Flawed US State Courts ‘P2P comic’ still online
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Over in New Zealand, Computerworld has comics on its mind or, more accurately, a specific comic —- the one p2pnet first wrote about a few days back.
Called the Case of Internet Piracy, Part 1 and produced and published by America’s National Center for State Courts (NCSC), it, “tells the story of Megan, a college freshman charged with theft for downloading music …”
The NCSC says it’s part of a series of illustrated novels designed to, “educate the public” about how US courts work, how judges make decisions and how courts are accountable to the law”.
The trouble is, far from being educational, it’s conspicuously and seriously flawed.
I first brought this to light on Monday, and the story was picked by Robert X. Cringely who, in The RIAA’s comic crusade, spoke with Lorri Montgomery, NCSC director of communications.
She told him »»»
The book was reviewed by several legal scholars (also not affiliated with the recording industry). The books are used in jury rooms to instruct jurors on the differences between civil and criminal cases and to teach young people that the courts are ‘fair and impartial’.
However, it’s neither fair nor impartial and IMHO, no competent lawyer, let alone a legal scholar, would have okayed it for publication.
And it’s Cringely’s story that’s now being read over in New Zealand.
Do you plan to take it down until it’s corrected?
I emailed Montgomery a set of eight questions, among them »»»
1 – Justice Case Files is described as a series of “illustrated novels” designed to, “educate the public” about how US courts work, how judges make decisions and how courts are accountable to the law. “Her [Megan's] conviction sends a message that illegally downloading music is a crime [the word 'crime' is in bold italics for emphasis],” says the “county prosecutor”. What’s your basis for suggesting P2P file sharing by an individual (a) is a crime, and (b) would be prosecuted by any prosecutor, let alone a county prosecutor?
2 – Whose decision was it to present this as though the government (at any level) would be involved in ‘prosecuting’ a file sharing case? What outside lawyers or non-lawyers were consulted?
Number eight finished, “do you intend to withdraw ‘The Case of Internet Piracy’ from circulation; and/or, publish a correction; and/or apology? And if so, when?”
Later, “I was hoping to have had a response the questions below, today, but in the meanwhile, I see the preview is still online,” I emailed Montgomery.
“Do you plan to take it down until it’s corrected? If so, when?”
But as of 10:26 AM Pacific today, it was still online, complete with the mistakes.
Legal and factual errors
This isn’t a trivial matter.
An ongoing misinformation sue ‘em all campaign is being waged by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG and their RIAA against their own customers in an attempt bring them to heel, and I believed the Big 4 enforcer had a hand in it. So among the questions I asked Montgomery was:
“Was the RIAA, or anyone directly or indirectly associated with it, consulted at any time or in any manner about any aspect of this publication? If so, when, and who was it?”
The comic is full of legal and factual errors and one would have thought in its own interests, if no one else’s, the agency would have quickly withdrawn it until corrections could be made.
But it’s still there.
And I’m still waiting for Montgomery’s answers to my questions.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
lorri is actually pretty diligent about responding; I bet if you called her, she’d call you back. but you’ll get the same answers I got.
the inside cover of the comic lists the judicial sources used in reviewing the comic; it might be worth someone’s while to see if those guys had connections to the recording industry and its cronies.
cheers,
dt
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Despite the “put on a happy face to the public” you know as well as I that they are aware of the errors within the content. As long as no one challenges it, they can get away with the inaccurate presentation. I am sure they were paid well to put this out.
Just like statistics, you can always find someone to say “yeah, that’s good” provided you find the right ones. They can be in any interest group as you will always have opposing sides. Self interests are always at the bottom of the approval. In some way either the authority gets benefits from status quo or they expect to sometime in the future. Once in a while you actually find someone who believes the tripe to begin with and will allow their name to be used.
When all else fails, not identifying who the approval source was works as well. This is more of the Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Take a public campaign for any issue, put it in print, allow it to get out and around, and you will always find support for your selfmade stance.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
@ dt:
You’re right. She wanted to talk on the phone, insisting on it, in fact. But I’d rather get my answers in cold, hard virtual print. That way there can be no confusion over who said what.
Cheers!
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“You’re right. She wanted to talk on the phone, insisting on it, in fact. But I’d rather get my answers in cold, hard virtual print. That way there can be no confusion over who said what.”
I would think that a phone conversation would be more accurate. In print, confusion often arises over whether a person is being serious or joking. Or even what a particular phrase might mean. When you’re talking with someone on the phone, you can listen to the tone of their voice and ask for clarification.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
^^ I prefer to keep things simple — and indisputable.
Cheers!
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Its a well known fact that a phone call is virtually useless as evidence, always write and keep on writing until your questions are answered, many organisations will say and do anything on the phone, in their letters however they dont have such legal leeway.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Regarding the editorial board, Googling Howard “Skip” Chesshire will get you some juicy reporting on the sexual misconduct investigation he’s currently under, including liaisons in the judge’s chambers. Or you could just go here:
http://abajournal.com/news/longtime_court_official_allegedly_made_sex_a_part_of_his_job/
Jon, if you want a physical copy, without sending in $1.50, I have a few I grabbed at a conference. I’d be happy to send you one.
And don’t be mean to Lorri. (I’m not saying you have been.) She’s nice and it’s not her fault. If you want a name, it’s the one right above hers on the inside cover. But he’s not there anymore.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I wonder how responsive Lorri Montgomery would be if she was told the phone call was being recorded.
(and published to the net)
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Let them know you’re recording the conversation for quality control purposes
unless both you and they are in a 1-party states for purposes of recording phone conversations.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The reason those case types were picked was because they were “ripped from the headlines.” So I’d take no more legal advice from these than I would from Law & Order. (NCSC, being a not-for-profit, could not afford Vincent D”Nofrio.)
The goal was to give the public an inside look at courts, not cases. The cases are just the storyline, if that makes sense. That was the idea; whether it was duly executed…that’s another storyline.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
” I would think that a phone conversation would be more accurate. In print, confusion often arises over whether a person is being serious or joking. Or even what a particular phrase might mean. When you’re talking with someone on the phone, you can listen to the tone of their voice and ask for clarification. ”
She wants the phone for ‘deniability’ purposes.
If it’s not in cold hard print, it never happened. it’s just
he said, she said. Print is proof, print can’t be denied.
These people live by lies.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Unlike some people running for political office, These people understand the power of the net.
She knows that once something she says hits the net, it will NEVER be forgotten.
She can always claim a phone conversation was misquoted.
E-Mail is forever.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Well, actually, they probably don’t care a whole lot. I can count on one hand the number of people at the NCSC who read Slashdot. I can count on zero hands the number that read posts from Jon on p2pnet.net. There are probably less than 6 or so people (out of 150) there who even realize some big controversy is brewing.
The thing is, the NCSC only cares about court administration. The actual laws don’t matter to them. It’s not their thing. While it’s certainly possible that someone high up received some money from the RIAA, I would seriously doubt it. It’s more a lack of knowledge about the subject area. They just don’t know any better and so are fine parroting the general, yet false, stance seen in the media. It’s also a sign of over-reliance on outside consultants, something the Managing Editor of the comic book was notorious for. (The other one, not Lorri.)
But, part of a vast RIAA conspiracy? Not knowingly.
Admittedly, if it weren’t for the fact that I used to work there and know the people involved, I’d think it was a RIAA plot as well. They really really screwed up on it.
But, keep in mind, this is one product out of dozens that they produce. You never see the other products because it’s all court administration stuff and most people find it really boring.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“She wants the phone for ‘deniability’ purposes.”
“She can always claim a phone conversation was misquoted. E-Mail is forever.”
Have the phone conversation with her, record it for your personal review, and then back it up with an email to her, saying:
“as per our phone conversation, you said, “blah blah blah”.