Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Article on Obama DOJ's brief in RIAA case in "Intellectual Property Watch"

Came across an above-average article on the subject of the Obama administration's filing of the brief in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, by Bruce Gain, of Intellectual Property Watch:

"President Obama Backs RIAA In Online File-Sharing Case"

"Obama's Justice Department intervenes on side of RIAA in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum"

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


Scott said...

Slightly OT: The Boston Globe today posted a somewat unflattering backgrounder on Charles Nesson. It includes a brief quote from Ray Beckerman in RIVTP.

skeeter said...

Congressional officials state according to this article that, " many infringers do not consider the current copyright infringement penalties a real threat and continue infringing, even after a copyright owner puts them on notice that their actions constitute infringement and that they should stop the activity or face legal action.” I could be wrong but I can't think of any of these thousands of lawsuits against individuals that were preceded by a cease-and-desist letter.

raybeckerman said...

Skeeter, you are not wrong. The vicious RIAA lawyers never send cease and desist letters, which was one of the things that drew me into this fight.

These are vicious dogs, not lawyers.

raybeckerman said...

Comment initially rejected because it contains the incorrect statement that the RIAA could not send a cease and desist letter. That is a false statement because there are several junctures at which it could indeed send a cease and desist letter. In any event, I have copied and pasted the comment here:

Dear Skeeter,

The RIAA cannot send a C&D letter, which is certainly possible by forwarding it through non-party ISP's because then, provided the potential Defendant took action to secure his or her ISP account and halt the infringement, which may have been used by other people, he would deprive the RIAA of their ability to claim that the infringement is "continuous and ongoing", which is a central tenet of their cases. Also that one person can "distribute pirated music to millions of other users", which, of course, any normal user without an OC-192 line (a really very fast broadband connection) and a server farm at their disposal could never accomplish. Lying to create the urgency that if this isn't stopped in the mext moment that the entire world will come to an end is the RIAA modus operandi.

This man used to respect that only the best truth as you knew it was spoken in court, and that the lawyers were held to an even higher standard because they knew the law better. Now this man knows that one can make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims all the time with no significant punishment in return. It is quite a disappointment.

This man also wonders why Rule 11 even exists, since it appears impossible to apply to anyone short of the crime of bringing in a gun and shooting the judge and jury - if even then.

Failure to Warn has been raised on occasion. Clearly the RIAA is guilty of that, but little is heard of that these days.

{The Common Man Speaking}

skeeter said...

I was only making a point that some members of Congress would have the public believe that the RIAA is warning some accused infringers first before they file a lawsuit. That is not the case. Thankfully we have this blog to point out the truth and not the distorted facts presented by the RIAA.