Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Excellent

   

   WarOtter (profile), Oct 29th, 2008 @ 5:00pm

   
   

   This, coupled with the fact that their arguement of "we represent the artists" has been debunked from the numerous instances of artist having to sue them to get royalties, should push them further into obsolescence.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 5:01pm

   
   

   Its about f**king time!
   
   Not 1 cent!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Erv Server, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 5:09pm

   
   

   Judge Nancy Gertner for president

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 5:33pm

   
   

   for president? Lets keep her as a judge! Lets give her praise. Lets let her set an example.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Read the remarks of the editor.

   

   Ed, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 6:09pm

   
   

   [Ed. Note. While it is heartening to see Judge Gertner show some recognition of the unfairness in the way these cases are being handled, it is unclear how she can say that the law is overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies when she recognizes that for the past 5 years she's only been hearing one side of the argument. It is also disheartening that she evidences no recognition of how she has herself contributed to the "imbalance" by consolidating all of the cases, thus (a) providing the record companies with massive economies of scale not available to the defendants, (b) providing virtually untrammeled ex parte access to the Court on all common legal issues, and (c) creating a one-sided atmosphere in the courthouse that causes all defendants to abandon hope. How can Judge Gertner conclude that the settlements have come about because the law is on the record companies' side, when she knows full well that the reason the settlements have come about is that there is no economically viable way for defendants to defend themselves? -R.B.]

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re:

   

   interval, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 6:29pm

   
   

   Ditto. She's more valuable as a Judge. Any clown with some money can be president.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Even better news...

   

   slimcat (profile), Oct 29th, 2008 @ 8:28pm

   
   

   Harvard law professor Charlie Neeson and colleagues have determined that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, the law on which RIAA litigation rests, is actually intended for criminal cases and that civil use is unconstitutional. Further, they believe the act itself is also unconstitutional.

   You can read the story here

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Overcast, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 8:39pm

   
   

   Yeah, about time.
   
   But in the end, it can't be said there's no profit in all of this, there most certainly is for the lawyers!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Even better news...

   

   Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2008 @ 9:05pm

   
   

   Perhaps this is the good professor's views, but he is distinctly in the minority within the legal profession in attempting to say that a civil action should be construed as a criminal action. This argument is almost certainly DOA, though he may have a valid point in arguing that statutory damages may be excessive. However, even here he has a very difficult row to hoe in trying to overturn longstanding judicial precedent deferring to the clear language of the pertinent copyright statute.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment