Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Lindor Attacks Record Company Copyright-Pooling 136

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by RESPAWN ( 153636 ) <respawn_76.hotmail@com> on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:32PM (#20606407) 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.
  • 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.
  • Better yet, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Friday September 14, 2007 @02:51PM (#20606617) Homepage
    Let's donate some money to her defense fund ... Too bad she doesn't have a website for that.
  • 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 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15, 2007 @12:32AM (#20613055)
    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.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...