‘RIAA’ NCSC comic book debacle: V
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) ‘Case of Internet Piracy‘ is still available at prices ranging from $6,435 for 5,000 to $27,204 for 50,000.
And this isn’t good.
The NCSC’s Internet Piracy publication is a badly written, factually and legally inaccurate comic book that’s part of the organization’s Justice Case Files, which, as p2pnet posted last week, is 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 comic features Megan Robbins, “caught illegally downloading and sharing music files from several Internet websites without paying for it over a period of three months”.
So what’s the problem? It’s about how the courts work and, “The reason those case types were picked was because they were ‘ripped from the headlines,” posts Anne under one of the p2pnet stories on the debacle.
“So,” she goes on glibly, “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.”
However, Anne misses the point.
The way things really are ….
Yesterday, p2pnet spoke with a former employee who confirmed that in the eyes of significant numbers of the general public, the NCSC represents America’s courts in a very real, rather than academic, way.
“They’re always getting phone calls like, ‘The judge took my baby away from me! What do I do’?” said the source.
In other words, the NCSC comics are considerably more then dry examples of the inner functions of the US court system.
To hundreds of thousands of Americans, they’re not only visual explanations of how a court operates, they also present literal representations of the kinds of cases they handle.
So Megan’s “prosecution” by a “government prosecutor” is seen as the way things really are and which, not at all incidentally, is exactly the way Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA wants people to think they are.
NCSC director of communications and marketing Lorri Montgomery was implicated, by default, I said yesterday in an apology to her and the RIAA.
I went on, “But she had nothing to do with the comic’s creation, says a reliable source. She arrived on the scene only after it had been completed.”
‘Relying too heavily on outside contractors’
Here’s what else the source had to say »»»
So, the National Center for State Courts, a non-profit organization dedicated to improving court administration decides to create a comic book describing how the courts work. How could that go wrong?
It’s easy. Concentrate on the administration side and forget that the legal issues being discussed are complex and controversial.
In a laudable attempt to portray realistic contact with the court, the NCSC decided to tap into real life legal issues, like copyright protection. Unfortunately, they did so without actually researching the legal issues. Relying too heavily on outside contractors and pressed for time, the result is something that looks all the world like a piece of RIAA propaganda.
From the NCSC’s perspective, this may not seem like a problem. The folks at the NCSC are experts in court administration, after all, not in the actual laws that the courts interpret. The important part is showing the steps taken through the court process. The laws being portrayed are a secondary concern.
Alas, that distinction is lost on anyone outside of the NCSC’s usual constituents, including any students receiving this comic book.
Only those previously familiar with the NCSC would understand the scope and limitations of their expertise. Not even their name itself really clues you into their field of authority.
So, we have an organization, with an impressive sounding name that suggests some sort widespread authority or knowledge base.
And we have a comic book that gives false information about the state of Intellectual Property law. It’s a bad combination.
The downsides of the situation are dual. On one hand, the reputation of the NCSC is certainly tarnished. Which is a shame, considering that this is just one product out of dozens that they produce.
Regardless, they look like RIAA shills.
The comic lacks any mention of grant money, leaving the question of initial funding up to speculation. (The true source is certainly uninteresting.)
Whether any of this matters to their constituents in the court system remains to be seen.
The other downside is worse, though.
These comic books are out there. And, coming from a place with a name like the National Center for State Courts, they have the weight of apparent authority behind them. And they’ll be used against people. Sometimes it will be direct, as people are directly threatened with jail if they copy files.
Just as insidious is that these comic books will help fuel misunderstanding among the public. Any post, anywhere, on any blog, that involves Intellectual Property, inevitably garners comments that copyright violation is “theft.”
This isn’t accurate. Intellectual Property isn’t like tangible property. Theft isn’t a concept that applies.
But the use of the term “theft,” helped along by the RIAA, has become common parlance. This prevents accurate discussion and debate of Intellectual Property issues, including abuse of the legal system by the RIAA.
This comic book helps fuel that public misconception. And fueling that misconception endangers all our rights.
Montgomery is away until September 2, but when she’s back, I hope she’ll answer the questions I put to her last week, to wit »»»
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?
3 – You told InfoWorld the ‘book’ was reviewed by ’several legal scholars not affiliated with the recording industry? Who are they?
4 – 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?
5 – Having said the illustrated novel is for use in jury rooms, you then say it’s not used in cases involving … file swapping. Do you agree this is contradictory? And is any public service performed by spreading misinformation to citizens?
6 – Who originally prepared the copy, and who finally authorised it for publication?
7 – You’re quoted as saying 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’. Do you think the book does this, since (a) it confuses a civil matter with a criminal one; (b) it teaches people are threatened with imprisonment for unknowingly infringing on copyrights of songs; and (c) it teaches young people government prosecutors are essentially working on behalf of big corporations against ordinary, non-criminal, citizens?
8 – Finally, since it’s evident a number of serious factual and legal errors have been made, do you intend to withdraw ‘The Case of Internet Piracy’ from circulation; and/or, publish a correction; and/or apology? And if so, when?
On top of those, there are two other questions: how many copies of the comic have been distributed, and to whom? And, who paid for their production and publication?
Jon Newton – p2pnet
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.
