Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music Businesses The Almighty Buck News Politics

White House Lauds MN RIAA Win, Analysis of Victory 368

Posted by Zonk
from the really-could-have-done-without-that-this-week dept.
cnet-declan writes "The Bush administration's copyright czar says the RIAA's $222,000 recent jury verdict against a Minnesota woman shows copyright law is 'effective' and working as planned. C|Net's coverage has comments from Chris Israel, the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement. Israel is formerly a senior Commerce Department official appointed by President Bush in July 2005 who previously worked for Time Warner's public policy arm (Warner Bros. Records is one of the plaintiffs in the RIAA case). The site also features an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher, no fan of the RIAA, on whether Congress will change the law, an analysis of why U.S. copyright law is broken, and four reasons why the RIAA won."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Lauds MN RIAA Win, Analysis of Victory

Comments Filter:
  • by TapeCutter (624760) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @06:56AM (#20878365) Journal
    "Sad to see that in Bush's America this apparently only applies to freemen, not single moms"

    Whilst I agree that the magna carta is at the roots of modern democracy and the RIAA are a bunch of souless pricks, "freemen" was a restrictive term back then and did not include women, children or slaves.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:04AM (#20878731)
    Actually, Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman because the prosecutors conducting the interview wrote up a specific definition of sex prior to the interview. The definition of sex the prosecutors said must be used in the interview excluded oral.
  • by crovira (10242) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:05AM (#20878737) Homepage
    for years.

    The suckage of the RIAA's client's 'product' is legendary and I see no need to support it in any way.

    Unfortunately, is still too expensive to make movies because there isn't an independent movie market place for the CREATION of movies, but its coming as production equipment, (like film cameras, lenses and editing software,) keep getting cheaper and better.

    It will become possible to finance the creation of movies, the distribution of movies over the internet through something like podcasting. You can pitch ideas on the 'net, see what sort of an audience would be interested (that gives you an upper limit on budget,) and go produce it.

    The same with movie houses trying to compete with 1080p and 41"+ screens.

    They are going to be in real trouble in a very few years.

    But back to the RIAA:

    There are lots of indie artists who's record companies get my money instead.

    The RIAA is one last gasp of any industry trying to hold back the tide.

    Like buggy whip makers, they are trying to force cars off of the roads. We all know where that led.

    I'm going to quite myself from next Monday's podcast, ("bad form" I know), but the RIAA only represents a very few clients:

    "* Arista
    * BMG
    * Capitol Records
    * Elektra
    * Fonovisa
    * Interscope
    * Lava
    * Loud
    * Maverick
    * MGM
    * Motown
    * Priority
    * Sony
    * UMG
    * Universal
    * Virgin
    * Warner)

    Personally, I think the RIAA's lawyers are tone-deaf, evil, profligate dwarves who have neither senses of shame or of proportion.

    I will never buy "any" of products from any firms they represent. (There are plenty of alternatives.)

    Kiss my ass, RIAA. Kiss my ass."
  • Re: U.S. Justice (Score:3, Informative)

    by I_Voter (987579) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:29AM (#20878923)
    Justice and the U.S. Constitution.

    IMO: Few people that express political opinions about, justice, civil liberties, or even decisions by the U.S.Supreme Court, seem to be aware of our founding fathers original views. In simple terms the basic defense against government "tyranny" in our original constitutional concept was the jury.

    My Quick and Dirty Background

    In 1670, the traditional right of trial, by a jury of the defendant's peers, became much more powerful. The King's Chief Justice ruled that a jury could not be punished for bringing in a verdict that the Judge thought was unreasonable. This gave the jury the right to nullify the law in any specific trial! It's no accident that our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights mention trial by jury six times. Our founding fathers understood the importance of the jury to protect the citizens from any state including a republic.

    Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -

    "The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."

    Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -

    "I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution." If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: "Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative."

    One Historical Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech

    In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.

    Later "Judicial Refinements."

    A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that jurors did not have the right of "jury nullification." It could be said that they were proclaiming the jurers in that seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger to be criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. However; in most states trial judges now tell jurors that their only job is to decide if the "facts" are sufficient to convict, and that if so, they "should" or "must" convict. Defense attorneys can face contempt of court charges if they urge jurors to acquit if they think the law is unconstitutional or unjust. However, in England "Rumpole of the Bailey" can use the following defense - "Yes my client did it! So what! Does any member of the jury really believe my client deserves to be punished?"

    This subject is explored more fully in the book, -

    JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine , pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.

    More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.

    The ability of the Judge to "judge" the reasoning processes of seated jurors, under admittedly rare situations, is only true in California.at the present tim

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @09:27AM (#20879335) Homepage Journal
    As far as I can tell, they think it's working if you can win big money in the lawsuit lottery.

    As for me, I think I'll follow NYCL's advice from the previous story and send a little something to help her appeal this. NYCL said to make out checks to Chestnut & Cambronne PA, Esqs. with a note that they're for Jammie Thomas's case and to mail them to:

    Brian N. Toder, Esq.
    Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A.
    204 North Star Bank
    4661 Highway 61
    White Bear Lake, MN 55110

    And that their phone number is (651) 653-0990 if you need it for FedEx.
  • Neoconservatism? (Score:3, Informative)

    by paranode (671698) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @11:29AM (#20880283)
    So you are seriously claiming that none of these laws existed before Bush's administration? I just think it's so funny when people get a hot-button issue and use it as a scapegoat for everything even when it has nothing to do with it. Many liberals have been in office and they have not changed copyright laws in your favor. Neocons are not the root cause of this issue.
  • Corroboration (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xenographic (557057) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @03:26PM (#20882123) Homepage Journal
    I don't remember where NYCL's comment was in the prior story, but here's some corroboration from his website [blogspot.com], and here [blogger.com] is the comment on his own blog where he points people to that information.

    I don't blame you for wanting proof; I think it's smart to double-check things like that.

CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...

Working...