tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post7673355462071122262..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Record companies threatening investors in emerging technologies.... is the last thing our economy needsraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-72498829053306451412009-02-27T11:03:00.000-05:002009-02-27T11:03:00.000-05:00Ray:That's a very good draft. I think the "second...Ray:<BR/><BR/>That's a very good draft. I think the "secondary liability" clause takes care of my real concern. Sorry I didn't express myself clearly.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>derivativederivativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188845186429292741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-92088065543068664312009-02-27T09:42:00.000-05:002009-02-27T09:42:00.000-05:00There should be an amendment to the Copyright Act:...There should be an amendment to the Copyright Act:<BR/><BR/>No person or entity can be subject to secondary liability for copyright infringement by a corporation or other business organization based in whole or in part upon (a) work he or she did in his or her capacity as a member of the board of directors or committee thereof, or (b) his or her having invested in any such corporation, including any oversight, monitoring, or due diligence activities in connection therewith.<BR/><BR/>It shall be a violation of this section to name any such person as a defendant in a claim.<BR/><BR/>Any person named as a defendant in a claim in violation of this provision, shall be entitled to his, her, or its attorneys fees, trebled.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-82431883613200074452009-02-27T09:30:00.000-05:002009-02-27T09:30:00.000-05:00Derivative, you're not showing your usual precisio...Derivative, you're not showing your usual precision thinking.<BR/><BR/>1. We are dealing with emerging technologies in areas where the law is uncertain.<BR/><BR/>2. "Investors" are not "principals".<BR/><BR/>If you think it is in the public interest to discourage investment in emerging technologies...think again.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-84939496563435662482009-02-27T04:47:00.000-05:002009-02-27T04:47:00.000-05:00I'd be outraged, too, if EMI had stated a claim ag...I'd be outraged, too, if EMI had stated a claim against the investors somewhere in this forty-seven page complaint. :)<BR/><BR/>Readers of this blog by now know what a boilerplate copyright complaint looks like. Conclusory recitations of the copyright statute ring a bell? I'd be shocked if some of this complaint weren't cut-and-pasted from the RIAA's file sharing lawsuit boilerplate. Forty-seven pages, not one single word alleging a specific act Franks, Podowski, Lodha, or Sit undertook to infringe copyright. Do any of their names even appear in the complaint outside the caption on page 1?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, snowball's chance of surviving a 12(b)(6) dismissal motion -- nothing resembling a claim against the four individuals here. I'm already looking ahead to whether or not the individual defendants will be awarded their costs, or if EMI will file a 41(a)(1) cut-and-run dismissal before that can happen.Matt Fitzpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198028211898155926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-52314415289573987422009-02-26T23:58:00.000-05:002009-02-26T23:58:00.000-05:00For more on this subject, I find Lessig's books a ...For more on this subject, I find Lessig's books a good read. Plus, they're free.<BR/><BR/>http://www.lessig.org/<BR/><BR/>-Anonymous #1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-47845923773160058582009-02-26T23:33:00.000-05:002009-02-26T23:33:00.000-05:00On the one hand, this is clearly egregious behavio...On the one hand, this is clearly egregious behavior by the RIAA cartel, and should be slapped down hard by a judge.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I can envision alternate startup company scenarios where the corporate veil <B>should</B> be pierced. I don't subscribe to the RIAA's theory that every download is a lost sale, but if a startup had high-quality downloads of MP3s that they erroneously claim are "legal" then there will certainly be SOME lost sales associated with that, and if the startup has been deliberately constructed to have few assets, perhaps the copyright holders ought to be able to nail the principals to the wall.<BR/><BR/>So, the thing to avoid is the usual sort of "tort reform" which disallows plaintiffs from collecting extra for truly egregious behavior on the part of the defendant.<BR/><BR/>I would think that any new policy should be something like:<BR/><BR/> - you can't separately sue corporate principals for a tort until you have proven your case against the corporate entity, and proven that the tort was intentional and was a direct cause (e.g. not contributory infringement) of any damages.<BR/><BR/>It also seems (to this layman) that a right-thinking judge could probably implement most of this policy on his own in his own courtroom and a published decision on this issue could influence other courts.<BR/><BR/>But plaintiffs often want to sue principals. Isn't there a lot of preexisting case law on this sort of thing?<BR/><BR/>In any case, I occasionally write to my congressman asking him to "do something" about some situation or another, but this has me at a loss. What would the general outlines of legislation that would fix this problem look like?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>derivativederivativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04188845186429292741noreply@blogger.com