p2pnet - rss feed: MPAA backs RIAA in p2p case
p2p news / p2pnet: New York social worker Tenise Barker is another RIAA victim accused of being a ‘thief’ and the perpetrator of a non-existent ‘crime’.
She’s being persecuted by the wrongly named RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), owned by Sony BMG (Japan, Germany), Vivendi Universal (France), EMI (Britain) and, finally, Warner Music, the only US company.
And now Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney, Hollywood’s Big Six movies studios, are in on the act via their MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). They’ve entered an amicus brief supporting RIAA arguments that merely “making available” comprises copyright infringement.
RIAA clone the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) tried it on in Canada, but didn’t get to first base. In March, 2004, Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled having music in a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else didn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
The entertainment industry and software cartel have equated simple copyright infringement with major crime. “This isn’t, however, a criminal matter, efforts by the cartel’s RIAA to elevate it to that level notwithstanding,” we wrote recently.
“It’s a civil one. And what’s at issue isn’t if someone’s broken a law - it’s whether or not he or she has infringed a copyright, which is a very long way from ‘criminal’ or ‘illegal’.”
In Barker’s case, the RIAA is trying to claim she infringed copyright by making a file available for distribution and with the MPAA involved, the RIAA will be able to increase its PR mileage, using the ever-willing corporate news media as foils.
Their cooperation is a given because, as Edward Jay Epstein says in his The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood, the major movie studios, “own all six broadcast networks in America,” as well as “64 cable networks whose reach accounts for most of the remainder of the prime-time television audience,” going on that they, “control a large part of the entertainment media, including magazines …”
Both entertainment industry organizations regularly use the mainstream media as PR mouthpieces, and painting ‘copyright crime’ victims as thieves, suggesting alleged p2p file sharers been found guilty of heinous offences.
In reality, none of the more than 18,000 men, women and children pilloried by the RIAA has ever appeared in a civil court, or been found ‘guilty’ of anything. Further more, nothing has been stolen, no money has changed hands, and neither the MPAA nor RIAA has ever been able to demonstrate that a file shared equals the loss of even a single sale.
Patti Santangelo will be the first to put her case to a civil jury, refusing to allow the RIAA to blackmail her, or to terrorize her children.
Also See:
RIAA victim - RIAA’s latest file share claim, January 26, 2006
amicus brief - MPAA Joins RIAA Against Tenise Barker, March 17, 2006
first base - Keep on downloading! Cdn file sharers told, March 31, 2004
very long way - Help Zi against the RIAA, January 27, 2006
cooperation is a given - MPAA launches massive attack, February 24, 2006
terrorize her children - RIAA targets Santangelo’s kids, February 16, 2006
March 18th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
In the meantime, the real infringing criminals go unpunished by the courts.
Visit my site if you want to know more about the unpunished criminals.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
March 18th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
I burned a copy of one of my music CD’s. I then placed the CDR copy out in a public place. Nobody took it despite it laying there in plain site for a couple of weeks. Eventually I gave up and took the CDR home. So, did I infringe copyright?
March 19th, 2006 at 12:22 am
this is off topic sorta but it reminds me of when
Garth Brooks wanted revenue from second hand
cd sales. does anyone else get seond hand sale revenue?
Ford, Dell, Nintendo, nike etc?
david@studiod2b.com
March 19th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Yes you did you Dirty Pirate!!!!! And WE are cuming after you!!!!!
March 19th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
To determine if you infringed someone’s copyright, please answer a series of questions as they would be asked by the judge to determine if what you did was copyright infringement. Please remember that infringement is a fuzzy concept that no one understands. It also has to do with the other concept of “fair use”. The Department of Justice states in their circular that defines infringement that there is no infringement if there is “fair used” as defined in the Copyright Act. But the Copyright Act has no definition for the words “fair use” in the definition section of the law. Librarian scholars say they have no idea what “fair use” means.
As you can see the concept of infringement is so complex that even the USA Department of Justice lawyers has difficulty talking about it. Then in the courts, lawyers never agree as to what is infringement, as each lawyer argues strictly on a “who is paying me” basis. Unabashed failure to be honest, here.
Also, what is infringement depends on the country where you live and who you are and the latest of the almost daily case jurisprudence. This is the fault of lawmakers, who count on lobbyist to write the laws for them. That way they do not have to work and can dedicate themselves to getting reelected, which they can now do with the lobby “donations” they get. As a result the laws are never complete and need jurisprudence to make any sense, the problem being that different judges and different courts establish conflicting jurisprudence that no one can interpret anyway. The last lawyer who tried to keep up with copyright jurisprudence is now a permanent resident of a psychiatric hospital.
Here are the questions that will determine if you infringed and will be sued for it and the court will rule against you:
1. Are you a lawyer? If yes, you will not be sued for infringement. If no, continue to next question?
2. Are you a wealthy? If yes, you will not be sued for infringement, as you can pay the right lawyer, the one that can “prove” you did not infringe. If no, continue to next question.
3. Are you the son or daughter of a well placed politician, you know, the type that can help the copyright cartels push their criminalize-everyone (mostly kids) laws? If yes, you will not be sued for infringement, as your parent can do damage to the suing party. If no, continue to next question?
4. Are you the son or daughter of a sitting or former federal judge. If yes, you will not be sued for infringement, as your parent can arrange to get you off the hook. If no, continue to next question.
If you answered no to the previous questions you may be accused of being an infringer. After the accusation, the remainder of the process depends on the answer to these question:
5. Do you admit you made the copy? If you are dumb and say yes, go to the next question.
6. Was the original CD of music in the public domain, for example, a Beethoven symphony? Since there is no way to find out what is in the public domain, you should tell the court that you thought the music was in the public domain but had no way to verify it. If the judge does not buy this perfectly logical argument, go to the next question.
Remember…. almost everything in the public domain is presently copyrighted or claimed by some devious music publisher or record company.
7. Was it fair use? As stated before, even the government does not know what this is. So toss up a coin. One side represents yes. If the coin says yes, there is no case against you, as what you did was fair use. Of course, you must remind the court that the copy you made was of a CD you owned and you will tell the court that you are the victim of invasion of privacy… after all, how did the accuser know you made the copy? If there was no fair use, whatever that means, go to the next question.
Note: Copying for research purpose is thought to be fair use by some judges while other don’t buy it. So, just in case, you should claim that you were doing research when you copied the CD. No one can rebut this, because copies of music are made for listening and listening can be made to see if the music is any good or different or influenced by other music. That is research, as good as it gets.
6. The court will then have to decide if you knew you were violating some ones right. Of course most judges like to repeat the absurd argument that ignorance is no excuse. But you see, the Department of justice orients the public with another theory: For infringement you must know that you were violating the rights of someone. So, never admit that you knew what copyrights are and what is infringement. If the judge is stubborn and sticks to the obsolete theory that ignorance is no excuse go to the next question.
7. Does the accuser have a legally obtained original copy of the CDR you made? If yes, go to the next question, but If the original copy was not legally obtained, it must be because it was stolen from you and this gives you a strong bargaining tool. If the accusation is withdrawn, you will not sue for robbery. After all, no one can take (steal) your original copy CDR, a property, on the mere suspicion that the CDR violates the rights if the thief. If the answer is no, it means that there is no proof that the copy exists. Just like in murder, to accuse you need a body, in copyright infringement, you need an original copy.
Note: Sorry if the words “original copy” confuse you. To clarify, an “original copy” is a copy of an original cd copy. To make sure it is an original copy, the copy must have built in proof that it was copied off an original CD. Since, for cd’s, copies of copies of copies, etc. are all identical, there is, in theory, no way to prove that a copy is an original copy.
8. Does the accuser have proof that it was you who made the copy? If the answer is yes, it can only mean that you either admitted making the copy or made the copy it in a public place where witnesses saw you do it. If yes, again, you are likely an infringer. But don’t worry. It is almost impossible to reach this point. If you do, I do recommend that you get political asylum in the nearest embassy of a copyright friendly country, if you can find one that has not been corrupted yet by the copyright cartels. If not, you too may wind up as a permanent resident of a psychiatric hospital.
RV