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)."
Ok . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ok . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
They act like a government agency but they can only take civil action, regardless of the FBI's doting on copyright abusers. If they were to stay silent a moment too long then what little power they do bear would dissolve.
Yeah, the dweebs (Score:5, Funny)
They act like they think they're running the US Justice Department. Oh, wait...
Re: (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:Ok . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Now they have a cushy new job in the DOJ they have a different paymaster
Never heard of bribery?
Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but they probably don't know about Stallman's twin katana prowess... I certainly would never try to provoke him to anger...
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
That's an XKCD reference, boy. You know what we do to XKCD referencers around here?
Cheer them on and be reminded to go check out the recent comics at XKCD? /cheer
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Informative)
That's an XKCD reference, boy. You know what we do to XKCD referencers around here?
We link [xkcd.com] to them!
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
That's an XKCD reference, boy. You know what we do to XKCD referencers around here?
I'll get around to answering that later. I have a more important matter to attend to.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
My girlfriend picked that one up and ran with it X(
So nowadays, when she's heading to bed, "are we having sex, or is someone wrong on the Internet?"
Sheesh... impossible decisions...
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.
Then we're fucked (Score:5, Funny)
GNU General Public License, version 6, 2013
1. Pull down you pants.
2. Bend over.
GPLv2 or later doesn't sound like such a good idea now, does it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very good call.
Though, I suspect that FSF would take a page from the corporate playbook and re-incorporate in a friendlier country, transfer the FSF copyrights there, leaving a powerless shell-subsidiary in the US.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't innovate, litigate.
If you can't litigate, legislate.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
If you can't innovate, litigate.
If you can't litigate, legislate.
If you can't legislate, watergate?
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Funny)
x283.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that litigation costs scale badly.
Beyond a certain threshold, it is cheaper to legislate first.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not the neo-cons that we have to worry about. It is which oligarchs have the reins of which legislators and judges. It is beginning to look like the oligarchs that control the Obama group are going to take our intellectual and cultural freedoms from us, rather than our constitutional freedoms.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there. If it's not the extremists it's the communists, or the democrats, or the republicans or the liberals, or the PC brigade with all their health and safety mumbo jumbo, coming to take away our precious, precious freedoms (it's our freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmms, preeeeeeeeeeeeeeecious). As we stare at this wonderous package of glory. Our freedoms, which we have, and those ever growing hordes of zealots - from one side of the political spectrum or another (depending on our own beliefs) - coming to rip it from our hands and hurl it in to the volcanoes of Mordor or something. Or freedoms! Please! Won't someone think of the freedoms!
It's certainly an emotive issue.
And if people actually did care then maybe they'd stop slinging shit into the eyes of fabricated enemies for 15 seconds and realise that there is a middle ground in which you can actually work together and not just boil it down to some pitiful good/evil pantomime.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there.
Nowadays? Not a moment in Humanity's history was a calm silence where groups of people weren't trying to impose their will on others by penalty of death or disruption. It's a story that will long repeat itself and is unlikely to ever end.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"W and the neo-cons are no longer in control"
I'd remind you it was Clinton that signed the DMCA into law.
It's now Obama that is putting the RIAA in charge of the justice department.
And you're talking about a guy who no longer has any political power? As to the rest of your thoughts about manufacturing and oil prices, it seems at best a simplification, and at worst a series of non-sequiturs.
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
In what possible way can that matter?
The justice department has limited resources. What they choose to focus those resources on matters a lot.
Ex-RIAA lawyers are likely to focus on RIAA concerns, if for no other reason than that's what they're familiar with.
That's a very bad thing and a form of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org].
---
It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?
Re:Maybe I haven't been paying attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and Republicans both hate the constitution; they just hate different parts of it (1st amendment & 2nd amendment for example).
Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:5, Insightful)
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better arguement to use.
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Or, to paraphrase, "Don't listen to him, he's just a lawyer! Whereas I am the True Friend of the Court, he's your enemy! Actually, he's mine, but I'd prefer you thought of him as yours".
Re:Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:5, Informative)
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better argument to use. The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Exactly, Nefarious. Except I would question whether it was "nicely structured". It was the work of an incompetent, untrained lawyer who has no respect for the law, and no understanding of what a lawyer is supposed to be. By filing such a brief he merely reinforced the fact that the law is against him. There is not a federal court in the land that will sustain the constitutionality, as against a due process challenge, of a statutory damages award equal to 2100 or more times the actual damages sustained.
Re:Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:5, Funny)
anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
Let me know the results of this poll. I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change.
Re:Well-structured ad hominem attack (Score:4, Funny)
Pound on the table (Score:5, Insightful)
When you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the law.
When you don't have the law on your side, pound on the facts.
When you have neither on your side, pound on the table.
When an opposing party start attacking people on their beliefs, you know they are in bad shape.
Only Terrorists... (Score:3, Funny)
...support piracy, so the FSF must be a terrorist organization, right?
not an attack (Score:3)
They didn't claim FSF is a terrorist organization (yet.) "Dedicated to eliminating restrictions on copying, redistribution, and modifying computer programs" and having an "open and virulent bias against copyrights' and 'blatant bias' against the record companies." sounds like a compliment to me. I'd wear it as a badge of honor, as I'm sure FSF will do.
The RIAA didn't attack the FSF, they were praising the FSF for standing up to an evil organization: the RIAA.
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:not an attack (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of. The BSD/MIT licence doesn't just allow somebody to slightly modify and close the source. It allows somebody to do that and re-licence under a closed copyright that prevents copying (as long as credit/attribution for the original work is given) - which I think is what Stallman is really against.
Without copyright, if somebody tried to do the above, (like Microsoft did with the AD Kerberos group extensions, for instance), you would be able to decompile Microsoft's code, identify changes from the original release, clean up and optimize the changed/decompiled source, and re-release it in commented source form, all without fear of legal reprisals. That would certainly be more work than the current system under the GPL, but you would effectively still have most of the rights that Stallman advocates for: the ability to own, maintain, and redistribute software you have placed an investment in, be it through development or purchase.
So I think Stallman would prefer the current status quo with GPL protection because itrequires less maintenance effort once GPL code has enough market share that network effects work in its favour, but would be satisfied with a copyright-free world.
Re:Only Terrorists... (Score:5, Informative)
I read the 9-page brief, then I went to www.fsf.org (after adding the third "w" - more evidence the RIAA fails simple maths) and read their front page. Nowhere does it advocate infringing copyright. Nothing can be construed as a recommendation to violate the law or infringe on other people's rights. Nothing. I see the liberal use of terms such as "free" and "open" and other keywords of the dream of American democracy. I may see a little bit of throwback to Tom Paine and Ben Franklin, ancient and pernicious bomb-throwing anarchists that they were, but I see nothing that advocates moving to the dark side of the law.
I don't support RIAA music for the same reason I won't watch The Sopranos. Mafiosi scare me.
"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, they fail to mention that the FSF is dedicated to doing this through legal means.
Hell, it isn't just through legal means, it is through practising what they preach with their own creations. Something RIAA members haven't been so keen to do themselves what with all of their shady accounting schemes to bilk creators out of their copyrights.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood the FSF's goals. Which is entirely possible.
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"anti-recording industry website" (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they place only one restriction on it: if you want to copy, modify and redistribute my software, you may not give recipients any fewer rights to do so themselves than you received from me. Well, perhaps two: and you may not "forget" to tell them they have those rights.
Which, come to think of it, is probably a pretty draconian restriction to a certain group who want to play with everybody else's toys but don't want anybody to play with theirs. It's amusing how many issues today look to me an awful lot like the one bratty kid in the sandbox.
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)
Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement.
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
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.
Re:Not completely inaccurate. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That's why they call it the "copyleft" - not out of some right/left ideology, but to indicate that the GPL is a hack of copyright - the definition of hack being a novel and unintended use.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement. So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
Picky picky.
The truth has never been seen as an obstacle by the RIAA's lawyers.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, I just want them to stop this nonsense so I can go back and buy some CDs. With all the time this is stretching out there's a huge number of albums that I haven't been able to buy without breaking my boycott.
But, I'm sure they've just recharacterized that tiny drop in sales as "due to pirates" and used it as an excuse to waste even more money on piracy prevention and buying elected officials.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding, Ray. I've never seen the truth be a problem for them- they go plowing right on with their stuff, never mind that they're suing kids that could never have done the things they're accusing them of, the elderly, and even the dead. There's a reason I tell people to just not deal with anything that touches their crap. ANYTHING. Any use contributes to the network effect that fuels this insanity. Just say no. Just like with drugs.
Agreed. Especially important, now that they are trying to weasel their way in by cutting deals with MySpace and YouTube. Very important for people not to patronize those new joint ventures. They should go where the good music is: independent music.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
That may well become the 'classic understatement of the year'...it is a strong contender...win, lose, or draw.
BTW, well said. I did not mean/imply any sarcasm in my above comment!
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Funny)
The FSF's centerpiece, the GPL, depends wholly on copyright for enforcement. So saying that the FSF has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights" clearly demonstrates either a lack of research, a lack of understanding, or a lack of honesty on the part of the RIAA's lawyers.
I agree with the first sentence of your comment. As to the second sentence, I question your use of the word "or". The correct word should be "and". With that minor correction.... respect.
Re:Anti-Copyright? (Score:5, Funny)
Darn it, Ray... now I'm beginning to suspect that YOU have some sort of bias against the RIAA too! ;-)
How dare you say that? I have nothing against them. I wish them the best in their lives. I hope that, after they serve their time in jail, they succeed in finding honest work, and live out their days in peace.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. FSF created the GPL to use copyright to enable it to specify the terms to keep code open and free. If there were no such thing as copyright, there would be no need for the GPL in the eyes of the FSF (or, at least, in its founder's eyes). I think it's pretty safe to say RMS would agree that he has an "open and virulent bias against copyrights." Actually, he'd probably be more likely to not say that, but to turn it around on you and accuse you of having an "open and virulent bias against freed
Who cares about the length? (Score:5, Insightful)
"4 pages longer than the document to which it was responding"
And?
Re:Who cares about the length? (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA has it right (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the FSF, but which of the quotes listed here is inaccurate? The FSF *does* want to get rid of copy restrictions, and does dislike the RIAA. Although, I would say the FSF hates on the RIAA, not the "recording industry", but I suspect the RIAA doesn't see the difference.
Re:RIAA has it right (Score:5, Insightful)
As it has been pointed out above, and despite being modded redundand I want to stress it again, the FSF relies on copyright law. One of its cornerstones is the GPL, and like all licenses it does depend on enforcable copyright law or code protected by it could deliberately be used in proprietary software and neither the FSF nor anyone else could do anything about it.
Re:RIAA has it right (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that the aspersions cast concerning Beckerman and the "pending sanctions motion" would be inaccurate. If I were in a lawsuit, I could potentially move to have sanctions entered against my opponent for various miscellaneous reasons, such as making out with the court reporter while the judge's back was turned, etc., regardless of whether any of those things were true or not. For the two seconds it would take the judge to deny my motion, that motion would be pending. At that very moment, someone could file a brief in another court involving the person who is my opponent in my case, stating that there is a pending sanctions motion against that person.
In Beckerman's case, while the motion isn't based on pure ridiculousness as in my straw man above, it's still based solely on allegations made by the RIAA against Beckerman with no consideration of any evidence.
While the assertion may not be "incorrect", as there is a pending sanctions motion against Beckerman, the fact that the RIAA frames it as a reason to discredit Beckerman makes it inaccurate.
No "Duh" Tag (Score:3, Insightful)
This is news how?
The only thing newsworthy I got from this is that the RIAA is just slightly more petty than I thought. Of course the Free Software Foundation is about making software "FREE", and of course, anyone with a blog aimed at bringing to light the RIAA's idiocy is going to be the target of their Ire. The thing people need to get over, and real quick, is the thought that the second they see anywhere in media the acronym RIAA, that they need to immediately post it on Slashdot.
We also need to realize, as a whole, that the RIAA hates us as much as we hate them, and we also need to note that the RIAA is a litigous bunch of pr1cks and that they will bring DMCA takedown notices, and law suits, and anything their multi-million dollar legal team can come up with against anyone who thinks differently than they do. The thing is, they have this crazy thing called MONEY backing them. When you have a band like Metallica, or Universal Studios supporting your cause, you can then afford frivolous lawsuits and such because money is no object
What we need, to effectively fight back against their idiocy, is SUPPORTERS. Find some corporation (good luck) that shares our ideals, or even a political movement. Then get them to help with the money to cover the expenses of all these court proceedings, offer legal support to the unfortunate few that get randomly targeted by the RIAA (like the ACLU does) and find someone to help us get some lobbying going in Washington.
Those are the things we need to do, or maybe even get some of us geeks to inundate media with easily comprehended information that average Joe blow can read and care about, and help spread the word to the masses about their evils. Find a way to make the average citizen give a crap about this issue, and you've found a way to get some money and influence behind this issue on a side that is NOT the RIAA. But until then, we'll always be a flea, biting the back of the Mammoth that is Industrialized politics at work.
Re: (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 spamigat
Re:No "Duh" Tag (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
You are exactly right. The reason they went off on a tangent attacking FSF and myself is that they are losing. Their aimless, pointless, blustery ad hominem atack on the messengers simply calls attention to the fact that they have no suitable response to the message.
Take off your goggles...look around you.... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I feel you are saying:
"We are preaching to the choir, and will never get anywhere"
If I have misunderstood, then correct me...I can take it, and welcome it, in fact.
Working on the above perspective, I have to reply to counter argue.
I will use myself as an example.
I lurked here for several years before getting an account.
Why?
I learned stuff that was new to me, but was dismissed as 'old news' by those with your attitude. Those comments still came through, in spite of those like you.
I found interesting things to explore and learn about, and still do here on slashdot...every day!
I found out about GNU/Linux on slashdot, despite you, and the fact it existed before I was aware that it was news.
There is benefit to 'preaching to the choir', as the choir grows, and talks to others.
I've learned about many things that I had no previous clue that they existed from the 'preaching to the choir' bunch here on slashdot.
Again, if I have misunderstood, please accept my apology, and correct me.
If my assumption was correct, or close, then think about what I said, and have some patience...we were all n00bs at one point....there will always be n00bs, and the future is full of n00bs...in reference to anything.
Uh-oh (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to see what RMS is going to say in his reply :-)
First they ignore you... (Score:4, Interesting)
We have achieved stage two, they have learned to fear us...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We've been on stage 2 for a looong time now. Perhaps even on the beginnings of stage 3, depending on who you ask.
Re:First they ignore you... (Score:4, Informative)
You missed a step. The original Ghandi quote was thus (except for the bulleted list format):
But I agree, we're on stage 2-3 now.
Things I found interesting (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer but my understanding that amicus curiae briefs came from parties not directly involved with the case but are very rarely neutral. From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. . . The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. . . Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation."
Again from wikipedia: "Amicus curiae or amicus curiæ (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it." Offering additional information is the point of amicus curiae.
Re:Things I found interesting (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer but my understanding that amicus curiae briefs came from parties not directly involved with the case but are very rarely neutral.
Of course you are correct, UF. If the amicus curiae felt 'neutral' on the subject, why would they be filing a brief? We were not asking to be appointed judge; we were submitting a brief which would help the Court see why the plaintiffs were dead wrong.
Re:Things I found interesting (Score:5, Funny)
If the amicus curiae felt 'neutral' on the subject, why would they be filing a brief?
Here's a neutral amicus curiæ: tell the court I said "Hello."
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.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:5, Informative)
So, is Ray "subject to a pending sanctions motion", and if so, what does that mean anyway?
There is a link to the term "pending sanctions motion"; if you follow the link you can read all about it. They made a motion to withdraw their own case, and joined it with a motion for "discovery sanctions" against Mrs. Lindor and myself. The motion was based on nothing but lies. It is still pending. Our Rule 11 motion against them is strictly based on the fact that their motion for "discovery sanctions" was based on nothing but lies, so the 2 motions are closely interrelated.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:5, Informative)
You must be new here
You must be new here if you're saying that to NYCL.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here
You must be new here if you're saying that to NYCL.
You must be new here if you're not used to people saying 'you must be new here' to NYCL.
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, is he? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
It would not be possible for me, or any lawyer of conscience and professionalism, to be on the RIAA's side in these cases. The RIAA lawyers routinely sign documents they know to be false.
Re:Well, is he? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"pending sanctions motion" means the RIAA has made a motion to sanction NYCL. The thing is, almost every lawyer in every case is at some point (probably for most of the trail) subject to a "pending sanctions motion". Either side can enter a motion for just about anything. Sanctions motions are SOP, both sides will file them when the other side does something they don't like. The more important question is whether the judge will grant the motion or reject it.
It's much like lawsuits in general. I could sue yo
Uh, they are LAWYERS! (Score:5, Funny)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not *your* friend, buddy! (Score:4, Funny)
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'
What part of our confrontational legal system does the RIAA not understand?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The part where it works against them.
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.
I love the RIAA... (Score:4, Funny)
No matter what you do to them, you don't feel bad.
Seriously, it is great to see them being openly evil like this, for those that are slow or haven't gotten the point.
Well done, RIAA. Try twirling your mustache the next time you accuse anyone, just to really seal the deal.
Ah ah ah "violent bias" (Score:3, Insightful)
That reminds me, pardon my Godwin, of an old line from the late Pierre Desproges: "You will never manage to completely convince me that jews weren't at least a LITTLE bit guilty of irrationnal anti-nazi bias."
My favorite quote (Score:5, Insightful)
And then in the very next sentence:
I mean... unless something has changed in their pattern, they only have documentation of one legal download and that being from an investigation team that may or may not be licensed.
Why has no attorney ever taken a look at the finances and circumstances associated with one particular song - how much revenue did this earn in the year prior, the year during, and the year after the alleged infringement. Most of the songs that I've noted have been out for at least a decade if not two, with little or no marketing, and zero spins on any of the radio stations I listen to.
Another argument I never see in any of these is the challenge the RIAAs ownership of the material. A 20 year old song may or may not have a clear ownership record, and with the history of the industry, you really should establish that the recording artists, the producers, and the songwriters all have given the RIAA authority willingly and contractually prior to the filing of any individual lawsuit.
Idiots (Score:5, Funny)
Or, to put it another way, Richard Stallman's cock is larger than the the cock size of everyone associated with the RIAA combined! What are they going to do in the face of such an enormous penis? What can they do?
Yeah I could make a serious post on the subject, but I'm giving the RIAA all the respect they and their shrill complaints deserve.
NYCL strikes again (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, perfect grammar in a /. story summary! I can't recall seeing such an exquisite exposition of the proper usage of nested quotation marks.
It's almost as if /. found a professional editor!
Oh wait...
I am not a lawyer.... (Score:5, Funny)
...but I'd really like to know how to file one of those amateur circus briefs.
Re:Their aim is improving (Score:5, Insightful)
Targeting lawyers instead of, say, people who don't even know how to defend is "getting better at picking targets" when it comes to law suits that are not far from simple harrassment?
Dunno if I can follow your train of thought.
Re:Their aim is improving (Score:5, Insightful)
NYCL is not just a harder target to hit, he is also a much more valuable one. If the RIAA can take him out of the equation, then they can go back to pushing around children and crippled grandmothers, but like any bully they can't properly operate with anyone actually standing up to them.
What comes next is the lawyer equivalent of meeting at the playground after school. If the RIAA can put enough hurt on NYCL, RMS and anyone else who has been willing to take a stand, then they go back to stealing lunch money... otherwise it is quite likely that they'll be shown for puffed up cowards and never be taken seriously again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know, but after reading that songlist I'm gonna go home and make sweet, sweet love to my wife.
OK, I'm actually going to go home and try to put the moves on my wife, who will reject me because she's "too tired" or "has a headache" or "is dying from some venereal disease" or some other lame excuse.
Who am I kidding? I'm going to go home, go downstairs to my cave, and masturbate quietly so my mom doesn't hear, just like every night.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's just assume that everything they said were accurate accusations and that the FSF is anti-copyright, anti-RIAA, anti-whatever... How is this relevant to their case?
It's not. The amicus brief simply brought certain legal authorities to the Court's attention. Either the authorities are in the book, or they're not. What FSF's personal opinion of the RIAA is, or what my personal opinion of the RIAA is, is completely irrelevant to anything.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
You describe the backlash as though it hasn't already happened. Remember Tower Records? Virgin Megastore?
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The music industry is dying, and this is their last stand.
You are correct. The existing music industry infrastructure is dying. Music won't.
Re:Over-reaching much? (Score:5, Insightful)
the art of music in western civilization may even come alive again if we can get rid of these cartels.
Re:RIAA is a criminal organization (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is only incidentally a criminal organization. The law is just an inconvenient encumberance.
The real purpose of the RIAA is to make money. Lots of money. To do this, they have become an evangelical organization. They are trying to create and perpetuate a repressive belief system.
In action, they closely resemble an inquisition.
They are trying to create and enforce a belief system. Any tactic is justified if it will maintain their orthodox beliefs. These beliefs don't have to make sense. They just have to be valued.
* Copyright infringement equals piracy.
* Copying music is the same as theft of tangible property.
* Unapproved distribution of an idea requires infinite punishment.
These are not rational thoughts. They are elements of a repressive belief system.
Miles
Re:People disagree with you from time to time (Score:4, Informative)
Looking over the summary, at least, I'm left with one question: Are there any actual legal ramifications to this, or does this more or less boil down to "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeeee!"?
There are no legal ramifications to the ad hominem attacks; the RIAA was merely saying "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeee!".
As to the rest of the brief it grossly misstates and misunderstands the law regarding the jurisprudence of Due Process scrutiny of statutory damage awards.
Fortunately, Judge Gertner -- unlike the RIAA's lawyers -- can read.