Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music The Internet News Your Rights Online

Lindor Attacks Record Company Copyright-Pooling 136

Posted by Zonk
from the avoiding-the-rule-of-inverse-ninjas dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Back in March, 2006, Marie Lindor called the record companies suing her a collusive cartel, and their joint agreement to pool their copyrights "copyright misuse" (pdf). A year and a half later, the RIAA apparently got nervous about that allegation and made a motion to strike the allegations. Ms. Lindor has struck back, pointing out to the Judge not only that the RIAA's arguments had no legal basis, but also that its brief was completely silent as to any justification for the record companies' copyright-pooling agreement. Such a justification would be necessary for it to pass muster under 'rule of reason' analysis mandated by the US Supreme Court. Ms. Lindor, a home health worker who has never even used a computer, let alone infringed anyone's copyrights with a p2p file sharing program, is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony. She also obtained a ruling that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory might be a wee bit unconstitutional."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lindor Attacks Record Company Copyright-Pooling

Comments Filter:
  • Hope she wins and gets a couple of million from the RIAA (as well as setting a precedent)
    • I hope ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday September 14, 2007 @03:03PM (#20606771) Journal
      Hope she wins and gets a couple of million from the RIAA (as well as setting a precedent)

      I hope she wins and the RIAA members effectively lose the copyrights to every song involved in these suits.

      That's the point of the "copyright misuse" claim: Part of the penalty for misuse of a copyright is the loss of the ability to enforce it at all.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Isn't this exactly the same as the copyright pooling Lunix organizations are doing in an effort to browbeat companies into supporting FOSS?

      I don't see how it's different: the RIAA is trying to get money, and teh FOSSies are trying to gain control over commerical software developers. Different goals, but the exact same method: pooling copyrights in a quid pro quo extortion scheme.
  • by RESPAWN (153636) <caldwell@tulane a l u m ni.net> on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:32PM (#20606407) Homepage Journal
    I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file.

    It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books.
    • I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file. It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books.

      Thanks, RESPAWN.

      I don't know about her, but I could really use one about now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RyoShin (610051)
        Barring a drink, how can we help the campaign financially? I know that there have been ways stated previously, but I forget. I've already made my donation to the EFF, but is there a fund or something to keep you and Ms. Lindor on the RIAA's backs?

        I can only do like $20, but if half of the registered /. users contributed $5 each, that gives you $2.5M to work with and keep flinging the RIAA's poop back at them. A little from a lot can go a long way.
      • by Merk (25521)

        Hey NYCL, is it really Ms. Lindor who is "pointing out to the Judge not only that the RIAA's arguments had no legal basis, but also that its brief was completely silent as to any justification for the record companies' copyright-pooling agreement" etc.? Or is it you (collectively) as her attorneys who are doing all these things, and she's encouraging you and signing off on them?

        I'd be really impressed if a "home health worker who has never even used a computer" was able to such an amazing job of fighti

    • Better yet, (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vlad_petric (94134)
      Let's donate some money to her defense fund ... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that.
      • Re:Better yet, (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:56PM (#20606683) Homepage Journal

        Let's donate some money to her defense fund ... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that.
        If you send a check to Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, As Attorneys for Marie Lindor" we will deposit it in our escrow account and apply it to Ms. Lindor's account. I can assure you she will warmly appreciate it. Our mailing address is: Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, 110 E. 42 St., New York, NY 10017, Att: Ray Beckerman

        Thanks
        • by Dan667 (564390)
          Set up a paypal account so it is easy for folks to help.
        • by RESPAWN (153636)
          In the grand scheme of things, what I can contribute is very little, but you will receive a check from me. Also, don't be surprised if you find a modest bottle of scotch deliverd to that address as soon as I figure out the best way to have one legally delivered.

          That said... I'm sure this has been discussed before, but are there any legal reasons that you couldn't set up a website and/or Paypal account to accept further contributions? I'm sure that myself and Vlad Petric aren't the only /.'ers willing to c
        • If you send a check to Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, As Attorneys for Marie Lindor" we will deposit it in our escrow account and apply it to Ms. Lindor's account. I can assure you she will warmly appreciate it. Our mailing address is: Vandenberg & Feliu, LLP, 110 E. 42 St., New York, NY 10017, Att: Ray Beckerman

          Ray - she'll be receiving a check from me (or PayPal, if you manage it). I don't have much but you guys deserve the best society can heap upon you for what you're doing.

          Saying 'Thank You' doesn't

          • Ray - she'll be receiving a check from me (or PayPal, if you manage it). I don't have much but you guys deserve the best society can heap upon you for what you're doing. Saying 'Thank You' doesn't even begin to cover it.
            . Thanks, Balance. Much appreciated. PayPal account is now set up [blogspot.com]
            • Will it be possible to get some sort of status on how much money was generated from this in the future or is that Attorney client privilege?

              Sent some cash.. hope it helps.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

      I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink.

      No can do. We'd be an illegal cartel of lawsuit targets.

    • Given the number of simultaneous attack vectors, I have to say that I would definitely NOT want to face her lawyer in an RTS game.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tech10171968 (955149)

      I really want to buy this woman (and her lawyers) a drink. They are probably doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now. I don't mean to discount the contributions of organizations such as the EFF (I have, in fact, contributed money in the past), but it's hard to root for a nameless, faceless group like that. This woman is fast becoming an icon for fighting the good fight against the frivilous lawsuits that the RIAA continues to file. It may be a tad melodramatic to say this (especially now), but I certainly hope that she finds her place in the history books.

      Isn't it uber-ironic how this woman, who may be "doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now", doesn't even use a computer, or probably never even heard of P2P software until this trial?

      • Isn't it uber-ironic how this woman, who may be "doing more for our digital rights than any single group of people right now", doesn't even use a computer, or probably never even heard of P2P software until this trial?

        Yes, it really is ironic.

        But here's the recipe for what has happened here:

        1. She is totally and undeniably innocent.
        2. The RIAA and its lawyers have no conscience or respect for law, and therefore don't care that she's innocent.
        3. She won't pay extortion money.
        4. The RIAA stonewalls everything and fights over everything, and will never compromise on anything.

        That simple equation has led to this endless litany of litigation events [blogspot.com], and there's no end in sight.

  • Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bit trollent (824666) on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:33PM (#20606415) Homepage
    The RIAA bought and paid for elected representatives. Those representatives created laws which allow the RIAA to metaphorically rape anybody who has stepped out of line causing them the loss of any amount of potential revenue. The courts need to respect the laws that our corrupt politicians have put on the books.

    If you can't hire corrupt politicians to make a mockery of the constitution at the expense of normal citizens then what can you do?

    It should be as easy to buy judges as it is to buy congressmen.
    • by middlemen (765373)
      How is the above post flamebait !? It seems like a good idea for a satirical movie on the RIAA, which ironically could be released by the MPAA themselves, preventing the public to watch it...
    • It should be as easy to buy judges as it is to buy congressmen.

      Federal judges have life tenure unless they do something really stupid (like accept bribes). They have no need for election money (unlike Congress critters), so I think it's harder to bribe federal judges.

      Also, what federal judges do is extremely academic. Sure, they might be able to somehow hide their bribery in cerebral language, but I get the feeling from reading their writings that most of them are interested in treating the cases before the

  • Ha-ha, RIAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:40PM (#20606495) Homepage

    The playground bully getting their ass kicked by a girl. lol.

  • One of their own, Dr Dre, will have said it best: "We have your...record company surrounded. Put down the candy and let the little boy go."
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Her arguements seem like the most systematic, potentially successful, and logical takedown of the riaa's tactics I've yet seen. Is there a legal fund we could donate to? Seems like it'd be some money well spent.
  • Better make that a non-alcoholic drink, because I can guarantee you the state will prosecute her just as maliciously as the RIAA has.
  • What nerve! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:46PM (#20606561) Homepage Journal

    I say! She's challenging the bedrock of modern law! It's all written and owned by the cartels, corporations, rich and poweful and they've earned it! They have worked very hard and at no little expsense to get those laws, buying representatives, influencing judge selections and so forth. How dare the little ordinary person challenge this status! This almost made the monocle pop right out of my eye! I shall have to see what I can do to prevent these common rabble from believing they were hah! created equal.

    • by techpawn (969834)
      So, you're saying we're all created equal, just some more equal than others Mr. Pigg?
  • by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:47PM (#20606573)
    a home health worker who has never even used a computer

    Uhh... WHAT??
    • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Friday September 14, 2007 @03:01PM (#20606743) Homepage Journal

      a home health worker who has never even used a computer
      Uhh... WHAT??
      Yup.

      Believe it or not, the RIAA has sued as an 'online media distributor' one of the only people I have never met who has never used a computer. She has never even turned one on. The only thing she has ever done with a computer is to dust around one sometimes.

      That should tell you the kind of "human beings" I am litigating against.
      • I wholeheartedly support Ms. Lindor's efforts and those of her attorneys. I also think the collusion argument is fantastic, but in the interest of fairness I think one aspect of this is worth pointing out. I don't think the "Never Used a Computer" angle is quite as strong an argument as it is being made out to be. Reading into the various articles a bit, it seems at least possible that copyright infringement was taking place by a member of her family, and its not that far a logical stretch that she could
        • Thats fine. Let them try to sue her children then. It worked SO well the last time they tried that stunt.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I haven't ever used a computer, too.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    "Ms. Lindor, a home health worker who has never even used a computer, let alone infringed anyone's copyrights with a p2p file sharing program, is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."

    Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.
    • by cez (539085) *

      "is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."

      Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.

      lol... well for starters, the "RIAA's expert testimony" was not given by lawyers, and regardless if I would hardly call them experts in their field of law, but by so called Computer / Network experts of the RIAA.

      Those you will fi

      • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Friday September 14, 2007 @03:24PM (#20607163) Homepage Journal

        "is the same defendant who exposed, with a little help from her friends, some of the weaknesses in the RIAA's expert testimony."
        Considering how all the links from this particular quote are to /. articles, I have to say I had no idea that most /.ers are such excellent lawyers.
        lol... well for starters, the "RIAA's expert testimony" was not given by lawyers, and regardless if I would hardly call them experts in their field of law, but by so called Computer / Network experts of the RIAA.
        Actually the Slashdot community was extremely helpful in helping to both formulate questions for the expert, and in reviewing the transcript of his testimony.

        It was not legal, but technical, input we were looking for.

        As for Slashdotters being lawyers, as I said when I was interviewed in September, 2006, on Slashdot, I learned a valuable lesson then. One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot. If something is modded +5 on Slashdot, it must be the law as well, even if neither Congress nor the Courts have recognized it yet.

        :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by nairnr (314138)
          Yeah, just as long as you aren't looking for the +5 Funny. Sure as hell wouldn't want those considered as law :-)
        • One needs to look beyond the statutes and the cases for the law; one also needs to look at Slashdot.

          I can't tell how tongue-in-cheek you're being, but I do think that this is right, that in some ways the issues really aren't about the exact statutes. However the laws are worded, copyrights simply weren't intended as a means for large corporations to bully individual viewers of that copyrighted material.

          But look at me, I guess I'm preaching to the choir. IANAL, but of course I know that lawyers can't re

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by bravo369 (853579)
        I read through most of the transcript of the Q/A with the RIAA expert. He pretty much agreed with the defendant's stance. I don't know if you can do this in a trial but I would try to make sure those answers are summarized on a 1-2 page document to make sure the judge sees the answers. No he did not see any filesharing SW on the pc, could not verify the MAC address, Could not verify how many PC's were behind the router, whether wireless was used...and most damaging that there are COUNTLESS ways to spoof a
  • all of those who were ever sued by the riaa: turn around and sue the riaa in class action for malicious and frivolous prosecution

    some group of lawyers can spearhead the process. it doesn't require grassroots action. if lawyers can smell blood in the water over cigarettes, asbestos, etc., they can easily see the dollar signs they can bleed the riaa for here too, depending on the precedents this glorious woman sets

    make them give back every $ they ever took and then some

    bleed the fuckers dry

    teach them you can'
  • Soap box.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aero2600-5 (797736) on Friday September 14, 2007 @03:09PM (#20606879)
    It was only a matter of time before someone managed to use Slashdot for it's ability to harness ideas and viewpoints. Usually it's just spitting into the wind with no one making any effort to record the good ideas that do pop up.

    Our friend, the NewYorkCountryLawyer, has not only made Slashdot his personal soap box, what the Russians would call the 'Father of all soapboxes', but he has managed to harness all the good ideas generated from several Slashdot stories and put them to good use. Not only has he put these ideas to his own personal good use, he's doing good for society as a whole, and sticking it to the RIAA in the process.

    Sir, I tip my hat to you. Keep up the good work.

    Aero
  • To defend their rights together and gain bargaining power?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      To defend their rights together and gain bargaining power?

      The RIAA [riaa.com] is not a musician's union. They are an association of record labels. Hence the name Recording Industry Assocation of America.

      You're probably thinking of ASCAP [ascap.com] and BMI [bmi.com], which are copyright clearinghouses for songwriters and publishers. Even so, they aren't a musician's union, either.

      • by mi (197448)

        The RIAA is not a musician's union. They are an association of record labels.

        This distinction is too detailed and irrelevant — even if they were a musician's union, they would still be attacked for copyright pooling. The article — and most of the discussion — are raging against the very concept of the marketplace participants uniting to further their interests.

        America's perception of this concept is hypocritical. When the entities are people, we tend to nod in approval (even if they ar

  • What part of "sinking ship" does the lawyers and/for the RIAA not quite understand???

    You'd think that by now they'd realize that the fudge they were pushing would eventually catch up to them. This lady obviously either has some serious smarts, or has some very savvy counsel with her and I'd be surprised if there isn't someone in Washington helping this by looking up things at the Supreme courts too!

    Eventually this will get overturned, and the floodgates will open to all involved with the RIAA and many of th
    • You think the lawyers care if the RIAA wins? I'm pretty sure they get paid either way.
      • by jskline (301574)
        Actually;

        Your absolutely right. They get A LOT OF CASH whether or not anyone wins. This is another folly that someday someone will figure out a way to fix.
    • What part of "sinking ship" does the lawyers and/for the RIAA not quite understand???
      I think they understand it perfectly well. That however does not prevent them from milking it for everything it's worth.
  • OK folks, I am pleased to announce that the PayPal account for Ms. Lindor's legal defense has been set up.

    The email address is:

    wraymond@hotmail.com
    • Thanks for the info.

      I think I'll stick with mailing a check though, because I want to include a short note thanking you all for what you're doing. She should know she's not alone.
    • I already posted this on an above comment but wanted to make sure you see it since i'm sure there are a lot of replies to sort through.

      Will we be able to know how much money has been generated or will this be attorney client privilege?

      Sent some money.. hope it helps.
      • I already posted this on an above comment but wanted to make sure you see it since i'm sure there are a lot of replies to sort through. Will we be able to know how much money has been generated or will this be attorney client privilege? Sent some money.. hope it helps.

        Thanks very much.

        The account was set up by family members, not by the law firm.

        As to whether to disclose the amount that comes in, I really don't know.

        On the one hand I'd love for people to know the figures. But don't you think the RIAA would love to have that information?

        • "On the one hand I'd love for people to know the figures. But don't you think the RIAA would love to have that information?"

          I don't know.. would knowing a person's defense fund limitations help with their case? (sorry not too familiar with the fine points of litigation, if you have a Windows XP problem i could help tho :P)
    • Dear Nathan Woodruff,

      Your payment for $10.00 USD to wraymond@hotmail.com has been sent.

      Payment Details

      Amount: $10.00 USD

      Transaction ID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      Subject: Go Get them.

      Message:
      Thanks for your hard work.

      Nathan
    • by jp10558 (748604)
      You have sent $15.00 USD to wraymond@hotmail.com. An email has been sent to the recipient.

      Keep fighting the good fight.
    • "You have sent $10.00 USD to wraymond@hotmail.com"
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        To those of you who are doing this I would like to say thank you to each and every one of you, but I'd probably get modded "redundant". So I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you.... you know who you are!
        • Ray, some people do so much for common sense and MORAL justice that they achieve credibility simply by their actions.

          Slashdot may occasionally be a bit mad but most of this crowd is not fundamentally dishonest, which is why they rail against the RIAA labelling everyone as hardcore criminals - for profit.

          Given that you're fighting the good fight I can't see someone modding you down.

          The only way is up :-)
  • What's wrong with the RIAA? They don't typically want to pursue litigated cases to begin with, and they are now being hit with allegations that if nothing else, would potentially be a very expensive discovery process for their clients. Even the smallest discovery (and this is potentially much larger than small) for documents and interrogatories would be expensive in terms of executive time and pulling the information together, whether or not they are right. Then when you see the gaping holes in the RIAA'
  • by Technician (215283) on Friday September 14, 2007 @05:02PM (#20609025)
    Such a justification would be necessary for it to pass muster under 'rule of reason' analysis mandated by the US Supreme Court.

    The RIAA has goofed big time on this one. What they were doing was marginal at best. Now with the litigation campaign and the examination of the law as a result is starting to bring down the house of cards. I think they goofed on the litigation campaign in hopes everyone would roll over and play dead. I don't think they expected a fight with intelligent people who could see the flaws in their assertions.

    They played the lottery trying to get shady practices cemented as standard operating practices. They played the gamble that the defendants would fold as the cheap option. They gambled and stand a good chance of getting copyright law handed to them on a platter with shady practices exposed as a big RICO problem.

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."

Working...