Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow To Square Off Against RIAA

Posted by timothy on Thu Nov 20, 2008 01:47 PM
from the ensemble-cast dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's case in Boston against a 24-year-old grad student, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, in which Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, along with members of his CyberLaw class, are representing the defendant, may shape up as a showdown between the Electronic Frontier and Big Music. The defendant's witness list includes names such as those of Prof. Lawrence Lessig (Author of 'Free Culture'), John Perry Barlow (former songwriter of The Grateful Dead and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation), Prof. Johan Pouwelse (Scientific Director of P2P-Next), Prof. Jonathan Zittrain (Author of 'The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It'), Professors Wendy Seltzer, Terry Fisher, and John Palfrey, and others. The RIAA requested, and was granted, an adjournment of the trial, from its previously scheduled December 1st date, to March 30, 2009. (The RIAA lawyers have been asking for adjournments a lot lately, asking for an adjournment in UMG v. Lindor the other day because they were so busy preparing for the Tenenbaum December 1st trial ... I guess when you're running on hot air, you sometimes run out of steam)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Zit Train? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2008, @01:48PM (#25835527)

    I bet he had a fun childhood.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:17PM (#25835913)
      I don't know, once he hit adolescence I could see him going Quagmire with it: "You must be at least this fine to ride the Z-train! All aboard ladies." :D
      • Can you imagine how sick I got of hearing "Oh, McGrew, you've done it again?"

        About as sick as I got of "like Captain Kirk? Aye-aye! HAR HAR HAR" as ten thousand successive wits invented the joke for the first time.

  • Before those of us here who love to download copyright films and music at no cost start cheering these men on who challenge the RIAA, let's remember that Lessig doesn't want to abolish copyright, but simply restore short terms. He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
    • by Sun.Jedi (1280674) on Thursday November 20 2008, @01:55PM (#25835657) Journal

      let's remember that Lessig doesn't want to abolish copyright, but simply restore short terms.

      I didn't think the argument was about 'sensible' copyright as opposed to the current life +75 years copyright abomination of common sense.

      It may not be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws, reasonable first sale doctrines, and appropriate penalties for consumer violations.

      • by Rary (566291) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:35PM (#25836145)

        It may not be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws, reasonable first sale doctrines, and appropriate penalties for consumer violations.

        It wouldn't be such a bad thing to have sane copyright laws. In fact, it wasn't when we did.

        The disapproval of copyright law has arisen as a result of the changes (bastardizations?) that have occurred in recent decades. No one complained about copyright when it first came into existence. If we put copyright back to the way it once was, most of the complaining will go away.

        • A lot of people complained about copyright even when terms were quite short. Publishers on one side of the Atlantic tried desperately to ignore the copyrights of publishers on the other side for decades. And copyright never made any sense at all to most of the world's population, being a peculiar Western concept that only rose within the last several hundred years. Even today, if you tell the typical Indian, Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia that there should be a law to prevent them duplicating media as they see fit, they'd think you're a madman.
    • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @01:58PM (#25835685) Homepage

      but simply restore short terms

      The problems with the copyright system aren't just about getting sumthin' for nuthin'. It's about the inevitable abuses of the copyright owners.

      A hyperbolic example: having to pay royalties to the RIAA because you sang "Happy Birthday to you" at your friend's party. Some may even say that the RIAA's asking settlements constitute "cruel and unusual punishment".

      • The RIAA holds copyrights on recordings. The copyright on songs like Happy Birthday is held by songwriters' associations like BMI/ASCAP.
        • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:13PM (#25835857) Homepage
          I stand corrected, but I will continue to download out of principle because I know that the eventual goal of the *AAs is to charge on a per-listen, per-song basis and they will continue to fight for their revenue stream at the expense of the consumer just as I will continue to fight for the freedom to experience my media with no strings attached. The vast majority of the stuff I download are songs from CD's I bought years ago, or older movies which I see on paid-for cable TV.

          I will pay for the media when the content providers develop reasonable business models. I want to enjoy what I pay for on any device that I own without having to satisfy pointless software and hardware DRM requirements and other annoyances such as being forced to sit through previews.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            I figure, let them switch to a per song per listen business model.

            Once they do, they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.

            Piracy will become the -only- channel for consumers to personally get music, since not a single consumer will purchase a song good for only one play. Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.
            Sanity can return to the music indust
            • Jukebox (Score:4, Funny)

              by tepples (727027) <slash2006@pinei[ ].com ['ght' in gap]> on Thursday November 20 2008, @03:31PM (#25836993) Homepage Journal

              they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.

              Citation needed [wikipedia.org].

            • Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.

              Not in today's United States. Federal bailout. It's the new model for capitalism these days.

              Incompetent execs? Outdated business model? Are you selling something that was great in the 80's but sucks today?

              Federal bailout. After all, we can't have these overpriced incompetent execs making the unemployment numbers worse, can we?

              I'm only halfway kidding. I would not be surprised if these

            • by EzInKy (115248) on Thursday November 20 2008, @06:37PM (#25839651)


              The proper response to a law that you disagree with is not to disobey the law.

              If a law is obeyed there is no reason to change it. It took millions of people drinking illegally for years to get Prohibition rescinded.

              Otherwise we would have people murdering others out of principle.

              That's the fourth box. Content providers are probably safe at least until the people exhaust the soap, ballot, and jury boxes.

              If you disagree with the laws about downloading material, then you should just not listen to the music period.

              Listening to music does not violate even the current draconian copyright laws.

        • by Rary (566291) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:31PM (#25836097)

          The RIAA holds copyrights on recordings. The copyright on songs like Happy Birthday is held by songwriters' associations like BMI/ASCAP.

          BMI and ASCAP are Performing Rights Organizations, and as such don't hold copyrights. They administer the payments of performance royalties to copyright holders.

          The "Happy Birthday to You" copyright is held by Time Warner.

        • How is it possible to hold a copyright on Happy Birthday? The lyrics change every time you sing it.

          What does their copyright look like?

          Happy birthday to you
          Happy birthday to you
          Happy birthday dear *
          Happy birthday to you.

          Or have they filed millions of copyrights?

          Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version.
          Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version.
          Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.
          ...

          • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday November 20 2008, @04:09PM (#25837583) Homepage

            Or have they filed millions of copyrights?

            Copyright 2234257612, Happy Birthday to You, Aaby version.
            Copyright 2234257613, Happy Birthday to You, Aaron version.
            Copyright 2234257614, Happy Birthday to You, Abe version.

            They only need a copyright on one version, and all the other versions are derivative works, which is a reserved right under copyright.

            That's why you can't make a proprietary Linux kernel by changing one variable name.

            The Name Game is the same way.

            The stupid part isn't being able to copyright a song that has a lyric that changes every time. The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.

            • by againjj (1132651) on Thursday November 20 2008, @04:51PM (#25838225)

              The stupid part is that it's such a fundamental part of our culture that most people don't even realize it's copyrighted, and yet it's going to be for quite a long time yet.

              Until 2030, as it was registered in 1935, if we assume that copyright is not lengthened again. But for us to assume would make an ass out of u and me.

    • No one in their right mind on Slashdot should want to abolish copyright. As authors of free software under licenses like the GPL, we actually depend on copyright law to keep our creations free.

      • Stallman created the GPL to use copyright against itself. He probably would be happy in a world that didn't know copyright or other forms of "intellectual property". Even if people weren't compelled to keep their changes open, a lack of NDAs and the legality of reverse engineering with help would ensure changes got leaked anyway.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            With no copyright, I could take any GPLed program, improve it to a point that people would want to use it in mass, and then not release any code or anything.

            If you do "not release any code", you're running a server. On the other hand, if you publish executable code but not source code in an environment with no copyright, expect people to disassemble, comment, and document the shit out of your binaries in their free time.

      • No one in their right mind on Slashdot should want to abolish copyright. As authors of free software under licenses like the GPL, we actually depend on copyright law to keep our creations free.

        But what we're keeping them free from is mainly compilation copyrights.

        The problem is that software couldn't be safely released into the public domain because somebody else could fix a bug or make a useful mod, copyright the fix or upgrade, and everybody else (including the original author) are hosed. They can't fix

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:09PM (#25835819)

      Are you kidding? Do you think slashdot is just a bunch of people who want to abolish copyright altogether? No copyright means the gpl is no longer enforceable. Essentially, all things would be public domain. No copyright hurts a lot of things.

      The consensus Im seeing with geeks and non-geeks alike is a sensible copyright limit and sensible damage caps. We should absolutely be cheering these guys on for what they are doing. and unlike your extremist position, they have a chance of winning and changing minds.

      >He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.

      The idea that any sensible person, let alone someone of Lessig's stature, would support something like that is beyond ridiculous. People dont mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy. The fight against the RIAA isnt to abolish copyright, its to protect consumers and to stop corporations from using the courts as a debt collection service.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The key statement in the GP post that you overlooked is "people don't mind paying fair prices and owning what they buy".

          In other words, some people download so they can actually use the content they have paid for, because it's harder to break the artificial restrictions (i.e., DRM) yourself than just download something without those restrictions.

          Some people also download because they don't want to pay $20 for the crapshoot that new movies are. It's sort of like paying on the way out of a movie theater if y

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:11PM (#25835829) Journal

      Indeed. I just finished reading his book Creative Commons (you can download it here [free-culture.cc]). I have to say I agree with just about everything he says in the book.

      I think that if all his reforms were instituted, there wouldn't be an "abolish copyright" movement. If copyrights were truly limited, most of what is downloaded would be free to download anyway.

      The main thrust of the book is that the "permission culture" (as opposed to "free culture") harms creativity itself, something I've also been preaching.

      Have you hear the Kidd Rock song "all summer long?" It starts with a note-for-note and sound for sound copy of Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London and copies much of Skynard's Sweet Home Alabama (the song is about drinking whiskey and smoking dope and having sex while listening to Sweet Home Alabama). The Zevon start is a very creative statement about the fact that the two songs use the same chords and sound a lot alike, something he isn't alone in noticing (a friend of mine who plays in bars does a medely of those two songs and a third I can't think of right now). If he wasn't on the same label as Warren Zevon and Lynard Skynard, there would be hellishly expensive lawsuits. It isn't right that no independant artist could have recorded a similar song.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        If he wasn't on the same label as Warren Zevon and Lynard Skynard, there would be hellishly expensive lawsuits. It isn't right that no independant artist could have recorded a similar song.

        Well, this is one of the main thrusts of why the MAFIAA is trying to prop up their business model though lawsuits and buying legislators. If they have copyrights that are perpetual, or at least so long that they may as well be perpetual, no one will be able to create or even express *anything* without their permission an

      • by sumdumass (711423) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:57PM (#25836427) Journal

        Well, no. Kid Rock actually licenses his music from other when he uses it. He didn't just create a song that took parts of other people's works then think no one would care, I saw him explain this a while back when he did a cover of a Metallica song. About the only thing having the same song label (if that is true) has to do with it is perhaps more favorable licensing agreements or access to the artists.

  • by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Thursday November 20 2008, @01:52PM (#25835587)
    Is anyone surprised that the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats is resquesting more time? It takes a LOT of lawyers to succesfully bully and threaten an entire all-star team of intellectuals college professors well-reknowned in their fields as opposed as a single young student. You don't just steamroll a group like that with a single "cease and decist or we'll ruin you" email.
  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @01:55PM (#25835651) Journal

    I submitted a story about this Monday, Constitutionality of P2P law "under attack" (rejected) after seeing it in an AP story in the Chicago Tribune. That story quoted NYCL, who it of course called Ray Beckerman. I wondered at the time why he hadn't submitted it himself.

    But at any rate, for the corporate media spin on this, here are a few links:
    Billion Dollar Charlie vs. the RIAA [boston.com]
    Legal Jujitsu in a File-Sharing Copyright Case [nytimes.com]
    Lawsuits Brought by Music Industry Are Unconstitutional, Lawyer Says [findingdulcinea.com]
    Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits (AP) [google.com]
    Law Professor Takes on RIAA [thecrimson.com]
    Prof: Penalty unfair, will help with $1M download lawsuit [bostonherald.com]
    RIAA defendant enlists Harvard Law prof, students [arstechnica.com]
    Harvard Professor: File-Sharing Lawsuits Unconstitutional [foxnews.com]

  • by Moof123 (1292134) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:03PM (#25835745)

    I might stop being spitting mad.

    I hate:
    1. DVD's that lock you out of fast forwarding through the crap (long intros, FBI warnings, previews, etc).
    2. Stupid itunes making it a hassle to give my wife a copy of something WE own legally (or often was free in the first place).
    3. Anti-competitive prices on CD's, and music in general. There have been findings of fact showing anti-competivie behavior, but nothing done to stop it.
    4. CD's that try to install crap on my machine (yes, you Sony).
    5. DVD's that all prevent me from being able to make fair use of their content (using short clips for example) without becoming a criminal.
    6. Retarded EULA's.

        I want to own my own shit again!

        I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights. You just wait.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yeah, well the manufacturers of that shirt might sue you if your picture is taken wearing 'their' shirt. It happens [slashdot.org] with cars [boingboing.net].
      • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:58PM (#25836459) Homepage

        I had posted that story to a photography forum I'm a member of and someone took the initiative to contact Toyota's legal department. They're backpedaling now on their original claim:

        Response (XXXX) 11/18/2008 04:34 PM
        Thank you for contacting Toyota with your comments and concerns regarding the use of vehicle images. The letter asking the DesktopNexus site to remove all images featuring a Toyota, Scion or Lexus vehicle was the result of mis-communication at Toyota, which we regret.

        Copyright law protects the creative work product of artists, photographers, and other creators. Toyota respects these rights, including those of photographers who work with Toyota. Toyota purchases the rights to the images it posts on its sites, and welcomes public use of those images where we have the rights to give. However, this permission is limited to editorial or personal use, not commercial use, such as advertising any products or services. That's because the photographers - not Toyota - retain the rights to any commercial use, and we cannot give permission to use those images for that purpose. In response the concerns raised by DesktopNexus, Toyota is working with photographers to determine what images may be used for non-commercial purposes, and what we can do to provide broader access.

        We hope you will understand and appreciate the legal constraints we face.

        Toyota also welcomes interested members of the public to use their own images or photography of Toyota's vehicles, and we confirm that we have no objection to this use.

        We appreciate your interest in our products.

        Toyota Customer Experience

        Translation: We found a couple of legitimately infringing photos on your site but rather than give you specifics we decided to be lazy and just order them all down. We figured you'd just roll over and take it, but then you had to spread the word. Now we're facing a ton of bad PR so we're going to limit our claims to just those originally infringing photos.

    • I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights.

      That's absolutely reasonable. When you wear that shirt, you're representing Tommy Hilfiger and are, therefore, impacting the future sales of that brand. By wearing that white shirt after labor day, you're in effect saying that the Hilfiger brand itself is out of style, causing irreparable and immeasurable damage. This theft of future sales is obviously wrong and it needs to be stopped. Since there's no telling how many days you've warn that shirt in a damaging way, and there's no telling how many people were negatively impacted, I think it's entirely fair to set the minimum damages to $15,000 and the maximum at 2% of the brand's gross yearly earnings (even though the damages may be much, much greater).

      Also, since clothing brands are named after the person who designed them, and by wearing them incorrectly, we're going to start calling the improper wearing of clothes "Assassination" instead of the more tame "bad style". The Designer Assassination Prevention Act of 2009 will set all of this into the law books. It's only fair, after all.

      • I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

        Are you working on legislation which would lock up all of those content thieves who get up and go to the bathroom instead of watching the commercials thereby depriving the starving artists of their hard earned income?

        These BATHROOM BANDITS must be stopped.

    • I hate: 1. DVD's that lock you out of fast forwarding through the crap (long intros, FBI warnings, previews, etc). 2. Stupid itunes making it a hassle to give my wife a copy of something WE own legally (or often was free in the first place). 3. Anti-competitive prices on CD's, and music in general. There have been findings of fact showing anti-competivie behavior, but nothing done to stop it. 4. CD's that try to install crap on my machine (yes, you Sony). 5. DVD's that all prevent me from being able to make fair use of their content (using short clips for example) without becoming a criminal. 6. Retarded EULA's.

      Easy solution: Don't buy any of that stuff.

      I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights.

      Then we'll just get all of our clothing from Sweden like we currently do with all of our media ;)

  • "I'll get back to ya on that!"

    Didn't someone just recently copyright that phrase?

    I hope the RIAA gets sued!

  • by psydeshow (154300) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:31PM (#25836093) Homepage

    Obviously they're postponing trials because they are busy drafting a Federal bailout of the music industry.

    The Govt. created the Internet, they owe the record companies some love. $30 Billion ought to do it.

    • Re:first post (Score:5, Informative)

      by BountyX (1227176) on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:05PM (#25835769)
      Since I keep getting modded down, I feel compelled to provide userful information. I apologize for the way I stated my first comment, but the RIAA is the guardian of an industry so antiquated and oppressive that having sympathy for these guys is a little like feeling sorry for a Georgia slaveholder after watching Sherman's troops fire his mansion and scatter his livestock. Here's an industry so bloated with executives and middlemen, all of them greedily slurping up profit, that the people who actually write the songs and play the music -- the "talent" -- are getting royally screwed in the royalty department. It's been like that for years. Anyways, harvard has the court documents posted here [harvard.edu] for all to see.
    • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @02:39PM (#25836207) Homepage Journal

      Are they perhaps trying to postpone the trial long enough so that the class has finished it's term and the 'defense team' has moved on to a new subject?

      Perhaps yes. But last time I looked, Harvard Law School did have a sufficient number of new applicants to keep Prof. Nesson's CyberLaw class quite full.

    • by danzona (779560) on Thursday November 20 2008, @04:14PM (#25837677)
      Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?

      The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).

      In the 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," the issue before the trial court wasn't evolution, it was the teaching of evolution in the public schools in violation of Tennessee state law.

      That was the position of the prosecution. The position of the defense was that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the teacher's (Scopes) constitutional rights (the law benefited a particular religious group). But at some point the trial became a media circus full of the celebrities of the age and the defense just made speeches (that as you point out were irrelevant).
      • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @04:18PM (#25837735) Homepage Journal

        Is what do these all these "expert" witnesses contribute to the case before the court?

        The plaintiff will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes them $1 million. The expert witnesses will try to convince the judge that Tenenbaum downloaded 7 songs and owes the plaintiffs nothing (or maybe $6.93).

        Well spoken, danzona. I hope you get modded up for that succinct observation (and I hope I don't get modded down as 'redundant' for agreeing with you and for not being able to improve on what you said).

      • Re:Well Shoot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday November 20 2008, @04:16PM (#25837697) Homepage Journal

        The Music Industry wants to keep its cash cow alive for as long as it can (time is money) even if it requires very expensive lawyers to do it. But sooner or later (later if the Music Industry has its way), the digital music culture will start feeding on public domain music and independently produced and distributed music, then things will change geometrically. The most interesting factor in all of this is talent. How rare is talent? How much talent does it take to develop talent? The future may help answer this.

        In my experience, talent is not rare. Being untalented myself, I am always surprised by it, but there are a great many very gifted people out there who have been underemployed, in the sense that they are not employed to do the thing that best utilizes their special talents. And the reason these very talented and creative people have not been able to make a living at their art has been the 'gatekeepers'... i.e. the MAFIAA. The internet and digitalization have made it possible for the 'gatekeepers' now to be dispensed with. In my view, we are entering a golden age of music, where there will be less 'megastars' but there will be more people making a living at their art, instead of having to take 'day jobs' to sustain themselves. Society will be the better for it.

      • Get a grip. It's attitudes like yours which make everyone who opposes the RIAA look like a criminal jerk.

        Are you sure you meant to say that? That is tantamount to saying that the large majority of people in this country 'look like criminal jerks'. I have never met anyone who ever heard of the RIAA who does not oppose it, except for people who are on its payroll. And I have never met anyone who thinks that 'everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk'.

        A lot of people think it's the RIAA and their aiders and abettors that are 'criminal jerks', such as these attorneys in St. Louis [blogspot.com], who just filed RICO counterclaims pointing out the RIAA's extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud, and these government officials in North Carolina [blogspot.com] who have summoned the RIAA's investigators to a "probable cause hearing", and these state troopers in Massachusetts [blogspot.com] who have ordered them to "cease and desist" from their illegal "investigations".

        So, just between you and me, I think you may have overstated things a bit. If it's you who thinks that everyone who opposes the RIAA looks like a criminal jerk, well, that's you, and you alone, and maybe this guy [blogspot.com].