tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post1349556510321164832..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Report to my readers on the Fordham Law IP Conferenceraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-13100726405067335642008-03-30T17:02:00.000-04:002008-03-30T17:02:00.000-04:00Thanks for taking the time to both participate in,...Thanks for taking the time to both participate in, and write about, this conference, Ray.Timothy Durnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11210708132098268216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-29658709955843177782008-03-30T16:03:00.000-04:002008-03-30T16:03:00.000-04:00Dear Jadeic (Dave):In my view it is of the essence...Dear Jadeic (Dave):<BR/><BR/>In my view it is of the essence of being a good lawyer to have an open mind and to keep on learning.<BR/><BR/>So, conferences which bring together scholars, students, and practitioners to engage in robust dialogue are healthy and beneficial to our profession.raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-63580741348501195342008-03-30T14:41:00.000-04:002008-03-30T14:41:00.000-04:00Thanks to Kim for the link to Schlesinger's bio [N...Thanks to Kim for the link to <A HREF="http://www.iipa.com/html/Bio_Michael_Schlesinger.html" REL="nofollow">Schlesinger's</A> bio [Note: there is an 'l' missing from the link shown in Kim's post]. It is interesting that at Fordham's, as reported on Professor Tushnet's blog (thanks for the link 'faro'), Professor Jane Ginsburg - under whom Michael Schlesinger studied copyright law at Columbia - seems to have a better grasp of the realities of interpretation of the existing statutes than her protégé. We would not all be here if the current law explicitly supported the RIAA interpretation. But the fact remains that it doesn't and that (among a myriad of other reasons) is why all these cases should fail.<BR/><BR/>DaveJadeichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621372649607340215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-68797663273946039942008-03-30T14:14:00.000-04:002008-03-30T14:14:00.000-04:00On the whole then, Ray, do you think that, on thos...On the whole then, Ray, do you think that, on those issues dear to your heart and conscience, conferences of this type (which I guess are few and far between) do bring a much needed clarity to the debate and can really impact on those who are able properly to shape new and improved legislation in the murky world of IP?Jadeichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621372649607340215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-10748317542584337632008-03-30T13:12:00.000-04:002008-03-30T13:12:00.000-04:00At a scholarly conference of this nature, it is im...At a scholarly conference of this nature, it is important for one to speak honestly.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Doroshow engaged in advocacy, perhaps even absurd advocacy, but, to his credit, it was advocacy within the bounds or propriety. He<BR/>(a) avoided the topic he felt might hurt him, the statutory damages question, since he knows US law is out of whack; (b) emphasized the topic he liked talking about, the Jammie Thomas case, because there was no one in the room with knowledge of the facts sufficient to challenge him on what he was saying; and (c) although he gave his own spin, rather than an objective or balanced spin, on the Jammie Thomas evidence, advocates do that. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Schlesinger's presentation, on the other hand, was a deliberate misrepresentation of the state of US copyright law, which -- had it been believed, which I do not think it was -- would have given many of our visitors from other countries a false view of what is going on.<BR/><BR/>And Dave -- yes those were the only authorities Mr. Schlesinger cited on US law. But why should THAT surprise you? Those are the only "authorities" he has. What should surprise you is that, at a scholarly convocation of this nature, (1) he dared to state to those assembled that these "authorities" signify that the existence of a 'making available' right is well established in the United States, and (2) he made no mention at all of <A HREF="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/02/default-judgment-denied-in-atlantic-v.html" REL="nofollow">Atlantic v. Brennan</A>, or of the Nimmer, Patry, and Goldstein treatises, all of which contain views to the contrary, or of the facts that Hotaling by its own terms deals only with the distribution of "unlawful" copies, and has been cited both for the rule (that there must be an actual dissemination of actual copies to the public) and for the exception it found in that case (that a library cannot avoid distribution liability which normally attach to its "lending" of admittedly "unlawful" copies present throughout its branches merely by omitting to keep circulation records).raybeckermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-76024918896422454012008-03-30T11:54:00.000-04:002008-03-30T11:54:00.000-04:00It might be useful to post a link to Mr. Schlesing...It might be useful to post a link to Mr. Schlesinger's bio on his employer's site. <BR/><BR/>http://www.iipa.com/html/Bio_Michael_Schlesinger.html<BR/><BR/>KipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-62940868657668420862008-03-30T10:30:00.000-04:002008-03-30T10:30:00.000-04:00RayMany thanks for taking the time to give this fe...Ray<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for taking the time to give this feedback - we were all rooting for you back here in blogland.<BR/><BR/> I am sure that a full transcript of the proceedings will surface eventually but at a stiff price. I see from the Fordham site that last year's papers were published by Hart Publishing, based here in the UK at Oxford, at $200: this equates to £125 from Amazon. I will try to persuade my University tutor to add this to his library submission requests.<BR/><BR/>Again from the Fordham site, the quotes from Sir Hugh Laddie, 'big name IP experts came under sustained fire from their peers and were required to defend their IP beliefs' and from Marybeth Peters, 'a combination of candour and timeliness that is unrivalled in any other forum of its kind' must surely apply to your contributions - although I guess you may quibble with Professor Jeremy Phillips about 'the high quality of the speakers'.<BR/><BR/>Panel #1 - It seems that your demolition job should have held the floor in this debate. Can those really have been the only 'authorities' that Scheslinger was able to use as illustration? If so, that was a pretty poor showing. But then, what should we have expected if you choose to defend the indefensible? We are, indeed, all waiting Judge Karas's decision - just wish he would get a move on.<BR/><BR/>Panel #2<BR/><BR/>Your comment about Professor Hanson's stance on this issue says it all. It seems though that he and Doroshow were paddling a different canoe. Glad to see that Professor Black drew attention to the detrimental impact that the Thomas verdict in particular has had worldwide on the view of the US legal system vis-à-vis the issue of statutory damages.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note that there is no mention over at www.riaa.com about Doroshow's contribution: worthy of at least a brief press statement I would have thought.<BR/><BR/>Panel #3<BR/><BR/>Less contentious by all accounts but it is good to get these points aired in such a prestigious forum. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks again - and welcome back.<BR/><BR/>DaveJadeichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02621372649607340215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-1358439013032950142008-03-30T09:01:00.000-04:002008-03-30T09:01:00.000-04:00Thanks for posting your notes, Ray.This appears to...Thanks for posting your notes, Ray.<BR/><BR/>This appears to be Prof. Tushnet's notes: http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2008/03/fordham-ip-free-speech-and-p2p-issues.html<BR/><BR/>Last year's conference publication: http://www.hartpublishingusa.com/books/details.asp?isbn=9781841138275Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16933550571145384012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-52323183201800044622008-03-30T02:29:00.000-04:002008-03-30T02:29:00.000-04:00Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the University of Calif...<I>Prof. Pamela Samuelson, of the University of California Law School, in Berkeley, said that when the statutory damages were written into the statute, Congress did not contemplate the type of infringements that are being sued for today, with 99 cent song files on p2p file sharing</I><BR/><BR/><I>Exactly</I>. In fact I've made several posts arguing this exact position on another forum over the last couple of weeks, the most recent being Thursday or Friday.Justin Olbrantz (Quantam)https://www.blogger.com/profile/02155606291145056334noreply@blogger.com