Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government The Almighty Buck News

Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA 193

eldavojohn writes "We talked about Charlie Nesson of Harvard Law School before, and it may not have been known to you, but he is backing former student and Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara. Ars is reporting that Nesson is upping the charges against the RIAA. Not only is file-sharing fair use, but the $100,000,000 the RIAA has collected through fear is due back to those wrongly accused. He's also increasing the number of fronts he's fighting. On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these — 150,000:1 — are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • I doubt that'll work (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:11PM (#28059955)

    On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these â" 150,000:1 â" are unconstitutional

    When it comes to the courts, including the Supreme Court, it seems that corporations' power compared to people are allowed to be practically infinite so long as they're not literally listed as infinite. See: extensions of copyright, corporate personhood.

  • Re:My Take (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pieroxy ( 222434 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:14PM (#28059975) Homepage

    It's actually funny how all they are fighting for seems just like common sense. The RIAA is blackmailing all the people they can, under ridiculously claims... Man, 150000:1, who in their right mind could come up with something that stupid !!!???!!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2009 @06:42PM (#28060239)

    This guy is pushing extremes in court, but, isn't that what the *IA has been doing all this time? Because of this extremes, I have people telling me when, how and for how long I can listen/view to tracks/movies I have legally purchased. I don't know about you, but if I buy a movie I want to see it however I damn please, whenever I damn please with whoever I damn please. Same applies to music. I've had enough of this bullcrap, so I for once, welcome our new amoral lawyer overlord.

  • It's bootlegging (Score:1, Interesting)

    by KalvinB ( 205500 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:30PM (#28060723) Homepage

    File sharing is a misnomer. When dealing with copyrighted works it's bootlegging. Not sharing.

    Fair Use (maybe) qualifies if you're actually sharing with a few friends. You can copy a few pages but not the whole book. You can loan a copy to a few of your friends but not the whole world.

    You can complain about the law all you want but the lawyer is dealing with the existing law and absurd applications of "Fair Use" are just going to demonstrate the inability to come up with a legitimate reason why bootlegging on the internet is A-OK while bootlegging on a street corner is not and never has been. Which is going to result in a lot of lost cases and further development of DRM schemes.

    If bootleggers would give it up, consumers would have a lot less trouble taking advantage of Fair Use to protect their digital goods. But because bootleggers aren't giving up and fighting windmills trying to justify themselves, media companies have to protect their digital goods instead.

  • by Mr2001 ( 90979 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:07PM (#28061057) Homepage Journal

    Oh, wait, sorry, did someone forget to inform you that copyright law is more than just making money? It also entails plagiarism and similar concepts.

    You know what else also "entails" plagiarism and similar concepts? Anti-fraud laws. Lying about something in order to sell it is already illegal.

    You don't need copyright in order to outlaw plagiarism. Even if you find that existing anti-fraud laws aren't enough, then you can pass a new law that specifically forbids passing someone else's work off as your own, and you still won't need copyright.

  • by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:22PM (#28061195) Homepage
    1. Any crime in the physical world can be ignored if it is done using the Internet. This is especially true if the victim is not wise in the ways of the Internet. Bragging about your conquest tends to void this rule.
    2. A low price trumps all other considerations. Free is best.
    3. Anything that can be represented digitally is viewed as fair game for the taking on the Internet. If it isn't available from one source for free, keep looking. Someone else has already stolen it and is sharing.
    4. The lowest common denominator is the only way anything works on the Internet.
    5. One bad apple spoils the barrel. One stupid or ruthless user on the Internet can screw things up for the entire world.
    6. Security is the responsibility of the end user. If you haven't protected yourself, it is your own fault. The entire world is out there looking for vulnerabilities in your computer and it is their right to do so. See item 1 if you have any questions.
    7. Attempting to invoke the rule of law on the Internet is at best a joke. It shows your imcompetence. There are no laws and no rules.

    I think it can be best summed up as "I want." Yes, I want to download movies and music for free. Anything that gets in the way of that is obviously oppressive and damages my fragile psyche. There should be laws against things like that.

  • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:29PM (#28061247) Homepage Journal

    true, and for a limited time, that's a good thing.

    More then 14 years is too much.

    14 years is less then a generation; which is what it takes for something to really penetrate as part of the culture, and it's a little after the point wen most people are really getting any money.

  • by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @08:33PM (#28061293) Homepage

    Why would you need to pass it off as your own? WalMart sells stuff every day that they didn't make. So they could just as easily sell artists work without compensating them. No copyright law means there would be nothing to prevent this from happening.

    Trust me, WalMart and Sony have already figured this part out and know exactly what to do should something like the elimination of copyright law. They will make more money than ever before.

  • by turbidostato ( 878842 ) on Friday May 22, 2009 @09:00PM (#28061591)

    "Establishing Copyright and an international treaty made it possible for artists to make a buck. Like any law, it needs retooling, but to dismiss the concept of copyright as amoral is puerile."

    So you really think that giving credit to the idea of expecting money for a work nobody asked you nor promised compensation for is not puerile?

  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Saturday May 23, 2009 @01:20AM (#28063749) Journal

    Filesharing is partially PROVEN legal in holland. Downloading is 100% absolutly legal and judges have ruled on this multiple times.

    So, it is only a horrible legal argument in countries where the law is owned by the copyright industry.

    And please note, human civilization has DEPENDED on copyright "violations" for millenia. Rossetta stone anyone? Copied all over. How did you think books were made before the printing press? Hand copied over the centuries without any notion of paying the author. Modern copyright as the RIAA and the likes want it is a very recent invention and can easily be argued counter-productive.

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle