RIAA Gets Nervous, Brings In Big Gun 423
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "I guess the RIAA is getting nervous about the ability of its 'national law firm' (in charge of bringing 'ex parte' motions, securing default judgments, and beating up grandmothers and children) to handle the oral argument scheduled to be heard on Monday, August 4th in Duluth, in Capitol v. Thomas. So, at the eleventh hour, it has brought in one of its 'Big Guns' from Washington, D.C., a lawyer who argues United States Supreme Court cases like MGM v. Grokster to handle the argument. This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs, but the judge ultimately realized that he had been misled by the RIAA in issuing his jury instructions, and indicated he's probably going to order a new trial. But, not to worry. A group of 10 copyright law professors from 10 different law schools and several other amici curiae (friends of the court) have filed briefs now, so it is highly unlikely the judge will allow himself to be misled again, no matter who the RIAA brings in as cannon fodder on Monday."
I dunno (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Friend of the court? (Score:5, Informative)
The Court can decide what briefs it accepts or not.
Arguably, I think the briefs are misfiled and that the process of the amicus curiae is being abused; A good amicus brief should, in my opinion, not be filed in support of any particular side, but in defense if a particular argument of law or explanation of fact.
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:2, Informative)
I have membership accounts with emusic.com and magnatune.com. There, now you know someone who is buying music.
Re:It proves how stupid they were to begin with (Score:3, Informative)
A week after the album's release, the official Nine Inch Nails site reported over 750,000 purchase and download transactions, amassing over US$1.6 million in sales. Pre-orders of the $300 "Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition" sold out in less than three days of its release.
Ghosts I-IV [wikipedia.org]
Re:Honestly... (Score:3, Informative)
innocent until proven guilty (Score:3, Informative)
I like to call it "innocent until proven guilty", but apparently, this doesn't apply to civil cases.
Unlike criminal cases where guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases it only require a preponderance of evidence or some such. That's why OJ won his criminal case but lost the civil case.
Falcon
Re:Honestly... (Score:3, Informative)
The post you replied to was not saying their main revenue stream is selling CDs, it was saying their main revenue stream is getting people to settle out of court rather than going to court and possible having to pay more plus waste a bunch of time.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the case where a $222,000 verdict was awarded for downloading 24 songs
RTFA. RIAA downloaded 24 songs from her.
And they were authorized by the copyright holders to download them.
Falcon
Re:The abuse of Copyright has gone far enough (Score:3, Informative)
...Also saved from public domain by Bono, may he burn in hell for his crimes against the people he should have served.
It's a bit unfair to blame the Sonny Bono Copyright Act on im, as he died 9 months before it passed--- it was named after him posthumously. However, his burning in hell is still appropriate, as (in his stated opinion) he thought copyright should last forever. What a fucking greedy shithead moron. The dangers of electing entertainers to public office...
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, no. In order to qualify as a "derivative work" according to the accepted definition it must be significantly different from the original, but still contain recognisable elements.
Example: the theme for Men In Black is a derivative work because it used a portion of K.C & the Sunshine Band's "Forget Me Nots". An MP3 of "Forget Me Nots" is still "Forget Me Nots", it just sounds a little worse than an uncompressed PCM file.
jury nullification (Score:3, Informative)
In P2P file sharing, copyright infringement is taking place. It is almost certainly NOT fair use. If you don't like it, you really need to be writing your members of Congress to change Copyright law.
Going to congress isn't the only way to change laws. Probably the most important part of citizenship is on a jury and when on a jury the citizen has the most power. If a juror believes a law is wrong, and don't let any judge tell you otherwise, it's their duty to vote innocent and send the message the law is bad. This is called jury nullification [wikipedia.org]. Thomas Jefferson [nowscape.com], in support for jury nullification, once said (also on the wiki page) "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." I've been called up twice for jury duty though I was not picked to sit on a jury and I was hoping to be picked to sit on a drug trial, so I could say drugs laws are wrong, but now I'd love to be picked to sit on one for one of these trials.
Falcon
Re:Friend of the court? (Score:3, Informative)
For the most part, amicus curiae briefs are encouraged, much like pro bono work. Anyone with enough money can hire lawyers to exhaustively research legally grey areas looking for precedents.
This situation is extremely unusual. In this case the judge actually invited amicus curiae briefs [blogspot.com].
Re:Cannon fodder? (Score:3, Informative)
But I did mean what I said. He's unintentional cannon fodder. They aren't bringing him in getting him wiped out; they're arrogant enough to think he might be able to get this judge to humiliate himself a second time. But I'm predicting the result will be the same, only exponentially more embarrassing than it would otherwise have been had they brought in the original cannon fodder, instead of the high powered replacement cannon fodder.