not where your job is headed...
I was once working in a datacenter on a machine close to the company email servers. There's a message on the console for the email server saying that the email database was corrupted and that some utility had to be run to fix it. An IT guy walks up to the console and looks at the message. He then proceeds to reboot the server. After the reboot, the same message appears. Reboot again. Same message. Reboot again. Same message. The IT guy repeated this 10 or 15 times. Then he walked away perplexed at why the email server wasn't working.
Slashdot Mirror
Regards,
Art
"Toll"? "Offtopic"? Jeez! Maybe you would have gotten the joke better if I said "The other half just play with their Wii"
No one here (except Ray of course) seems to be getting the Oregon AG's point. The plaintiffs were allowed to issue a subpoena to the University that said essentially "for each of these IP addresses we want you to identify the infringer ". That is, the University must decide who is responsible for the alleged deeds, not just provide a linkage between IP address and a user. They reply essentially "we can't prove the plaintiffs case for them, so the subpoena should be quashed". Now the plaintiffs -- the arrogant bastards that they are -- can't admit they are wrong. They could simply reissue the subpoena to say essentially "what user (provide a name) was assigned this IP address at this time and date". But instead, they throw irrelevant tantrums about procedure. I expect the judge will simply narrow the scope of the subpoena, but I hope he plays along and lets the AG have her discovery.
Regards,
Art
The other half just play with their wanker...
I think quality in general has gone down over the years. In IT, I've seen that pushing quality is career limiting. There's definitely a lot of people making lots of money with the current state of things. I'd suggest you do what you can to improve your own code quality and soon you'll stand above the others.
Regards,
Art
So, umm, when are you going to drop the lawsuits???
I don't think you read it very closely, as the analogy wasn't referring to the infringement at all, but to the award. The assertion in some of these cases is that the statutory damages are unconstitutional based on due process precedent.
Regards,
Art
I think in your bootleg DVD example you are referring to civil action, correct? If so, it's still true you have to have evidence that an infringement transaction took place.
In your murder example, I've seen several stings on reality-TV where people are soliciting murder. The cops are usually careful to make sure some money changes hands. Conspiracy may be prosecutable in such cases, but having evidence of a real transaction caught on tape makes a much stronger case.
Regards,
Art
In the US, it's a violation of due process, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In short, all laws issued by government must be fairly applied to all people, and all of a persons legal rights must be respected when depriving them of life, liberty and/or property. In particular here, fairness includes the concept that "the punishment must fit the crime". There is fairly substantial legal precedent that punitive damages must be of the same relative magnitude of actual harm done. Any excess is a violation of due process. When a big company gets a judgment against it of millions or billions of dollars, this is usually the basis of their appeal. Large judgments are routinely reduced because of this.
I think your assessment of "ridiculous" further confirms the unconstitutionality of this verdict.
Regards,
Art
You can buy the file in iTunes for $0.99. So 24 x $0.99 = $23.76. That is the retail worth of the file . If you buy the CD and it has 15 songs that's 15 x $0.99 = $14.85 (same order of magnitude as you'd find in any retail store). You can always buy at a lower price (e.g., used, Wally World bargain bin, allofmp3.com, etc.), but the point is that the file is worth at most on the order of $0.99.
The thing you're talking about is the distribution right . E.g., what does Apple pay in order to have the right to distribute the file at $0.99? Notice, the RIAA et al. had no proof of any downloading by defendant, no proof that she distributed anything other than her admitting to making a couple of mix CDs. There's no proof that the "thousands" of files she was "making available" were even copyrighted works owned by the plaintiffs. It's obvious to me that in this case the jury made their verdict in error. I respectfully think the judge's orders to the jury misrepresented the law and standards that should have been used to come to the verdict. The judge still has a chance to overturn or modify the jury's verdict. If he doesn't, then that's why there is an appeal process to remedy such errors.
You say that it's been established in law that "making available is copyright infringement". That's not true. There is existing legal precedent that an actual transfer must take place to establish infringement, and that matches the literal wording in the copyright statute. I haven't read anywhere yet that says this case has had final judgment entered, and once entered then there is still the appeal process. Even so, if this judgment stands, then this will be a precedent only for that federal district. It takes more cases across other federal districts, appellate court decisions, and/or a supreme court ruling, to reverse the existing precedent. So it's still premature to make such a claim.
Nobody is saying that the "dude, I just snarfed a bunch of tunez" crowd is immune to prosecution or final judgment for their actions. The point is that's not who the RIAA et al. is suing. If they are successful at getting a $222,000 judgment without providing any tangible evidence of infringement (in my opinion) by the actual person they are suing, then that is the injustice that effects all of us who buy music legally, since we can just as easily be sued. I'd think that if you're not in the "tunez" crowd (no offense intended), that you'd also be interested in fighting for justice.
Regards,
Art
For policy level (i.e., political) activities, check out the EFF or the FSF. These are likely to be tax deductible.
For actual cases, you'll need to send a check to the lawyer. See Ray's blog for many of the cases and other related information. The Lindor case is relatively important, and there's a link there for paypal donations. These are likely not tax deductible, but probably have more impact.
Regards,
Art
I think it will make great justification for an appeal, if the jury finds for the RIAA.
:-)
It's also interesting if you think about MediaSentry and it's use of Kazaa to fish for people. As soon as they download the song, now they are making it available. Can you say "attractive nuisance"?
Regards,
Art
Is there a way we can contribute $$$ to help her with legal costs?
Regards,
Art
Sadly, according to the update at the end of the Ars Technica article (see http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html), the "making available" argument will be provided to the jury.
This is sad, because the "making available" argument has no basis in law except when a person is actively promoting infringement (see the Grokster case). There's no proof Jammie ever encouraged infringement.
Here's hoping that Jammie prevails!!!
Regards,
Art
I started reading your post and the fact that you're posting to slashdot AND you say you have a girlfriend made me confused. What were you saying again?
:-)
Regards,
Art
Here's a better link that includes links to the actual court documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/texas-judge-orders-discovery-anonymous-bloggers-identity
The blog is here: http://the-paris-site.blogspot.com/
I don't see how the blogger is liable for anything HIPAA related. The complaint references criminal law and Essent's own responsibility to keep patients' information private, nothing relevant to a blogger or the independent actions of Essent's employees. E.g., Essent could fire the employees under the confidentiality agreement, but they reference no matter of law that says the employees are otherwise liable. There may be some other documents or law not mentioned by the complaint, but I don't see how the blogger is a party to such matters, especially since he/she likely never signed the employees' confidentiality agreements. Also, I don't see how Essent has standing to prosecute federal HIPAA violation in state civil court.
I don't know why the blogger and the other Does are joined in a lawsuit as well. Any HIPAA violation between Essent and employees would be a distinct event from the publishing of any such information on the blog. As in the RIAA lawsuits, it seems this would be a valid way to appeal the imminent order from the judge. (Although remember this is state district court and the RIAA lawsuits are federal district court.) Also note that the blogger's lawyer has come forward (see lawyer's Aug letter, although the judge's Sept order says he has not), so the case can continue on it's merits without the need to disclose the blogger's identity.
I also don't see any specific allegations of defamation. Defamation is hard to prove, and I don't see anything in the complaint that couldn't be interpreted as opinion by a reasonable person, or is simply disclosing internal happenings in the hospital, which would be known to a lot of the hospital's employees and patients. If a hospital employee relates false information on the blog or to the blogger, then that employee would be the defamer, and not the blogger. E.g., who would reasonably assume that an anonymous blogger would be an authority on the inner workings of Essent, and use that one blogger's opinion to judge Essent? Of course, it's possible the blogger is an employee. It's also possible that the blogger and all other Does are patients.
Finally, I was amused by a couple of things in the complaint. First, to see an employer refer to the employees' "breaches of the employees' duty of loyalty". What?!? Employers and employees have a legal obligation of loyalty? I sure haven't seen many employers show loyalty to their employees, but then that's another thread... Second, the complaint says the blog is publicly available (that's how the hospital's business would supposedly be harmed), and that "...the blog has as it's sole purpose to conduct a one-sided attack and disparagement of the Hospital, PRMC, and their employees and doctors, and is in no manner intended to be an open and fair discussion of issues." OK, so that's why you filed a lawsuit instead of posting to the publicly available blog your open and fair rebuttal of the issues raised?!?!
I don't know the blogger, the other Does, or Essent, and IANAL, so I can only hope the truth of this matter comes out in court.
Regards,
Art
Innocence is ultimately put to the test in a court of law. Presumptions of innocence or guilty don't change that role of the government.
No, evidence is put to the test in a court of law, especially since these are all typically civil cases, and the standard of proof needed to win is "preponderance of evidence". My point is that the RIAA has no evidence of any instances of infringement by any actual person. All they have is a suggestion that an IP address is involved and their "method" of linking it to actual persons is flawed. In the Lindor case, the defendant is a computer novice, her hard drive was inspected by plaintiffs, and it showed no evidence of file sharing. There was also no evidence to suggest she wiped the hard drive after the fact. I think it is fair to characterize her as an innocent target of the RIAA. It is up to them to provide indisputable evidence that proves otherwise. And according to Rule 11(b)3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they have an obligation to have sufficient evidence for a case (or a likelyhood of being determined at discovery) before they file it. (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm/) If they were truly interested in finding and suing illegal file sharers, then after examining the hard drive and finding no evidence, they should have immediately dropped the case and paid the defendant's costs.
First removing one's own IP isn't fabricated.
That's partly why I put the quotes around that word, sorry if my meaning wasn't explicit. The fact is the plaintiffs modified the screen shots to hide their own IP address. In an adversarial court system, how can the defendants trust the plaintiffs to have stopped short of making further modifications of the screen shot, or to have done proper due diligence to make sure the IP address wasn't spoofed or incorrectly associated with the defendant?
I'd like to see the proof of the "unknown" aspect.
So would I. It's the plaintiffs burden to prove the files displayed are their copyrighted works, and that there was a specific instance where the defendant distributed same. This has been absent in all of their cases in this campaign.
As for the "association between IP and owner". While there can be disconnects between the two by someone determined to do so. The majority of those who engage in illegal copyright violations don't make the effort to do so.
Yes, IPs can be spoofed. It's up to the plaintiffs to prove that wasn't the case here. It's hard when the defendant's computer has no evidence of any file sharing software having ever been installed. I'm interested to see your evidence to support how you know how "the majority" of illegal file sharers behaves. Anyway, that's irrelevant with respect to this case, unless of course you believe in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
SHARING them with the rest of the planet contrary to copyright is illegal.
OK, so doing illegal things is illegal. So how is that relevant to this case. There's no evidence the defendant ever shared anything, much less the plaintiffs material.
Why would a jury trial necessarily be in the best interest of the court system? (note: court system, not plaintiffs or defendants).
Idealistically, the courts are interested in truth, fairness, justice, etc. Rea
I think some of you are missing the point. The "misuse of copyright" defense is not about penalizing the RIAA and their member companies (I'll just collectively refer to them as RIAA) for being greedy bastards (although that would be nice), or about antitrust activities (although that could be argued as well). It's about the RIAA's "campaign of terror" against randomly selected innocent persons; an effort that they call their "nationwide anti-piracy efforts". The EFF has described RIAA's strategy in it's amicus brief (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Capitol_v_Foster/a micus_in_support_of_fees.pdf/ - warning: PDF). RIAA has no factual proof of any of their recordings actually changing hands between two people. All they have are "fabricated" screen shots (they've edited them to remove their own IP addresses) of lists of files with unknown content that are allegedly associated with a particular IP address. Then they jump to the flawed conclusions that the files are their copyrighted works, that an IP address is the same as the owner of the allegedly associated account, and that just having the files available is an instance of infringement. None of this is supported by law or precedent (or even fair justice). In fact, none of their cases from this campaign have even made it to jury trial. What has been established in law and precedent is that by using intellectual property (IP) rights to influence others' behavior beyond the scope of those rights (analogy of monopolistic abuse in antitrust cases) is a misuse of those IP rights. It follows that by using their copyrights as a basis for waging this "campaign of terror" against innocent persons, the RIAA is misusing those copyrights. The just remedy for such behavior is to revoke the copyrights.
Even if you support the RIAA's efforts, those efforts are having the opposite effect (see EFF report http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf/ - warning: PDF). The report even offers a suggestion on how the RIAA can change their business model so that all sides win. So why does the RIAA persist in it's "campaign of terror" if it is not working? Why do they stick with the same flawed, antiquated business model? In my opinion, they are just like "dinosaurs headed for extinction".
So what can we all do? I'd suggest: write to your elected officials to complain about RIAA and their member companies' behavior; contribute to the EFF; if you know anyone targeted by RIAA, support their legal defense; and to the extent possible, boycott the RIAA and their member companies until they change their ways.
Regards,
Art (IANAL)
IANAL, but it appears that dia-RIAA has the option to appeal the judge's order. The defendant needs to get an official judgement in order for the clock to start ticking. Otherwise dia-RIAA can just wait forever.
Regards,
Art
Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it's hearing from its customers.
Microsoft: You're not going to bail on me are you? You love me don't you?
Customer: No, I wouldn't do that. You're really "nice".
Microsoft: You mean it? I mean, you're not still upset with me about the chair throwing thing, right?
Customer: Of course not. I mean, I'm still using you on some of my desktops...
Microsoft: So why are you still using XP? You hate me, right?
Customer: Er, uh, well, uh, we were planning on upgrading but we've been a little busy with our Linux migration in the data center and all, and, uh, well would you look at the time! I've got to get going. I'll see you soon...
Microsoft: See, he really does love me! That darned study is just not representative of him!
Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of MS-in-de-nial...
> Is the THIRD guy in line for the presidency ALSO an ass even bigger than Bush?
:P Surely you'd hit a worthy guy eventually.
The third "guy" would be Nancy Pelosi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi. I have no comment nor opinion regarding her ass.
>It seems hard to believe that many despicable people would get elected
While I'm sure we have enough proverbial "monkeys typing on typwriters" working in the government, I'm not sure even they would be able to produce a "worthy guy" in our lifetime.
You will have a higher risk of being cut since your work is not core to the business. You will be both admired and hated by the non-R&D folks. You will work on cool stuff and have lots of fun. You'll likely have lower pay and advancement opportunities since your compensation is getting to work on cool stuff and having lots of fun. You will have a higher chance of using Nerf(TM) toys at work. You probably don't have a girlfriend. You will have a conversation about Sci-Fi at least once a week. You will feel that you would be more appreciated and arguably at lower risk (other than company viability...) if you work for a small startup tech company rather than doing R&D in the IT universe.
:-)
The important thing is to follow your heart and do what you are passionate about. If you do that, everything else you want will likely follow. Well, maybe not the girlfriend...
Ahh, yes, money... That's the trick, isn't it! :-) Best of luck to you!
IBM = I've Been Mumbai-ed (i.e., my job was sent to Mumbai)
IBM-GS = I've Been Mumbai-ed, Gujarati Software
No offense intended to our fine quality Indian software developer brothers, it's just that in Western countries the term "going out for some South Indian" used to mean where you were going for lunch, not where your job is headed...
I was once working in a datacenter on a machine close to the company email servers. There's a message on the console for the email server saying that the email database was corrupted and that some utility had to be run to fix it. An IT guy walks up to the console and looks at the message. He then proceeds to reboot the server. After the reboot, the same message appears. Reboot again. Same message. Reboot again. Same message. The IT guy repeated this 10 or 15 times. Then he walked away perplexed at why the email server wasn't working.