Slashdot Log In
EFF Jumps in Against RIAA for Copyright Misuse
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Apr 10, 2007 04:20 PM
from the big-guns-call-for-bigger-guns dept.
from the big-guns-call-for-bigger-guns dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Arguing that the RIAA and big record labels may be misusing their copyrights, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has jumped in on the defendant's side in a White Plains, New York, court conflict. The case is Lava v. Amurao, and the EFF will be defending Mr. Amurao's right to counterclaim for copyright misuse. EFF argued that the RIAA, by deliberately bringing meritless cases against innocent people based on theories of 'secondary liability', are abusing their copyrights. In its amicus brief, EFF also decried (just as when it joined the ACLU, Public Citizen, and others on the side of Debbie Foster in Capitol v. Foster) the RIAA's 'driftnet' litigation strategy. They argue that the declaratory judgment remedy must also be made available to defendants, in view of the RIAA's habit of dropping the meritless cases it started but can't finish."
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: ACLU, EFF, & Others Fight RIAA for Debbie Foster 298 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a landmark legal document, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the American Association of Law Libraries have submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the motion for attorneys fees that has been made by Deborah Foster in Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster, in federal court in Oklahoma. This brief is mandatory reading for every person who is interested in the RIAA litigation campaign against consumers."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hm (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, they had to give the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves with first. If the RIAA did only once or twice, the RIAA could say it was a simple mistake and/or blame it on the lawyer. With many cases in many states, it establishes a pattern. They don't do their homework. They sue people without cause. They do it often.
Parent
Re:Hm (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly:
- They continue to initiate new suits doing the same thing after it has been established that they're doing things wrong, and
- they admitted in public that they knew they were hurting innocents and that they considered this collateral damage legitimate.
I suspect that these were the last two ducklings that had to fall in line. Once they were in position the EFF could fire their shot the next time a case got to the stage that exposed the target.
Danger danger, Will Robinson! Mixed metaphors off the starboard bow!
Parent
Re:Hm (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All of which are helpfully read by some unpaid staffer and promptly placed in the "circular file."
Meanwhile, those members of Congress do seem to be listening to the entertainment companies that sign the donation checks -- or did you forget about all the Senators and Representatives who signed on to the Sonny Bono Copyright T [wikipedia.org]
Unclean Hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonderful letter, but now lets hope the judge thinks so too.
Re:Unclean Hands (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a beautiful thought, but it is extremely unlikely to happen. The labels have already been widely accused and convicted of behavior that should have resulted in an injunction against their copyrights (e.g., collusion to fix prices). I doubt anything will come of it now, just as nothing came of it then.
Parent
Re:Unclean Hands (Score:4, Insightful)
I can definitely see a judge thinking this way.
Parent
Re:Unclean Hands (Score:5, Interesting)
I can definitely see a judge thinking this way.
Since acting as its members' copyright-enforcement organization is virtually the entire function of the RIAA such a decision would utterly sink it.
Leaving exactly the decision-makers who chose to proceed with these tactics, along with the hirelings who implemented their policy when they should have known it was wrong, looking for work.
How perfectly right!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which means they'd likely do what most corporations in such positions do: dissolve and form up as a different corporation, which would then sign the same contracts
Re: (Score:2)
Holy Dave Barry, Batman (Score:2)
Both of those would be great names for a band!
NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phone (Score:5, Funny)
NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phone, please. We have an RIAA related legal item that needs translation. Thank you.
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok that's funny. =)
But hey - since I have your attention I'd like to say thank you for all your posts here on this topic. It's enlightening to read your take on things. Even if you are native-legalese.
Parent
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You mean sneaky suspicion. A sneaking suspicion sounds more like full-blown paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmmmm. I should lay off the coffee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by "being in the game" you mean representing defendants in litigations, I am presently handling 6 contested litigations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We just finished covering copyright in my IP survey course, and while we covered misuse as it applied to patent law, we didn't for copyright. Is there an existing doctrine that my professor didn't get to, or is this extending the idea of patent misuse into the copyright sphere?
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
But the RIAA doesn't hold any copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
If the RIAA is found to be abusing the legal process, forbidding them from continuing to prosecute copyrights would not touch the rights of the actual copyright holders, it would merely that they either act directly themselves, or hire a new agent.
I have not idea how likely such a decision would be, but to me it would appear just.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:5, Funny)
We have an RIAA related legal item that needs translation.
... Does anyone speak jive?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Barbara Billingsley does [imdb.com].
Worst case for RIAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a thought. (Score:3, Interesting)
That would stop them from using thre current techniques, and put more focus on people who are mass producing unauthorized works. NOteble becvause those people, when caught. have a ton of physical evidense that can be used against them.
In reality, they will probably be sued for damages.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There's a thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already hornswoggled you, I see. The way copyrights work is that the work immediately becomes public domain, and in return for this, the artist (and, through later legislation, whoever the artist sold the rights to) gets a time limited exclusive right to control copies. What the *IAA wants you to believe is that they own the works.
The artist can retain ownership, but then he would have to not claim copyrights, and instead distribute copies of the works through other methods, like sales contracts. That gives him the right to go after copiers for contract infringements. But he can't have the cake and eat it -- either time limited copyright protection in exchange for making the work public domain, or ownership and no copyright protection.
And yes, the distinction matters. Because the works are public domain from day one, you are free to do what you like with them except copying. Cause you're the rightful owner. That's one right the *IAA wants to take away, with their fight for perpetual extension of copyrights and their talk about "theft" instead of copyright violation. You can't steal something that already belongs to you, but when they get enough people to believe they have ownership, including judges who grow up "knowing it's so", then copyrights no longer hold any meaning -- it's free protection in return for nothing. Which never was what was intended nor promised.
Regards,
--
*Art
Parent
Mod parent down -1 Incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and inno
wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright is automatically owned by the creator (or whoever the rights are sold to). There is no need to apply for copyright; it is automatic. The work is not public domain until copyright expires. There is no obligation to publish a copyrighted work. If the artist chooses not to sell their rights, they still have copyright. Copyright grants a time-limited monopoly on making copies of the work. You cannot violate copyright if you have never had a copy, even if you accidentally produce something very similar. You can say the same things as someone else's copyrighted work, and that work will be your copyright. It's all about a particular expression of something.
Patent law is all about making knowledge about methods of doing something publicly available as a condition of acquiring a patent, in return for which a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that idea is granted to the patent holder. You have to apply for a patent; it is not automatic. You can violate a patent even if you have never heard of it before, or you expressed the ideas in the patent differently. The concepts in the patent are what matter, not their mode of expression.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You ask that as if our Litigation Industry is some sort of "Justice System". Living in a capitalist democracy, you should know better.
Tides are turning but what next? (Score:4, Interesting)
So how long until the owner of an internet service account becomes responsible, no matter what, for what happens via their connection? When incompetence and ignorance are no longer valid excuses? It honestly looks inevitable to me, because it's not like the RIAA is just going to roll over and I hardly think free distribution (aka free advertising) will appeal to them if they haven't gotten the clue this far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, it would mean fining a lot lot of grandmothers (and children, and dead people, and children of dead people, etc.) into bankruptcy, bu
attempted translation (Score:4, Interesting)
the riaa's legal tactics against casual downloaders are not surviving closer scrutiny, and this latest legal tidbit from nycl is but another hole in a growing number of holes that the legal system is poking in the riaa's legal tactics
nycl, a question: if i were to go online now and, using a well-known, well-trafficked file sharing site, downloaded a well-known track, and this were to attract the attention of the riaa driftnets, is it safe to say that i could survive the legal attack using one or a number of the new legal routes around the riaa's tactics you have brought to slashdot's attention?
or, more succinctly, is the era of the riaa driftnet over? or merely hinted at?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL (also IANANYCL), but previous to your posting I would say "possibly or even maybe". However, since your posting here in a public forum, I w
Re:attempted translation (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no idea what you're referring to when you say a "file sharing site", or what you mean by downloading attracting the attention of the riaa driftnets...I don't know why your question was modded up, because you don't seem familiar with the factual matrix of these cases at all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Golly, how many times must this be said?
No one gets sued for downloading. The illegal activity is distributing copyrighted materials without consent of the copyright holder. So, go download as many songs you would like, you are not going to be sued unle
I've said it once... (Score:2, Insightful)
Chicken of the Sea (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA should be harassed just for their use of evil analogy, and the hypocritical corporate use of frivolous nuisance suits as a tool to effectuate their will upon society. From the EFF amicus brief [ilrweb.com]:
Re:Watch out RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
(Hope hope hope...)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thus far, their actions have conspicuously lacked decency, morality or even sanity.
Their aim puports to be to make more money for their members, but their actions are evidently not acheiving that, and no rational analaysis that I've seen shows that their current course has any chance of achieving it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)