RIAA Brief Attacks Free Software Foundation 554
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has requested permission to file a response to the amicus curiae brief filed by the Free Software Foundation in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston case against a Boston University grad student accused of having downloaded some song files when in his teens. In their proposed response, the RIAA lawyers personally attacked The Free Software Foundation, Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawyer), and NYCL's blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People.' The 9-page response (PDF) — 4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding — termed the FSF an organization 'dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs,' and accused the FSF of having an 'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies. They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case)."
Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)
'open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies.
Funny. I always thought the RIAA has an open and blatant bias against Fair Use. (yes, I know file sharing is not F/U, but those guys don't even want you copying your own stuff even if you never share it)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Interesting)
Five of their lawyers are now placed in high-level positions [wired.com] within the Department of Justice?
I dunno. It could be something else, or just a coincidence, but this does seem to be the simplest explanation among those them...
Speaking abstractly, it's not a bad national strategy in a way. We're fucked economically, and have no manufacturing base to speak of. There's not much we can do except enforce "intellectual property" overseas. The downside is the implicit effect that this will have on domestic freedom and true innovation. I suspect we (as knowledge workers) will be learning some hard lessons in the next few years. I would not be surprised if the FSF and EFF (among others) are forcibly nationalized and destroyed/reorganized within four years.
Not completely inaccurate. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, saying that the FSF is "dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" is extremely accurate. In fact, though I didn't see it on the home page, it's the quote that comes up in the Google blurb [google.com] when you search.
Also, just because the GPL requires copyright to function doesn't mean that the FSF isn't against copyright. I think most of us concede that the GPL is a case where the FSF is using copyright law in a novel, unintended way to accomplish their goals.
If the FSF could rewrite copyright law, it'd be completely different. I'd say they have an open dislike (maybe not "bias") against the current typical use of copyright, especially for computer programs.
First they ignore you... (Score:4, Interesting)
We have achieved stage two, they have learned to fear us...
Well, is he? (Score:3, Interesting)
They called 'Recording Industry vs. The People' an 'anti-recording industry web site' and stated that NYCL 'is currently subject to a pending sanctions motion for his conduct in representing a defendant' (without disclosing that plaintiffs' lawyers were 'subject to a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions for their conduct in representing plaintiffs' in that very case).
So, is Ray "subject to a pending sanctions motion", and if so, what does that mean anyway? NYCL, as much as I respect you and wholeheartedly support and appreciate what you're doing, I'm not a fan of the "they did it too!" defense.
I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the "pending sanctions motion", anybody can _request_ sanctions against opposing counsel - I've done it myself, when somebody suing me for $500,000 couldn't even be bothered to meet the court imposed deadlines. A pending motion is standard operating procedure. Get back to me when a judge actually imposes sanctions -- that is much more rare.
Re:No "Duh" Tag (Score:3, Interesting)
But until then, we'll always be a flea, biting the back of the Mammoth that is Industrialized politics at work.
Perhaps, but even the bite of a flea may deliver the horrible wasting disease that fells the mighty mammoth. The RIAA is not beyond our reach and their vain attempts to discredit Mr. Beckerman and defame their opponents, which are reminiscent of the Scientology theory of "lawsuits to harass and annoy, not to win" and policies of "fair game", prove that well reasoned counter-arguments from informed informed groups and individuals can be brutally effective in exposing the malicious nature of the RIAA spamigation campaigns, the flaws in their legal arguments, and the specious nature of their "evidence" for all to see. In fact, we should take it as hopeful a sign when they single us out for special attacks because it proves that we are being effective. The RIAA has lost the initiative as the shock of their initial lawsuit charge has petered out and now they are stuck in a melee which they cannot win against a new generation of music consumers whom they have now lost forever as customers due to their own ineptness and incompetence which they have also repeatedly demonstrated during their lawsuits (contradicting even their own statements and arguments in different cases over the same issues).
Re:Not completely inaccurate. (Score:1, Interesting)
The blurb doesn't come from the FSF. It's from the "open directory project", a largely spammer controlled 'user contributed content' website. It's everything negative about the openness of Wikipedia without most of the benefits.
The FSF never uses that language to describe themselves as far as I can tell. (though I don't know if they'd disagree with it or not).
Re:not an attack (Score:4, Interesting)
Kind of funny considering the GPL would be powerless without copyrights. The entire basis of the FSF to enforce GPL compliance is copyright laws.
You could almost say that without copyright laws, the FSF probably wouldn't exist.
Re:Ok . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
iono... with five of them in the DOJ they might be a force to reckon with? (how many has obama appointed?)
perhaps this is why they're becoming more audacious in their choice of targets?
Re:not an attack (Score:3, Interesting)
You could also say that without crime, police wouldn't exist.
Also, I'm even less of an expert than all the IANAL people around here, so forgive me for asking but without any copyright laws, would there be any need for GPL? I was under the vague impression that GPL was an effort to prevent someone from using part or all of your work that you wanted to remain free to the public and stamping their own copyright on it. Again though I admit I'm very unfamiliar with that stuff, and would be more suprised if I was right than I would be to hear that's not what GPL was about.
Re:Uh, they are LAWYERS! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me put it this way: I was once sued in small claims court where I told the absolute truth, while the plaintiff lied through her teeth the whole time. Eg. Her: "He hasn't given me a dime!" Me: "You honor, I have the canceled checks right here." At any rate, the judge simply assumed both sides were lying equally, and split the difference, awarding her approximately half of what she was asking for (and not giving any math or logic to support this decision.) The point is, if you are not willing to stoop to the same level as opposing counsel, then you are not acting in your client's best interests. (Up to the point where your opponent does something illegal, of course. Then your best course of action is to document the illegal or unethical behavior to the best of your ability.)
Re:not an attack (Score:3, Interesting)
...without any copyright laws, would there be any need for GPL?
Without copyright law, there would be nothing to enforce access to source code, therefore a company could take an otherwise "open" pool of code, modify it and distribute it without disclosing the modifications. Add a dash of DRM to defeat unauthorized (but otherwise legal, without copyright) redistribution of binaries, and you've got a closed system.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's pretty safe to say RMS would agree that he has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights."
This is true only for software. A talk by RMS [gnu.org] states clearly what he would like. Basically, functional works (encyclopedias, software) have no copyright, personal opinion/experience works (editorials, scientific papers) have copyright, though allowing verbatim copies, and artistic works have full copyright, but reduced in duration to about a decade.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Interesting)
Freedom can be seen as something absolute, or something relative.
Some 30 years ago, in South West Africa (now Namibia), I was startled when, at checking in, people were asked to hand in their ammunition (they got to keep their guns) when boarding the plane from Windhoek to Cape Town. Most people protested at this violation of their freedom (while disregarding that only white people woudl get such freedom in the first place), but my seat neighbour winked at me and showed me his trouser pocket full with ammo. Body searching would have been unthinkable, and indeed I saw many people clamly reloading their guns as the plane departed, and the stewardess just ignoring them.
30 years in fast forward - my wife was just insulted and her deodorant stolen by check in staff because the volume of the deodorant bottle was 110ml, and only 100ml were "allowed". The fact that the deodorant was 3/4 empty didn't matter. That on a flight back from Vanuatu to Sydney -100% tourists, 90% thereof probably scuba divers, can't get much lower in risk potential on flights I guess.
Give them your little finger, and they not only take your whole hand but proceed to bite off your head after eviscerating and raping you.
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Eliminating copyright for software would allow you to decompile the driver, make the changes you want and recompile the results. Alternatively, you could identify the hardware-specific code in a video driver and re-use as much of it as possible along with new glue/interface code for a new O/S environment (i.e Windows-> Linux or BSD). You could also do a security review and clean up the bugs along the way that the vendor has ignored because they're not considered sufficiently high priority. That would also incidentally render all forms of DRM useless (by disabling HDCP checks for instance).
Re:Well, is he? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I must disagree on principle (Score:3, Interesting)
I think damages really need to be decided based on the financial gain of the infringer.
For someone downloading MP3s illegaly, that should indeed be fuck all. For a company making a profit off someone elses work, that should be all the profits they made.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently you've never heard of smaller or independent music shops that sell used CDs. You think they send portions of each sale from a used CD to the RIAA? Doubt it.
They're not required to.