Friday, April 21, 2006

United States Files "Statement of Interest" in Elektra v. Barker, Opposes EFF Argument

The United States Department of Justice filed a "Statement of Interest" opposing the argument made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its amicus curiae brief in Elektra v. Barker:

"Statement of Interest" of United States Department of Justice*

* Published online at Internet Law & Regulation


Keywords: copyright download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

6 comments:

Carnage said...

can someone summerise that statment of interest; i'm not sure what it accutally means? or weather its a good or bad thing for us.

CodeWarrior said...

Basically, the Department of Justice as I understand it is opposing the Amicus brief of the EFF. This is not surprising. The FBI, DOJ, under the Bush Regime, has made "intellectual property" a "cause celebre" for the administration. I oppose personally, the use of the term "intellectual property"...because, since humans were banned from being legally seen as "property", there is NO such thing as property that is intellectual. I prefer terms such as "virtual property", "constructive property","cognitive property", or "thought property". I realize that it has become de rigeur to label copyrightable and trademarked things, as "intellectual property", I still oppose it.

After reading most available definitions of the word "intellect", it appears to me to be a sloppily chosen application to call copyrightable and trademarked items as "intellectual property".

TO me, not all copyrighted or trademarked items "appeal to the intellect".

Certainly, in my opinion, very few RIAA affiliated tunes are "intellectual".

"So it goes."- Kurt Vonnegut
~Code

CodeWarrior said...

On second thought...strike the terms "cognitive property" and "thought property"...they are almost as bad as intellectual property. Let's stick with either "constructive property" or "virtual property"

David Fedoruk said...

Once a tune has been heard it cannot be unheard. Thus once a song has been played it is in one big virtual shared folder, the mind of the public that heard it. It means that some one can play it, or sing it.

What good would is a broadway musical if you don't leave the theatre singing a tune (hopefully multiple tunes) from it?

Arguments in this regard have been stretched to complete incredulity, but then that says something about the case that has spawned this argument in the first place.

It seems to me that the DOJ is not making a statement on interest in this particular case but grinding its own personal ax against the EFF.

I would rather the law be kept clear of this kind of ax sharpening exersises!

david

Jeff Benson said...

As I always say to anyone who will listen: the RAM copy doctrine from MAI v Peak is a bad, bad decision that will be causing serious problems until it's overrulled.

StephenH said...

I feel that the US Dept of Justice is run by politicans that get campaign money from the RIAA, MPAA, et al. Additionally, they are trying to get other countries trying to uphold WIPO's agenda. However, they are doing so at the expense of the general public. Essentially in this case, they are violating the right of "Innocent till proven guilty" online.