EFF Jumps in Against RIAA for Copyright Misuse 147
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."
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hm (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 Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org]?
When push comes to shove, unless it's immediately preceding an election and it's an issue that's being widely covered by the media, cash talks and bullshit -- which includes pretty much anything not written on check paper -- walks. Politicians only care about two things: how they'll get re-elected, and how they'll get paid. And it's going to take a lot more publicity than we have right now to turn digital media into an issue that drives votes, like abortion, gun control, or taxes.
Want some names? Dianne Feinstein, for starters, is practically the film and recording industry's representative to the Senate. [1] She's personally cosponsored more pro-industry, anti-consumer legislation than anyone else that I can think of, and she gets re-elected, year after year. Orrin Hatch is another one, on the other side of the aisle. Ditto for Ted Stevens -- the man's a borderline retard, but he brings home the bacon to Alaska, and that's all voters there care about.
Until you can get enough interest to knock some of the politicians who are obviously in the pocket of the industry out of office, nothing's really changed. They'll appear to clean up their act for a while when they know their offices are on the line (in theory), but once back off the hook they'll just go back to screwing the public like they always do.
[1] Here's one sample that looks like it was probably drafted by the RIAA itself; the "ART" Act from 2005: http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-piracy-a
Mod parent down -1 Incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
Public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests within a particular legal jurisdiction.
and
If an item ("work") is not in the public domain, this may be the result of a proprietary interest such as a copyright, patent, or other sui generis right.
What it sounds like you're thinking of is how patents are designed such that people will tell the world about their invention, in exchange for the security that others can't just run off and produce that invention without the permission (usually at a price) of the inventor; as opposed to keeping all inventions as trade secrets, which then die quiet deaths if the inventor is unable to bring it to market himself.
The closest analog to that in the realm of copyright is simply not publishing your creation, which is kind of pointless unless you're only creating it for your own enjoyment. Even then, copyright is automatic, and if you show a friend your awesome painting that you've never shown anyone. and he snaps a nice high-res photo while you're in the bathroom and runs away to publish his photo, you have grounds to sue him for copyright infringement, even if you never registered your copyright or any such thing.
You are right, at least, that the record companies do not "own" the works in any sense beyond the right to say who can make copies of them. So all this nonsense about you buying a license to use their music is just that - nonsense. The only licensing going on is their licensing of the distributor to create the CDs. Once that's done, you're buying a physical disc on which is a legally-made copy of some music, and you're free to do whatever the hell you want with that, aside from make further (unlicensed) copies; though even then there are fair-use exceptions.
Of course if you happen to be a lawyer or something and it turns out I'm talking out my ass, please feel free to correct me, but as far as I understand intellectual property law in America, that's how things work.
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.
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:Agent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer to the white courtesy phon (Score:3, Informative)
If by "being in the game" you mean representing defendants in litigations, I am presently handling 6 contested litigations.
Re:But the RIAA doesn't hold any copyrights (Score:3, Informative)