Monday, March 31, 2008

Comment Policies for "Recording Industry vs. The People"

Comment policy for Recording Industry vs. The People:

1.No comment spam.
2.No profanity.
3.No RIAA trolls masquerading as something else (if RIAA PR flacks present themselves for who they are, they are welcome to participate).
4.No unsupported accusations.
5.No defamation.
6.No threats.
7.No unsupported anti-lawyer or anti-judge insults (if you know of something specific that a lawyer or judge did, with which you disagree, and you want to comment fairly upon it fine, but I don't want people here denigrating the legal profession with undocumented insults. I think that is a tactic used by RIAA trolls and some other big corporations who are trying to discourage ordinary people from talking to lawyers and learning about their legal rights, or from going to court to fight for their rights, thinking the system is stacked against them. Lawyers and judges are the cornerstone of the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of our democracy, and they are the closest thing we have to an equalizer in our society).
8. No legal advice, pseudo-legal advice, or misleading statements of law, or false statements of fact.
9. Comments must be related to topic of the post.
10. Nothing to detract from the dignity of "Recording Industry vs. The People" as a forum for the discussion of very important issues.
Thanks.
-R.B.



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




3 comments:

Ray Beckerman said...

Several comments rejected for violations of policies numbered 4, 7, and 10, and possibly 3.

Ray Beckerman said...

Comment rejected. Policies #3 and 9.

Ray Beckerman said...

By the way, in response to the second troll comment that was rejected, to answer your question:

The record companies could, if they discovered
(1) actual evidence
(2) of a person
(3) actually committing an
(4) actual infringement of an
(5) actual right under the law.....

send that person a cease and desist letter, and seek to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement, which in some cases might even include reasonable, as opposed to extortionate, compensation for the infringement(s) of which there is actual evidence.

Failing that, they could bring a copyright infringement lawsuit based on:
(1) actual evidence
(2) of a person
(3) actually committing an
(4) actual infringement of an
(5) actual right under the law.....
in which they sought
(6) a reasonable, as opposed to a ludicrous, measure of damages, in which they
(7) conducted their litigation in a professional and respectful manner,
(8) complied with discovery requests,
(9) moderated their own motions and discovery practice,
(10) negotiated, in good faith, all procedural and substantive issues,
(11) did not make false representations, and
(12) did not collude with each other.