RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case 197
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's request for permission to appeal from the decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict has been denied by District Court Judge Michael J. Davis. In a brief, 6-page decision (PDF) the Judge dismissed the RIAA's arguments that there is a 'substantial ground for a difference of opinion' on the question of law presented, whether the Judge had erred in accepting the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making files available' could constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights. He likewise dismissed their argument that granting permission for the appeal would 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,' since (a) depending on the outcome of the trial, plaintiffs might not wish to appeal from the judgment, and (b) no matter how the appeals court rules on the 'making available' issue, the case will still have to continue in the lower court, since even if the RIAA wins on the 'making available' issue, the Court will still have to address the constitutionality of the large jury verdict, which may result in a new trial."
I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Parroting your industry standard reply I see.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
So? If you have a problem with him, then don't hire him to represent you.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I smell an ethical conflict of interest.
So do I. Your employers may dislike Mr. Beckerman for displaying them as the soulless vampires I believe them to be, but the rest of us think he's doing a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So do I. Your employers may dislike Mr. Beckerman for displaying them as the soulless vampires I believe them to be, but the rest of us think he's doing a good thing.
Sir, I am a soulless vampire, and I find your comparison to be highly offensive.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment.
Well, you clearly missed the GP's point (or perhaps are deliberately misconstruing it.) Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills. Frankly, the fact that the media people have taken such an obvious dislike to Mr. Beckerman in particular indicates that he's doing something right. If he's enriching himself over this he's no different than the majority of attorneys in this country. He's on the right side, and that's sufficient for most of us. I do suspect you're right in one sense: he's probably not driving a used Chevrolet, and isn't giving his services away for free. What, exactly, was your point again?
... well. Given that his blog refers to original legal documents whenever they're available makes it hard to claim any degree of journalistic bias or manipulation of facts (other than the fact he makes no bones about his opinion of the way RIAA attorneys practices law.) There aren't too many other sources of reliable information on this subject, anyway, and honestly some of us appreciate his efforts.
So far as impartiality goes
You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes. Just don't expect a lot of support for them in this particular venue.
Re: (Score:2)
;)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're such an expert on things, you'd know that downloading copyrighted material does not violate copyright law. Distributing it does. Turn seeding off and you're legal. ;)
Well, since I'm an engineer not a lawyer, I have no idea if that's correct or not, however I doubt that distinction would matter one bit to the RIAA. The reason they're going after those distributing content is really more technical in nature: that's easy to do. Determining what, if anything, that someone downloaded from someone else is a bit more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
Citation? What do you think this is, a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think this is, a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
You mean it isn't? Cmdr Taco lied to me?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically Machiavelli never had a Machiavellian bone in his body. The guy was being honest about how he saw countries being run in The Prince; it wasn't really how he thought they should be run.
This is brought to you by the people to give the old Italian politico farmer a proper memory in the public consciousness committee or PTGTOIPFAPMITPCC
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Haven't gotten to the chapters on conducting war yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis of the man's character may be flawed. Just because you're the kind of jerk that "Displays the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed..." doesn't automatically mean that everyone is guilty of such deception.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, my analysis COULD be flawed... which is why I've been clearly describing it as a SUSPICION rather than substantiated fact. You didn't really disprove the suspicion though, did you? Accusing me of transference does not disprove the theory.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not mine theory to disprove - it's yours to prove. You offer no proof to support your position, and using the word suspicion in this case is dishonest. If you weren't convinced, then you wouldn't be spending so much time posting this opinion and defending your position.
Rather than just say "I suspect" - be honest and tell it like it is. You've already convicted him. Don't try and pretend otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my time has been frankly wasted trying to defend my right to publicly express such an unpopular suspicion in the first place, rather than actually defending the suspicion itself. I don't really WANT to defend it, in any case... I'd like nothing more than to be proven unnecessarily paranoid in this instance. Ethics and motives are a big deal to me; I recognize that I set the bar too high for the taste of many. Many people can't make it over that bar, and I get deeply depressed and cynical as a res
Re: (Score:2)
Part of voicing a position on /. is that someone else may say you're full of it.
I certainly don't grudge you the right to express a view. I will challenge the accuracy of that view and the method by which it was reached. In your zeal to defend, you have moved from voicing a suspicion to acting as if you know the truth. Probably not your intention, but that is how it comes across.
Fortunately, you have had a response from the man himself.
Since we are discussing things like ethics and motives, I'll encourage y
Re: (Score:2)
I've got almost three decades of intensive introspection under my belt (and it's ongoing), so your challenge is an easy one. I've read his direct reply to me and, yes, he's pretty much convinced me that he does in fact "get it" (doing things because they're right and not because they're profitable). It was the anecdote he mentioned in particular, because if he didn't "get it" I don't think it would have even occurred to him to mention it.
I told him I regretted the unnecessary stink it caused, and thanked
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not weird; haven't you ever heard the phrase, "doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons"? It involves socialism and ethics here. If his real predominant motive is his own enrichment, then I disagree with his motive, even though the result might be one I like. I would be disagreeing with WHY he's doing it, not what is accomplished. Should I throw the baby out with the bathwater and criticize the result, too?
It kinda like companies that "go green" but do it for no other reason than the publici
Re: (Score:2)
Or.. Is it that even though they do the right thing, as it is for the wrong reason, they might not continue doing the right thing? That would make sense to me and be completely understandable.
I do know some lawyers who do the right thing for the right reasons and make lots of money doing it. They happen to be very good, and say no to anything they find ethically problematic. Not many, but a few. lol
InnerWeb
Re: (Score:2)
Again (and again), I clearly stated it as a suspicion, not a conviction. Suspicions can be dis-proven, as opposed to dogma which is immutable, but it can't be done with ad hominem or accusations of transference. Even Beckerman didn't respond directly, instead choosing to back-handedly imply that I must be an RIAA shill:
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Beckerman, you can make me an unqualified fan if you dispense with the victim routine and address my suspicion directly.
What's your question?
Re: (Score:2)
My "question" has been clearly stated (and maliciously modded-down by your acolytes) repeatedly: why do you do it? Do you take the RIAA cases because you thought it through and perceive this as a means to enhance your position and practice in the future (should you succeed), or do you do it because it's the right thing to do and damn the torpedoes? I can truly admire a person who does the latter, but not so much the former.
The answer will require some honest introspection, and your willingness to share it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
why do you do it?
I do it because it is one of the rare opportunities I have had to really do what I went to law school to do, which is to fight for what is right.
The way it came about was that in late 2004 or early 2005 I learned of these cases from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is an organization for which I have the utmost respect.
I thought to myself : "I'm a copyright lawyer, I'm a litigator, and I hate bullies. Maybe I can help some of these people."
And so I jumped into the fight with no plan other than t
Re: (Score:2)
why do you do it?
...
Once Matthew Oppenheim, the ghoul who runs this operation, asked one of the defendant's lawyers, in a mocking tone, 'I don't get it, I don't see what your business plan is'. An unprincipled person like him doesn't get it. That for some people it's not about money.
I'm willing to concede that perhaps you do in fact get it. I've encountered that attitude myself, when I've interceded in very minor situations in defense of somebody, and the aggressor often seems surprised, even shocked, by that. One time the aggressor even asked me point blank, "Why do you care? I'm not doing it to YOU." I don't recall what I ultimately said to him, but I do recall being mystified and speechless myself for a long moment, mystified that anyone could have such a deficient theory of min
Re: (Score:2)
I did NOT write this, even though whoever did has a similar use of language. Since he posted as an anonymous coward, I don't know whether to be suspicious of him, too, or if he just posted that way to avoid the same consequences to his karma that mine has received.
Re:I've heard enough about the RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
I'm personally rather sad we have had the first "too much of NYCL on /. posting" but I suppose fame and popularity always result a few detractors.
It's people like him that have help restore a little of my faith in the (US) justice system. When I see large rich corporations throwing cash at cases just to make it harder for their much poorer opponents to defend themselves it's good to know there are people out there who will help the underdog. These cases are particularly redolent for myself and many slashdoters as they invoke a certain "there but for the grace of God go I" feeling.
I would sincerely doubt Ray is becoming a rich (or much richer) man because of them. I would expect that most of his potential clients with any amount of money would rather pay the RIAA's pound of flesh and settle without going to court than risk several years disruption to their lives.
Most of people he will be defending will be those who cannot afford to pay and so his only hope of ever getting adequate recompense will be if courts award fees in his favor, which I believe is a bit of a lottery at the best of times - at least he believes enough in his own skills and his take on the law to take that risk.
1. Represent poor and middle class people defending cases that could be settled for $4000 or $5000, in lengthy complex cases against defendants whose primary goal is to make the cases as complex and as expensive as possible...for which you receive little compensation.
2. Oppose giant multinational corporations, joined in a cartel, who have an army of lawyers and are willing to spend tens of million dollars per year pursuing the poor and middle class people.... for which you receive little compensation.
3. Spend hours each day doing research, obtaining and reading legal documents, and writing a blog for which you receive no compensation.
4. Communicate each day with lawyers and RIAA lawsuit victims from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
5. Communicate each day with media from all over the world, for which you receive no compensation.
6.???
Profit!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW, I think you're doing a fine job Mr. Beckerman, and thanks for all your hard work on this subject. And there really are a number of peeps here on /. who really need to appreciate you more and take the time to thank you. Without you being involved, I'm sure things would have been much, much worse for our fellow netizens, and the RIAA would be out of control at this point.
Thanks, perigee369. Actually I get a lot of support from the folks at Slashdot. In the non-cyber world I've never met anyone -- other than lawyers for the big content corporations -- who is not on my side. Which makes me a little suspicious of my few cyber-detractors. In any event, since the trolling this time around centers on my supposed profiteering, although I do not think it is actually sincere, let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money
Re: (Score:2)
Let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
...or, most likely, both.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me just note that anyone who honestly thinks that representing the RIAA's victims is a way to make money either (a) can't add, or (b) doesn't know how to use a calculator.
...or, most likely, both.
You made me smile, because I actually had that thought immediately after I'd clicked "submit". As you have correctly pointed out, the 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Beware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. ...
As my ex-spouse discovered to her dismay a few years back.
Re:Beware (Score:4, Funny)
Hans? They let you have Internet access for Christmas...?
Re:Beware (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is very welcome news. However, we need to remember that a cornered wounded beast has nothing to lose and can therefore be very dangerous. This isn't over.
The RIAA has little to lose no matter what happens. Eventually their masters will tell them to stop, and that will be that. Well, either that, or the legal system with bitchslap them sufficiently. Hard to say which will happen first.
I wish people would keep firmly in mind that the RIAA is a tool, no more and no less. It is the organizations wielding that tool who should be held accountable.
Re:Beware (Score:4, Funny)
And *that* has to be the most clueless comment I have ever heard about a comment about the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
mod parent redundant. It is slashdot.
InnerWeb
Re: .... vs. sitting around... (Score:2)
Internet enabled stationary bike FTW!
Judge's kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Judge's kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Judge's kids (Score:5, Informative)
Drunken karma whoring! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re-read it a few times (Score:4, Interesting)
And it seems to be better news than simply the RIAA getting smacked on their request to appeal.
The RIAA claimed this: "there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion on the question of law presented"
Concerning: "whether the Judge had erred in accepting the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making files available' could constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights"
Now, I occasionally have a difficult time translating from Lawyer to English, but it sounds to me like the judge is not only saying "no you can't appeal" but "making available isn't copyright infringement, and there is no wiggle room to discuss the matter further because it's obvious that it's not."
Do I have that right, NYCL? Because if I do it really sounds like bigger news than a trivial appeal request getting smacked down. Sounds like the Judge just dropped The Big One.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As the Court fully explained in its September 24 Order, in National Car
Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., the Eighth Circuit
held that "[i]nfringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual
dissemination of either copies or phonorecords."
Basically they said that even though their earlier decision was appealed by another court that appeal is not binding so they'll stand by their earlier decision which I quoted above.
IANAL but I think this just matters for this particular co
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: IANYetAL, but I'm a law student.
Usually you're right, the Eighth Circuit doesn't have to follow the Ninth Circuit's decisions (for example) and vice versa, but in this case, The Honorable Judge Davis does have to abide by that decision, since Minnesota's in the Eighth Circuit.
What "actual dissemination" actually is, though... that's an open question, and I think that's what they're trying to figure out.
I have no idea if I got that right, it's late and I'm on break. (And hence trying not to think about all things legal :-D )
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:4, Funny)
When I see that written in a context like this it always seems that it's in order to distinguish this Judge Davis from some other less honorable Judge Davis. As in "No, this one was by the honorable Judge Davis."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So? He was just trying to be friendly.
That filthy bastard!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should have brought more context.
Reading the PDF it basically says this:
1) The court has at a prior point stated what I quoted above (That a copy has to be made for it to be copyright infringement, aka making available doesn't work.)
2)However, that part of the judgement is not dictum (dictum means it's precedent)
3) Irregardless of 2), Only that previous judgement, not any other judgement from any other court has any binding on this court, so it doesn't matter how many other courts the RIAA can convi
Re: (Score:2)
Ya got a subpoena?
No? Then buzz off.
Re: (Score:2)
As the creator of the {{fact}} tag on Wikipedia, I can say that you just grossly misused it :-)
OK (Score:2)
[citation provided [wikipedia.org]]
Re:Re-read it a few times (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I occasionally have a difficult time translating from Lawyer to English, but it sounds to me like the judge is not only saying "no you can't appeal" but "making available isn't copyright infringement, and there is no wiggle room to discuss the matter further because it's obvious that it's not." Do I have that right, NYCL?
Yes you have that right. But there's another biggy in the decision which is a little more subtly presented. The judge is also implying that even if the 'making available' issue were not on the table, he would probably be ordering a new trial because of the excessiveness of the size of the verdict.
There is a simple fool proof solution to all this. (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA shoudl just stop making the music available.
Too many ads (Score:5, Informative)
The "Recording Industry vs. the People" site has become incredibly ad-heavy. It now has layer ads that won't dismiss, a link farm, and regular Google ads. This thing has advertising from services I've never even heard of, like "shareasale.com". Amusingly, it has ads for RIAA-controlled music, and even for the iTunes store.
Block "st.blogads.com" to make it at least tolerable.
Re:Too many ads (Score:5, Informative)
The "Recording Industry vs. the People" site has become incredibly ad-heavy. It now has layer ads that won't dismiss, a link farm, and regular Google ads. This thing has advertising from services I've never even heard of, like "shareasale.com". Amusingly, it has ads for RIAA-controlled music, and even for the iTunes store.
Block "st.blogads.com" to make it at least tolerable.
Before you get modded OT and NYCL will miss your post, I suggest that you politely email him.
I enjoy his many submissions to Slashdot, so perhaps people should consider donating to his website, instead of criticizing his advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more.
I, for one, love his advertising and hope people stop donating to his site.
That way he'll add more glorius advertising for people, such as myself, to enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them.
Well, I'm not posting AC, but I also wish you would go away. You're trying to hijack this thread and make it about your dislike for NYCL, rather than discussing the real issues.
Re: (Score:2)
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant
Very well, you've made your point. Find something else to talk about: you're dangerously close to trolling. And there's nothing wrong with a desire to exclude those who you find irritating or irrelevant ... that, ultimately, is the basic function of the Slashdot moderation system. I have a sneaking suspicion you're going to find that out for yourself soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I like Beckerman.
In a world where corporations step on us all the time, he has spent a lot of effort fighting them.
Should he wish to cash in and make a little money on that now, fine by me.
If you are not an industry troll, then you are certainly doing a good enough job that you should consider cashing in yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define "harm"? For socialistic people the definition is a bit more stringent than for libertarian types. You know, the evils of subjective valuation and concentration of wealth and all.
Defining economic harm (Score:2)
In economics I was taught that transactions are supposed to ideally be an equal exchange of value. What do you suppose is the result, over time, when a large number of transactions are consistently not equal in favor of the same party, or limited number of parties?
It's called concentration of wealth. Socialists define that as harm, as well as the more obvious "force and fraud". In place of force and fraud, the tools of this trade are now various forms of manipulation: indoctrination, hype, addiction, mis
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, with Adblock Plus running I still see a few ads but it's not nearly as bad as what you described.
Maybe try running a better browser?
A better browser, or if he really is offended by the advertising he could run Privoxy or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer.
We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Slashdot. We dislike anything that isn't free as in beer. We don't pay for music, videos or software; we're not going to pay for a blog.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you truly want to see the RIAA stopped cold, and see rational reform in copyright law, it's people like Ray Beckerman and groups like the EFF that will probably bring that about. Helping them out now is a wise investment. I happen to find Ray's blog far more worthwhile than 99.99% of the blogs out there (99% of everything is crud, after all) and where else will you find such a substantial collection of relevant court documents? Heck, where else can the people involved in these cases, from judges on down, educate themselves as to what's really going on, with all the proper documentation? Nowhere that I've been able to find. Would you rather a judge presiding over an RIAA case receive his information from their attorneys ... or from Ray's blog? Having all that data collected in one place is valuable in itself.
So yeah, I hit the Paypal button. You should too.
I just want to say that the reason I have the affiliate ads on my blog is that it seemed to me like an easy way for someone who appreciates my blog to help financially without it costing anything. I.e. you're going to buy stuff anyway, so why not buy it through one of my links and help me make a few bucks? So for those of you who are my friends, if you think there's too much advertising, tell me what you'd buy so I could target the ads better and run fewer of them.
The judge said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "piracy" has been misused on individuals. An individual may be guilty of theft, like a shoplifter, but it's not piracy. Someone that takes an item without paying for it is very different than a rogue company selling unauthorized copies of another company's product. The RIAA treats individuals like profit-seeking organizations, and until now they've been successful. It's refreshing to see a judge recognize the distinction. I believe most critics of the RIAA would be a little more sympathetic to their position if they were pursuing misdemeanor charges for stealing $0.99 songs.
Re:The judge said it best (Score:5, Interesting)
As it's been said in the courts,
they're treating it like criminal matter but it's civil.
The reason is that you can't subpoena people's addresses and stuff like that if it's civil. Also, unlike criminal court, you absolutely have to pay the fines if you lose. Since there is no proof of distribution, they'd have to pay for every single case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe most critics of the RIAA would be a little more sympathetic to their position if they were pursuing misdemeanor charges for stealing $0.99 songs.
I wouldn't be, for reasons I'll explain below.
You seem to have fallen for the RIAA line that "ZOMG PIRACY IS THEFT". It isn't. In order for something to constitute theft, somebody has to be permanently deprived of property. Not profits, not the possibility of profits. When somebody's deprived of profits, that's not theft, that's copyright infringement.
Theft is a criminal matter, punishable by possible jail time. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, punishable only by monetary damages. If you stea
Re:The judge said it best (Score:4, Insightful)
"ZOMG PIRACY IS THEFT". It isn't.
Of course it is. It's also frequently murder. But it only really counts if you use a cutlass and wear an eye patch.
In order for something to constitute theft, somebody has to be permanently deprived of property. Not profits, not the possibility of profits. When somebody's deprived of profits, that's not theft, that's copyright infringement.
That's not necessarily true. Many, if not all, states have laws concerning theft of services. I'm not saying that copyright infringement is or is not theft, but I get really annoyed when people keep repeating the incorrect statement that theft must involve loss of physical property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Theft of services generally refers to failing to pay for a previously agreed upon service.
If I hire someone to write a song for me and then fail to pay them, that is theft of services.
If someone writes a song and I "steal" it, that is not theft of services. That is copyright infringement.
The theft of services usually has to prevent the victim from providing the same service to someone who would pay for it (because it was provided to you instead) in much the same way that property theft prevents the victim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am not trying to be a smartass here but what does theft of service actually mean? Is it signing a contract for work done and then not paying?
More or less, but it doesn't necessarily have to involve actually signing a contract. In general, it means gaining some benefit that you normally have to pay for without paying. Sneaking onto a bus or not paying a taxi fare would probably be considered theft of services. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a pretty good summary:
This category encompasses a wide variety of criminal activity including, but not limited to, tampering with (or bypassing) a utility meter so that the true level of consumption is understated; leaving a hotel or restaurant or similar establishment without paying for the service; and "turnstile jumping" or other methods of evading the payment of a fare or fee when using a public transit vehicle or entering a private facility normally requiring payment (e.g., amusements).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then what do you call... (Score:2)
...theft of service? It's quite real, yet quite intangible.
Re: (Score:2)
That begs the questions of whether downloading music files is either theft or copyright infringement. It seems highly unlikely that downloading something that someone is offering to you for free and devoid of restrictions or licenses, could be theft. This is especially unlikely since creating another digital copy does nothing to the original. It's like lighting your candle from someone else's taper. Your flame does not diminish theirs. I can see how the idea of copyright can work to protect authors and
Re: (Score:2)
Facism? LOL. The distinction between civil and criminal law is an artifact of our legal system. There are many nations that do not make that distinction. Like France. Most would not consider the test of facism to be the existence of this type of legal system. If you want to be taken seriously you cannot include such errors in your argument.
Then there is the little matter of copyright infringement and profits. The distinction you make is very specious. If I were to shoplift a CD this would clearly be theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Most critics of the RIAA probably wouldn't even be against file sharing lawsuits if the RIAA only went after actual copyright offenders. Instead they try to sue people who write communications ("P2P") software and spam the internet with bot produced (and often false) DMCA complaints, causing massive problems for just about anyone who wants to do anything
Just an interlocutory appeal routinely denied. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a big deal either way. The judge denied an "interlocutory appeal", one made regarding some legal point before the decision in the case was final. Such appeals are rarely tried and even more rarely successful. The issue can still be appealed, just not until the current case is finished.
I can't read Legalese (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When are they NOT barking up the wrong tree?
Re: (Score:2)
When they're chasing the wrong car.
Congratulations (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can read this, you're now a criminal.
Yes, the author's life plus 70 years has passed. Unfortunately I took this work from a compendium that owns the rights of reproduction that will persist well into the next century. This bit our our culture has been stolen from us by lawyers and sold legislators. Under current law there is no legal difference between you downloading Britney Spear's latest attempt at vocal rehab and your browser loading this poem written nearly a century ago on this page. That's wrong. That's very wrong.
And now you're a dirty information property stealing criminal. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can read this, you're now a criminal.
Naa, you are a criminal (supposedly criminal) for posting it on a public website. If what you say were true, all the RIAA has to do is, get some loud speakers, play a copyrighted song, and sue everybody within the hearing radius (except the deaf of course).
Thanks (Score:2)
You've just invented a new business model. Did you think to patent that?
On the contrary (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright does not protect portions of derived works that lack originality. That principle is the basis of the recent court decision Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp. [wikipedia.org]. Unless the publisher has made substantial changes to Kipling's work, I dare say we are not dirty rotten intellectual property stealing criminals after all.
Subject (Score:2)
No wonder the RIAA plans to abandon individual suits; because when individuals take it to trial instead of "settling" for a life of debt, the RIAA appears to be getting pounded.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep my WiFi open on purpose. In fact the purpose is just this sort of case. Let anyone try to prove it was me who did whatever 'crime' was alleged. Until there is a law outlawing my open connection, I'll keep it open.
Well, that post wins an award (Score:2)
for the longest run-on incomprehensible sentence I've ever read here or anywhere else.
Any of you /.'ers actually ever had a class in grammar?
Re:RIAA is dead... (Score:2)
Maybe that is why they don't talk about it on YouTube? There is seriously quite some music on YouTube, some of it is good and often linked to a site where you can get a hi-quality version, buy the CD or otherwise support the performers/producers directly. Who needs the RIAA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please translate OP into English (Score:4, Funny)
I used to really enjoy reading Ray's posts because he had a knack for translating legalese into something a bit more human-readable.
I never had the knack for that; I speak Legalese. You're just being nostalgic.
The last few articles just read like someone's copied and pasted from court filings though.
I don't really have time for witty or insightful commentary. I'm so overburdened timewise I have to prioritize, and I came to a realization in 2005 that my priority should be the one thing that I'm doing that no one else is really doing, which is getting the litigation documents online so that the rest of the world will have access to them and can provide the witty and/or insightful commentary.
Has Ray's account been hijacked,
Yes
or has he just forgotten how humans think?
Correction. I have never understood how humans think.
Re:What does it mean? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry to ask such an obvious question, but what does "making files available" mean? Say I lose my laptop or mp3 player and it is used by even a single user, or say they dump in on Limewire.... What then? What would happen if I lost in the US? (Canuck here)
Beats me.
There's nothing about it in the US Copyright Act.
It's just something the RIAA made up.
Re: (Score:2)
Say I lose my laptop or mp3 player and it is used by even a single user, or say they dump in on Limewire.... What then? What would happen if I lost in the US? (Canuck here)
Beginning of "106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works":
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
Whatever the "making available" theory is, it would probably have to go under "authorize". I don't know, but I imagine the legal theory would go something like if you left a stash of money on the table with someone and said "I'll be going out for a walk, if the money happened to be gone I wouldn't miss is" and try to claim it's not a bribe. Likewise, you just leave a copyrighted work in your share folder and said "This computer will give out copies o
Re: (Score:2)
Well, what is "authorize"? If I steal a car and "authorize" someone else to drive it, they may not be guilty of the theft, but that can and eill be charged with receip
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's useful to look at what the judge was saying. It sounds like he's saying there's a distinction in the law between making available with full intent that someone else take advantage of it, vs. making available unwittingly and by accident or by the action of someone else that you were unaware of or had no control over, and that the RIAA doesn't get to roll it all under just plain "making available" and ignore the distinction. The judge seems to be holding that the RIAA's "making available" argumen