Recording Industry vs The People: Experimental New Policy on Comments on "Recording Industry vs. The People"

Monday, February 12, 2007

Experimental New Policy on Comments on "Recording Industry vs. The People"

As an experiment, I'm going to change my policy on comments. It might be a short lived experiment, or it might work out. We'll see.

Initially I found that I was getting barraged with 'comment spam', so I switched to limiting comments to registered Blogger.com members. That greatly reduced the amount of comment spam, but it created the problem of requiring someone who wants to comment to join Blogger.com, when they might not feel like it.

I've decided to try a new format, where I will allow anyone to comment, but will invoke "comment moderation".

It's altogether possible that this will work out. It's also possible that "comment moderation" will be too big a burden for me, or too big a pain for my loyal readers who will have to wait for their comments to be posted, and I'll have to go back to a members-only format, but let's see.

My "moderation" policies, going into this, will be:
-no comment spam
-no profanity
-no RIAA trolls masquerading as something else (if RIAA PR flacks present themselves for who they are, they are welcome to participate)
-no unsupported accusations
-no defamation
-nothing to detract from the dignity of "Recording Industry vs. The People" as a forum for the discussion of very important issues.

I welcome your feedback.

Best regards
Ray

Keywords: digital copyright online 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

11 comments:

Scott Ferguson said...: Do you get RIAA trolls on here?; February 12, 2007 at 1:50:00 PM EST
Michael said...: Thank you Ray.

I'm writing this comment as a "layman".

I am not a lawyer nor am I a college graduate.

However,your blog provides an invaluable service to the concerned citizen.

Thank you and be well.

Mike Dallos
Newark,N.Y.; February 12, 2007 at 1:52:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear scott_ferguson,

I don't know. I just know that my opening up to a larger number of posters increases the possibility. I certainly have encountered RIAA trolls on Slashdot.org and in the Slyck.com forums.; February 12, 2007 at 2:21:00 PM EST
Michael Sauers said...: If comment spam is the problem you're trying to solve, just turn on the "Show word verification for comments?" option. This will virtually eliminate all comment spam while not requiring users to register or you to moderate. (Though it seems like that option's on so give it a try. You can always turn moderation back on if you feel the need to.); February 12, 2007 at 2:37:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear michael

"virtually all" of the comment spam but some slips through manually; i guess there are people paid to do that kind of stuff.; February 12, 2007 at 3:07:00 PM EST
Scott Ferguson said...: Hi Ray,

I'm not sure why people would have problems with registration. I think it does keep the "hit and run" type of commenter out of the comments; but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I have seen pretty obvious RIAA shills posting anonymous comments on groklaw. It's pathetic and a bit sad. It must be hard to defend an industry that is such a lightning rod for passionate expressions of disgust from both the consumer and the artist side of the industry. Don't they have a clue?; February 12, 2007 at 3:24:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear scott

That was a softball question. The answer is easy.

No they don't have a clue.; February 12, 2007 at 4:06:00 PM EST
StephenH said...: Ray,

I hope I have not been a troll or anything. I am just a concerned citizen about these kind of matters. I don't work for the RIAA nor any record company. I just follow this on my own time.

Stephen; February 12, 2007 at 9:27:00 PM EST
raybeckerman said...: Dear stephenh

Of course, Stephen, I'm very familiar with your thoughtful and helpful comments. I haven't had much of that kind of thing here, and will be vigilant to see that I don't.

Best regards,; February 12, 2007 at 10:45:00 PM EST
CodeWarrior said...: Ray:
I posted an article which is related to ISPs keeping data logs at Boycott-RIAA today.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21268

Do whatcha gotta do to keep the comment sections free of pests.

~Code; February 13, 2007 at 3:47:00 PM EST
CodeWarrior said...: BTW, aren't the terms "RIAA" and trolls "synonymous"?
:); February 13, 2007 at 3:49:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove