Entertainmnent Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Shepard Fairey Destroys Evidence, Goodwill; Harms His Case For No Good Reason

from the grow-up dept

On Friday morning, someone "working with" Shepard Fairey alerted me that some news was coming out that day about his lawsuit with the Associated Press over his famous Barack Obama poster:

I finally got the "official" statement from Fairey late on Friday, just as I was about to leave work for the weekend, and the whole thing was so ridiculous that I just figured I'd leave it until today. Apparently, Fairey, for absolutely no good reason, tried to destroy evidence and then lie about which photo he actually used to make his poster. He's now come clean about this, and while he's right in his statement that this shouldn't have any impact on the underlying case, it certainly doesn't help. It was already pretty well known that Fairey was hardly the poster child of fair use -- given that he has a history of going after others who copy his own work, despite being an "appropriation artist" himself. But, even so, this is beyond dumb -- something I don't say lightly.

Fairey still has a very strong fair use claim -- which is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Fairey did something incredibly stupid here. Even if he used the image the AP claimed he did (which he now admits), it still seems like this is an obvious case of fair use. But destroying evidence and lying -- especially when there was no good reason to do so -- just harms his credibility and makes it that much more likely that he'll lose his case not for any legitimate reason, but because of his own separate actions in dealing with this case. There are important fair use issues at play here, and Fairey just made it that much harder to maintain the high ground.

While some are pointing out that this is the sort of thing that happens when copyright laws always seem to stack the deck against fair use, that's still no excuse for lying and trying to destroy evidence. Yes, the system sucks, but doing something like this only harms an otherwise strong case.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Negotiations Back On... White House Shows Small Group Proposed Text Under NDA

from the but-what-about-the-public dept

With the next round of negotiations on the ACTA treaty -- which may require the US and other countries to make significant changes to copyright law that favor the entertainment industry -- set to get underway, the White House still refuses to release details to the public, but did show the text to 42 Washington "insiders" under NDA. The good news is that the list includes a fair number of folks who recognize the problems with copyright law and the ACTA proposal -- including people like Gigi Sohn, William Patry, Sherwin Siy, David Sohn and Michael Petricone. Many of those people will push for the public's best interests. But, still, it's a bit troubling that the whole conversation remains secret for "national security" reasons. If we're talking about changing copyright laws that effect everyone, why not let everyone know? Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge, told KEI (in the link above) about his experience viewing the document, which sounded greatly limited, and notes that while the document has been adjusted, "the most troubling aspects" have not been "resolved."

In the meantime, it's worth asking why this is necessary again. First of all, in a world where trade agreements are supposed to be about breaking down trade barriers, ACTA seems designed to be putting up protectionist policies. Protectionism doesn't work and only creates more harm. But, much more importantly, much of the push for ACTA is based on lobbyists' claims of the "harm" done by counterfeiting. Except both the GAO and the OECD have put out independent reports showing that counterfeiting isn't that big a problem, and that whatever problems there are seem to be significantly exaggerated by lobbyists. Yes, those same lobbyists who were given much earlier access to the document and, records suggest, had a hand in shaping the document itself. So why do we need ACTA again? And why are we allowing those who the government has already found to have exaggerated the problem drive the negotiations?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Could Evidence-Based Copyright Law Ever Be Put In Place?

from the perhaps-not dept

Recently, we were discussing how copyright law seems to only get worse and worse, and it got me thinking how likely it is that "better" copyright laws could ever be put in place. Michael Geist recently put up a post on how to design copyright law that would last, emphasizing "balance" as being essential for durability. I have to admit, I tend to wince when people talk about a "balanced" copyright law, because it usually means a copyright law where everyone is worse off. A balanced copyright sets up the argument as if there's a real give-and-take, where what's good for some is bad for others.

I don't think copyright law needs to be that way. If the real purpose of copyright law is to "promote the progress," then why not make sure it's doing so? In other words, why not have actual evidence-based copyright law? There's a lot of historical evidence that can be looked at, and different ideas around copyright law can be empirically tested. If it doesn't promote the progress, get rid of it. If it does, then shouldn't that make almost everyone better off?

The real problem, though, is that there is a very small group of companies who disproportionately benefit from today's copyright laws -- at the expense of the public. And they have a ridiculously powerful lobby who aren't about to give up their monopoly rights, no matter how much evidence there is that it harms the public and does not promote the progress at all. So we're left with a bad system that continually gets worse. And no evidence-based system will ever be allowed, because it would almost certainly strip that small, but powerful, group of their monopoly rents.

People often assume that I'm in favor of just tossing out all copyright law. I'd argue that I'm more agnostic on the subject than anything else. I don't care about "copyright law" per se. I care about what's going to best promote the progress. If someone can show me that copyright actually can do that, I'm willing to understand how. But if we can't present the evidence of how, or actually defend what good copyright does, the I'm left wondering why it's there at all.

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Consumer Group Wants ACTA Discussions Stopped Until Consumer Rights Are Represented In Negotiations

from the would-be-nice,-but-seems-unlikely dept

We've discussed in great detail how the current ACTA treaty has been mostly driven by corporate interests as a way to sneak in more draconian copyright laws through international treaty, rather than through legislative means. When consumer groups have requested a seat at the table, they've been rejected, even as industry lobbyists have had no problem being active participants in the process.

Now, a group called the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue has demanded ACTA negotiations be put on hold until consumer groups have a real seat at the table, or at least are given access to documents being negotiated. TACD raises a number of important issues, such as respecting privacy rights and the rights of developing nations, who are often trampled over when it comes to IP protectionism from developed countries. But best of all, it points out one of the most annoying things in all efforts by copyright holders to extend copyright protection: they never, ever present any evidence for why it's necessary. It's an evidence-free zone. TACD specifically requests that real evidence be used:

Public policy on the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be informed by creditable evidence, transparent and realistic assumptions and objective peer reviewed analysis. Multiple approaches to addressing the legitimate concerns of right owners and consumers should be considered.

• Statistics on counterfeiting and or infringement must be objective, accurate, and presented in the appropriate context.
• Statistics on counterfeit and substandard medicines should not be combined when this misleads policy makers about the extent of either problem. The solutions to counterfeit and substandard products are often quite different.
• Estimates of losses from infringements of intellectual property rights should be based upon realistic demand and usage parameters.
• Governments should collect and analyze statistics on the relationship between infringement and affordability of products.

Here's TACD's full proposal:

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If You're Kidnapping Someone, Maybe Don't Search Google For 'Kidnapping'

from the be-careful-what-you-search-for dept

We've seen a few stories in the past of an people's Google searches being used in court to convict them -- because it strikes people as quite a coincidence when you just so happened to Google the crime you're accused of committing right after (or before!) it happens. Michael Scott points us to the latest such case, where someone accused of kidnapping a 17-year-old girl in Palo Alto apparently searched the news for terms related to kidnapping and sexual assault. Of course, one could argue that it could just be someone interested in the case -- but assuming there's additional evidence, then it could be pretty damning. In the meantime, if you're going out and committing crimes, perhaps don't search for related terms on any machine that can be traced to you...

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Companies Trying To Restrict Usage Isn't Evidence Of Any Broadband Crunch

from the anecdotes,-not-data dept

This is fascinating. A few weeks back, we noted that a press report in the UK was repeating Nemertes' questionable research on how there was apparently some big bandwidth crunch on the way that would harm the internet. However, someone from Nemertes quickly showed up to claim that the original reporter took their (old) report out of context, and Nemertes wasn't saying what was claimed. However, Zubin Madon, alerts us to the fact that Nemertes' Johna Till Johnson (oddly, without any clear disclaimer that she works for Nemertes) has published a piece at ComputerWorld claiming that, indeed, the internet is running out of bandwidth and that "the Internet sky really is falling." Not only that, but that it's happening even faster than their original estimates?

The proof? Well, there isn't any. She takes two data points (that have nothing to do with actual bandwidth) and extrapolates that we're running out of bandwidth. First, she points out that YouTube was discontinuing servicing certain geographies due to "lack of access capacity." First of all, I'd be interested in some more details on this, because I don't recall seeing the news, and a quick look around isn't turning up much on a story that I would have imagined would have generated a ton of press. Even if it's true, it doesn't seem to support Johnson/Nemertes' point. If YouTube really were pulling out of certain regions due to a lack of access, that would just mean the company is focusing on regions where there is more bandwidth, not that bandwidth is somehow running out. It just means Google is focusing on markets where there's a larger market.

The second data point is Time Warner Cable's weak attempt to try to force metered broadband. However, as the actual research has shown, Time Warner's actions had nothing to do with a bandwidth crunch, and everything to do with simply trying to abuse a market monopoly position to squeeze more money out of customers, even as its own costs were decreasing.

So it's again difficult to take Nemertes' research seriously when these examples are the best it can roll out in support of its position -- especially when Nemertes seemed to step away from its own supposed position just days before Johnson's column.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Evidence To Support The Need For Broadband Tiers Or Caps

from the oops dept

Just as the various broadband providers are ramping up their bogus astroturf attempts to convince the world that broadband caps are necessary and good for customers, Saul Hansell has been digging deep into the numbers and can't find any justification at all for the caps. All those stories about overwhelmed networks and exponential traffic growth? Not happening. If anything, the evidence is that the opposite is happening: advances in technology means that it's become cheaper for broadband providers to meet the needs of their customers. And those needs are growing, but that growth rate has been slowing, and is quite manageable. So, basically, the broadband companies are hyping up a problem that just isn't there. There is no crunch. There aren't bandwidth shortages that require cutting off heavy users. The only reason to set up such tiers is to squeeze more money out of customers without providing any improvements in service (actually, while providing less service). And it's all possible thanks to the lack of competition in the marketplace.

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Academics Warn Copyright Extension Supporters Not To Fall Back Into The Evidence-Free Zone

from the please-present-some-(any)-evidence dept

In James Boyle's excellent book, The Public Domain the ninth chapter expresses his hope that politicians passing copyright law would actually demand evidence before passing laws:

Imagine a process of reviewing prescription drugs that goes like this: representatives from the drug company come to the regulators and argue that their drug works well and should be approved. They have no evidence of this beyond a few anecdotes about people who want to take it and perhaps some very simple models of how the drug might affect the human body. The drug is approved. No trials, no empirical evidence of any kind, no follow-up. Or imagine a process of making environmental regulations in which there were no data, and no attempts to gather data, about the effects of the particular pollutants being studied. Even the harshest critics of regulation would admit we generally do better than this. But this is often the way we make intellectual property policy.

The one exception he highlights? Copyright extension in the UK, where the famous Gowers' Report recommended against copyright extension, based on evidence that it would do a lot more harm than good. After the report came out, Gowers actually admitted that the evidence showed that the best economic results would be to make copyright much shorter, but he didn't push that at the time, since the interest was in the other direction. Yet, despite this evidence that copyright extension would basically harm nearly everyone -- including musicians and the public -- some politicians in the UK have been saying it must be done anyway. Yes, the one case where actual economic evidence is being used... and it's being totally ignored.

The good news is that this is pissing off a lot of very smart people, who are demanding to understand why the government wants to ignore all of the evidence:

There has been some talk of 'moral arguments' for extension but it is hard to discern a compelling 'moral' case for a proposal whose prime effect is to benefit major label shareholders and a few, already highly successful, artists while imposing significantly greater costs on new creators, the general listening public and the custodians of our cultural heritage.

As Gowers concluded, and the Government has until now consistently reaffirmed, policy-making in this area should be evidence-based and designed to promote the broader welfare of society as a whole. Policies that appear to reflect nothing more than lobbying will only perpetuate the "marked lack of public legitimacy" which the Gowers report lamented — and discourage those who wish to contribute constructively to future Government policy-making in these areas. We therefore call on the Government to present any evidence that has led to this change of policy.

Indeed. The moral argument for longer copyright makes no sense when the economic evidence suggests that nearly everyone is made worse off (including musicians themselves) by longer copyright. How can it possibly be moral to have everyone worse off?

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Defense In Lori Drew Case Rests, As Judge Considers Dismissing The Case

from the time-to-end-this dept

The case against Lori Drew looks weaker and weaker by the day. The defense has rested its side, and the judge is considering whether to dismiss the case outright after it was established that it wasn't even Drew who set up the account used to communicate with Megan Meier. Based on that, it's even more ridiculous (and it already was ridiculous) to charge Drew with computer fraud for violating the terms of service -- considering she wasn't even there to review the terms of service, nor did she actually set up (or use, apparently) the account. This case has been a travesty from the start. Yes, people somehow want vengeance for Meier's suicide, but trumped up bogus charges against Drew don't help matters. It's nothing more than a witch hunt against someone who it appears did not actually break the law. If people want the law to be changed -- then work to change the law, but don't twist the laws to convict Drew.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lori Drew's Lawyers Worried About Finding Jury That Hasn't Prejudged Drew

from the tough-case dept

With the judge agreeing that the information about Megan Meier's suicide can be included in the computer fraud lawsuit against Lori Drew, Drew's lawyers are discovering that the emotional aspects of the case may be difficult to get past. In fact, in reviewing questionnaires that potential jurors were asked to fill out, many expressed outright disgust and "viciousness" for Drew. Once again, it's becoming increasingly clear, that it will be impossible for Drew to get a fair hearing on what the case is actually about: whether or not it's a violation of computer fraud and hacking laws to break the terms of service for an online service. Instead, people are focusing on Meier's suicide, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual charges. This is a witch hunt appealing to emotional responses, rather than reasoned ones. It's been rather depressing to see how many folks have no problem abusing the law in this manner. If the lynch mob aspect of this case is allowed to go on, it will eventually be looked back on as a mockery of the law.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bad Decisions: Judge Allows Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Computer Fraud Case

from the bad,-bad,-bad dept

While the entire lawsuit against Lori Drew is a joke, the one good thing was that it appeared the judge was going to exclude any evidence related to Megan Meier's suicide -- as the fact that the girl committed suicide has no bearing on whether or not Drew violated computer fraud laws. Unfortunately, though, the judge has now reversed himself and will allow such evidence to be presented at the trial. This makes the case officially ridiculous. There is simply no way that Drew can get a fair trial.

She is being charged with computer fraud. The fact that a girl eventually committed suicide should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not computer fraud happened. But, because of the emotional connection to the fact that a girl committed suicide, some folks want to string up someone out of revenge. Unfortunately, the emotions surrounding the case will lead way too many people to conclude that it's okay to find a woman guilty on an entirely separate issue that will set a horrible precedent. At this point, it's quite clear that the lawsuit has nothing to do with the actual law, but it's an attempt to punish someone because a young girl killed herself. It's understandable that people are angry over Megan Meier's suicide, but that's simply no excuse for twisting laws for lynch-mob justice.

88 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Likely To Exclude Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Lawsuit

from the makes-at-least-some-sense dept

We've already pointed out how ridiculous it was that prosecutors charged Lori Drew with violating computer hacking laws. It was, quite clearly, a case where prosecutors were stretching the use of the law beyond its intention in order to file any charges in an emotionally-charged case. Drew, of course, is the woman who many people blame for the eventual suicide of teenager Megan Meier. Drew had created a fake MySpace account to see what Meier was saying about Drew's own daughter -- who had been friends with Meier. A few different people had access to the MySpace account, and eventually created a false persona of a boy who became friendly with Meier. In an effort to end things before it went too far, a friend of Drew's daughter tried to cut off conversation by being especially mean to Meier, which may have lead to her committing suicide. Meier's suicide is tragic, no doubt, but to go from there to charging Drew with computer hacking for creating a fake profile would set a very dangerous precedent. It could open up almost anyone to felony charges. No matter what you think of Drew or her actions, it's ridiculous to support this lawsuit.

While the judge in the case decided not to dismiss the case, he apparently has decided that evidence of Meier's suicide will not be allowed in the case. This, at least, is a good decision. The lawsuit itself has nothing to do with the suicide, and allowing it to be used in front of a jury would likely lead to the same emotional response that resulted in the original charges being filed. Of course, with the case getting so much widespread publicity, you'd have to imagine that many jury members will already be familiar with what happened in the case.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Also Tells Judge That Proof Shouldn't Be Necessary To Sue For Infringement

from the heard-this-before dept

Following in the footsteps of the MPAA, the RIAA has now filed its response in the Jammie Thomas case, claiming again that actual proof of distribution doesn't make sense: "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online." See, there's just one problem with this. The law isn't designed to make it easy to enforce copyright owners rights. It's designed to make sure that only the guilty party is actually blamed for breaking the law. So the fact that it's "difficult" shouldn't sway the judge.

Furthermore, while the discussion here was supposed to focus on whether or not "making available" is infringement, it looks like the RIAA decided to pull in a bunch of other arguments as well, noting that Thomas downloaded many of the songs in her folder (yet, the case was about uploading, not downloading), and that none of it matters because the RIAA actually does have proof of distribution (in the form of Media Sentry downloading the files). Again, though, those points are not what's up for debate here. So, once again, we have the RIAA trying to cloud the issue. Oh yeah, and, of course, the RIAA can't resist using its bogus arguments that international treaties require US courts to treat making available as distribution. That's an incredibly weak argument, based on the idea that these treaties, often written by the industry, and approved by diplomats who don't understand what they really mean, should be binding over what the law actually says.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

City Council Tells 'Dumbest Criminal' To Stop Posting So Much Evidence To YouTube

from the give-the-cops-a-challenge,-man dept

We've been mocking various attempts to get laws passed that would make it illegal for criminals to post evidence of their crimes on YouTube. This makes absolutely no sense -- as you're basically telling criminals "stop giving us the evidence we need to convict you." If the criminals are so dumb as to hand over such evidence, shouldn't the police and gov't officials be happy about it? Now, in a rather extreme example of this, the city council for Leeds, in the UK, has banned a man they refer to as one of the city's "dumbest criminals" from posting any more evidence to YouTube. In fact, the City Council even seems to recognize how helpful the guy has been: "He has handed us the evidence against him on a plate. In the last three years, we have seen a 32 per cent reduction in crime in Leeds. If more criminals were as obliging, the city would be even safer." So why would you ban him from uploading such evidence?

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New York Wants To Punish Criminals For Incriminating Selves On YouTube

from the if-you-confess,-we-punish-you-more dept

We've been seeing plenty of stories lately that incorrectly place the blame when people film themselves doing something illegal and put that video online. This should be something where politicians and the police should be thrilled. After all, it makes it that much easier for the police to find them, arrest them and convict them of a crime. If people are so stupid to post evidence of their crime in public, then isn't that a good thing? Yet, politicians who incorrectly like to put the blame for the crime on the video of the crime, come up with harebrained proposals like a new one in New York that will make putting a video of yourself committing a violent crime online a felony in itself (above and beyond whatever charges you might face for the violence). Think about that for a second. New York politicians are basically telling people that they'll get charged with even greater crimes if they decide to incriminate themselves by posting evidence online. This makes no sense.

The reasoning behind the bill is that politicians believe people are committing these kinds of crimes for the publicity in the first place. The thinking is that such crimes wouldn't happen at all if they couldn't be put online. However, that's rather meaningless. If someone is going to commit a violent crime -- punish the violence itself. Not the fact that the idiots handed over the evidence as part of a publicity stunt. If the (small number) of idiots who commit violent crimes and post the videos online are getting caught and arrested for the violence itself, shouldn't that act as enough disincentive?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

TorrentSpy Gives Up; Shuts Down

from the there-goes-another-one dept

The saga between TorrentSpy and MPAA will certainly be declared a "win" (if not a "significant blow") by the MPAA, but it's really more of a sad statement on the way the entertainment industry goes about its business. TorrentSpy announced earlier this week that it was shutting down and giving up, not due to any court order, but mainly because it was sick of the whole process and it didn't seem likely that the judge was going to see its side of the story. If you recall, TorrentSpy lost its case, but not on the copyright claim. Instead it was based on TorrentSpy potentially having destroyed some important evidence. It does look like the company (stupidly) did destroy some evidence, though some of the "destroyed evidence" was TorrentSpy's refusal to keep log files on its users, something it felt would be a violation of its own privacy policy. Based on the destruction of evidence problem, it's not too surprising that the company shut down -- but there really was no ruling at all on the more important question of whether or not simply operating a search engine counts as "inducement." This case also highlighted some of the MPAA's more unethical moves, including having someone hack into TorrentSpy's email servers and forward internal emails to the MPAA. So, while the MPAA will surely declare victory, all the case actually showed was (a) how unethical the MPAA can be (b) that it was able to shut down a site with owners who stupidly destroyed evidence and (c) that no ruling was made on the actual claims concerning copyright.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Click This Link, Go To Jail

from the wide-open-to-abuse dept

Declan McCullagh has written up an article about a questionable tactic used by the FBI to go after people looking for child porn. It set up a honeypot server and then posted links to it on a forum frequented by those who are looking for child pornography. It then used the IP address of people who clicked on the link as enough evidence to charge them with a crime. In the specific case McCullagh discusses, the guy was found guilty of simply clicking on that link. Of course, it's always difficult to separate out legal discussions like this from the fact that it involves child pornography -- which immediately sets off an emotional response. The problem here, though, is that the evidence on which the guy was found guilty could be used to find many people guilty of many things. The FBI didn't even track the referrer log -- just who went to the site. In other words, if someone had taken that link out of the forum and posted it on another site, a blog or sent an email around -- and anyone clicked on it without knowing anything about the link, they could have broken the law. This is open to tremendous abuse. If all you need to do to get someone convicted of child porn charges is get them to click a link, that doesn't seem right. Furthermore, in this case, the only other evidence was two small (admittedly questionable) thumbnail images, that there was no evidence that the guy looked at. In other words, to have enough evidence to convict someone and send them to jail for years (and get them listed as a sex offender), you could just send them an email with a link and some thumbnail images attached. If they click on the link (even if they don't ever look at the attached files), that's enough evidence, according to this case. That seems incredibly problematic.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Quotes From Judges Who Aren't Swayed By Flimsy RIAA 'Evidence'

from the nice-list dept

Ray Beckermann has compiled a nice list of quotes from judges who don't buy into the RIAA's flimsy evidence. It makes for good reading. Here are just a few of the quotes, though you can read them all at Ray's site:

"[W]hen plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law....."
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas

"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West

"Plaintiff ... must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement.... However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted...."
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

When the RIAA first chose to go down its legal path, many people simply assumed that judges would roll over and accept whatever "evidence" the RIAA came up with -- no matter how flimsy. The fact that judges are pushing back and questioning many of the RIAA's claims is good to see. If the RIAA has real evidence against people, that's one thing. However, so many of these cases are filed with incorrect or incomplete evidence, and the people accused are pushed very hard to simply settle rather than fight. It's good to see judges demanding actual evidence be presented.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FSF Sets Up Fund To Pay For Experts Who Can Show How Flimsy RIAA Evidence Is

from the oh-so-flimsy dept

For years, people have been pointing out that the evidence the RIAA often uses in lawsuits against people for file sharing is often quite flimsy. While there's no doubt that many of the people the RIAA goes after are guilty of unauthorized file sharing, that doesn't rationalize the use of questionable evidence that can often suggest completely innocent people were engaged in file sharing. Of course, it's one thing to say the evidence is flimsy, and it's another thing altogether to bring experts into court who can convince a judge (or jury). The Free Software Foundation has now decided to create a fund (for which it's seeking donations) to help pay for expert witnesses to combat the RIAA's evidence in cases. Lawyer Ray Beckerman, who has been quite vocal in fighting the RIAA will help advise the fund and determine which lawsuits deserve money from the fund for an expert witness. It's really too bad that such a fund is even needed -- and it should (though won't) be a wakeup call to the recording industry to see that so many people are sick of these lawsuits that they would fund such a thing in the first place.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..