DoJ interest in RIAA case
p2p news / p2pnet: Here’s an intriguing development.
The Big Four Organized Music cartel has accused New York social worker Tenise Barker of being a ‘thief’ who’s committed a non-existent ‘crime’.
Actually, she hasn’t stolen anything and she’s accused of copyright infringement by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), owned by Warner Music, Sony BMG, EMI and Vivendi Universal.
Now the US Department of Justice is wondering whether or not to get in on the act.
“The United States Attorney’s Office has written to the judge in Elektra v Barker, indicating that the Department of Justice may wish to file a ‘Statement of Interest’ in the case in order to ‘express the views of the United States regarding the scope of the distribution right embodied in sec. 106(3) of the Copyright Act’,” says Recording Industry vs The People.
What views could the DoJ possibly want to express, one wonders?
Could it have anything to do with US attorney general Alberto Gonzales’ entertainment cartel road show?
He starred in a week-long entertainment industry, US taxpayer-funded extravaganza, “in which the kids studied Internet dangers as well as the moral, social and legal implications of Internet piracy”.
“I am the top cop in the United States,” he warned school-children along his route. “I hope you never have the misfortune to deal with me ………”
Nor is the DoJ alone in showing an interest in the case.
Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney used their MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) to enter an amicus brief supporting RIAA arguments that merely “making available” comprises copyright infringement.
Stay tuned. (And thanks for the pic, Sandro ; )
Also See:
Recording Industry vs The People – US Department of Justice Says It May Want to File Papers in Elektra v. Barker, April 5, 2006
taxpayer-funded extravaganza – Alberto Gonzales’ school horror show, March 31, 2006
showing an interest – MPAA backs RIAA in p2p case, March 18, 2006
April 5th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Boy are these fucking BUSHITES digging their grave. GO FOR IT Mr. Gonzales, show the world how MICKEY MOUSE runs the show in the USA.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Since some of these cases are actually being brought to trial I bet the industry is calling in favors to get the DOI (dept of injustice) to throw it’s weight around in an attempt to stave off any precedents that might not be favorable to the plaintiffs. Shite, the fed is letting these a-holes brainwash kids in our public schools. You know what side they are going to come out on.
April 5th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Imagine that, the DoJ weighing in on a civil case involving the almighty RIAA against a feeble citizen. Talk about a gang bang…
April 5th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I guess we’ll have to wait for a couple of weeks to see their actual position.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
The issue has already been decided twice in two cases here in Puerto Rico, in a federal court.
Case one
The judged decided that having songs not owned in the publisher’s catalog and in their prformance collectives who licensed the songs to radio stations and others was not infringement. The judge decided against us and in favor of the music publisher on the issue by stating flatly that having songs not owned and licensing them to others was not infringement. In the case two music publishers we had sued argued that merely having the songs in their catalogs and then licencing them to others was not infringement without proof of actual performances (which we knew had occured but never recorded, so there was no “proof”). In addition to having the songs in their catalogs illegally, 80 of the stolen songs were illegally copyright registered by one of the publishers and that too was not infringement per the judge.
Case two:
The judge decided that merely having songs in a catalog while not being owner of the song was infringement. The lawsuit was between the same two publisher we sued. In this case the prevailing publisher switched position by saying that merely having songs not owned in a catalog was infringement. In case one, the same publisher argued thathaving the songs in the catalogs was not infringement. Wow!
Can Alberto Gonzales figure what the hell is going on here in Puerto Rico?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 6th, 2006 at 1:23 am
There’s already a precedent for this in the Napster case. Judge Marilyn Patel ruled that mere availability did not constitute infringement.
If mere ‘availability’ constitutes infringement, then leaving a case of CDs on the front seat of your unlocked motor vehicle could result in liability for copyright infringement.
–TurboGeek
April 6th, 2006 at 10:56 am
“There’s already a++++ precedent for this in the Napster case. Judge Marilyn Patel ruled that mere availability did not constitute infringement.”
True, and the Supreme Court also decided that “inducement” was infringement.
But the words “availability” and “inducement” have vague meaning and can mean different things at different times and to different lawyers and judges.
It would have been so much simpler if the courts say: Erase every thing we have said in the past and let us redefine what is infringemnt: Licensing or selling copies of copyright registered works without the author’s authorization.
To make the above infringement rule enforceable all legall copies of works need to have the copyright registration number included so that when a work becomes public domain anyone can make and sell copies without having doubts as to wether the copies are infringig or not.
The only sensible solution then partly requires going back to the old system: To have copyright protection the work must have a registration. It is also needed thet the registration number identify the work at all times. Also registration must be simplified so it may be done at the town hall or post office, and not through an impossible to penetarate burocracy as was/is the USA Copyright Office.
If there are is clear work to tell if a work is copyright registered and when the protection of the rights expire then the people will always be guessing as to wrther copyinf a specific work is or is not infringing. That is chaos and that is what we have now.
And to make the chaos worse, the chaos is jurisprudence based, not law based. After all the peple do not hace acess to jurisprudence and if they did, the people cannot interpret it.
The legal system has a conflict between “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and the fact that the laws are vague and then made confusing through jurisprudence full of vague words such as “inducement” and “availability”.
It is silly to frequently have a citizenship that in a legal sense must act blindly only to get sued to later see their lawyer arguing that what was done was legal and another lawyer arguing that what was done was illegal and then give credibility to the idea that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Alberto Gonzales sucks balls.
I have more respect for his cousin, Speedy Gonzales.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST GOVERNMENT.
Vive Le “V For Vendetta.”
April 19th, 2006 at 6:51 am
When I was in school the cops came around to teach us to “Just Say No to Drugs” Now they’re coming around to teach “Just Say No to Filesharing”.
I think its about time some of these assholes get shot in the head.
I’m not worried though. Their DARE program never worked for me.