Wednesday, March 04, 2009

I decided to take the "IP Colloquium" down

I've decided to take down the "IP Colloquium" that was previously posted.

1. I think it was a biased 1-sided hatchet job.

2. The streaming kept causing my browser to crash, and eventually caused my whole computer to crash.

3. My readers agreed with me that it was a hatchet job, and that the MP3 Player was causing their browsers to crash as well.

4. To those of you didn't get to hear it.... you didn't miss anything.

Commentary & discussion:

Copyright Litigation Blog

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property portable music player


raybeckerman said...

Since I've taken down the other post about the so-called "colloquium", I'll reproduce here the comments I received:

raybeckerman said...


Given how the RIAA reflexively considers all downloading illegal and that proceedings should not be recorded I get a strange, irrational fear when I click on the completely legal "download" button to hear this Colloquium... :-( I think the RIAA's campaign of terror is having an effect...just not one that benefits artists or creativity.

raybeckerman said...


"The IP Colloquium, in partnership with UCLA Law School, hosted a discussion about the statutory damages unconstitutionality defense in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum."

The "IP Colloquium" is a misleadingly named 1 hour audio program featuring edited interviews by IP Law Professor Doug Lichtman. Lichtman is falsely called the "moderator" rather than interviewer. It is not a colloquium.

The host is clearly more than just playing at devil's advocate but, instead, actually thinks that statutory damages of $150,000 per song on Joel are reasonable even though they have *nothing* to do with any damage actually and directly related to damage alleged to have been caused by Joel. The host has no problem with the RIAA wielding the power of a government criminal prosecutor with none of the obligations or higher standards of evidence, and with none of the criminal procedural protections for defendants.

raybeckerman said...


Hi Ray,

I've been reading your blog for quite a while. I decided to listen to this and was really disturbed by the moderator's pure lack of comprehension for what is actually happening. This isn't playing devil's advocate, it's more of a forum to push his RIAA-centric ideas to the listeners. I had to quit listening because it was starting to make me wish I hadn't had any lunch today.


raybeckerman said...


Warning: the flash MP3 player used by the ipcolloquium site is among the worst I've ever used. It used about 99% of my CPU to play, and could not be terminated without closing firefox.

Aside from that, Prof. Lichtman appears to have misunderstood almost everything that Prof. Nesson seemed to be saying. The only benefit from this discussion appears to be that the RIAA general counsel now knows much more about how Nesson will be presenting the case.

-- John Doe #135246 :)

raybeckerman said...


From the IP "colloquium's" about page (which is seemingly copy protected by using an all flash interface which makes cutting and pasting text difficult...)

"The Intellectual Property Colloquium is an online audio program devoted to intellectual property topics. We aspire to be something like an NPR talk show, but focused on copyrights, patents, and aimed primarily at a legal audience. Our programs are neither lectures or debates. They are instead conversations, with guests drawn from academia, the entertainment community, the judiciary and various technology industries."

So, if their programs are neither lectures nor debates where do they get off calling them "colloquia"?? And the interviewer a "moderator??" I call foul. Colloquium has a specific meaning and the name "IP 'Colloquium' " seems deliberately chosen to give a false impression of what the the IP audio program realy is.

Just the about page seems to hint at a pro-IP position. And Doug Lichtman? He's one of the Lawyers who joined the Viacom legal team in their bid to sue Google over You Tube. But he didn't just join there team, he even wrote an Op/Ed for the LA Times where he explains his position:

"The problem is that users upload excerpts of copyrighted movies and television programs without authorization, and then YouTube happily distributes that contraband to the public. And Google, knowing all this and benefiting from the attention the unauthorized videos bring, has refused to take even simple steps that would reduce the infringement without meaningfully interfering with the service's legitimate use. That is what led me to join Viacom Inc.'s legal team."

....where he conveniently forgets to mention that You Tube complies with with the DMCA takedown notices as required by the DMCA lobbied for by the copyright industry, including his client Viacom. By "simple steps" Doug means "do whatever Viacom demands without question."

raybeckerman said...

And speaking for myself... apologies to all of you who wasted your time listening to it, or attempting to listen to it.