Comments on: the copyright theft deterrence act of 1999

By: Marcus

Marcus — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:42:35 +0000

Cool story as for me. It would be great to read a bit more about that matter.

By: Copyright or Wrong » Blog Archive » Law professor fires back at song-swapping lawsuits.: Copyright Law and Policy - Jefferson Coulter, Seattle Attorney

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:31:46 +0000

[...] to Professor Nesson’s blog, this case is about more than standing up to a Mafia-like RIAA that is out to teach kids like Joel [...]

By: Almost Legally » Blog Archive » Legal Jujitsu

Almost Legally » Blog Archive » Legal Jujitsu — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:57:02 +0000

[...] of defending against a claim of copyright infringement, the strategy articulated by Harvard’s Professor Charles Nesson attacks the copyright holder’s enforcement of criminal statutes. [...]

By: Cale Schmitz

Cale Schmitz — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:15:47 +0000

I applaud this effort. I do not applaud theft. However, what makes theft in the tangible world different from theft in the intangible world? Let us not mince words where critical thought is necessary.

Furthermore in this line of thinking, why has no one placed blame upon the RIAA for being unable to counteract this issue on their own and with their own resources? If they cannot do so, who is it that should be made to suffer for their inability? Is it proper that when a business cannot control its own assets that the civil courts be flooded with cases asking for such inflated damages? I should think that if a business cannot control its assets, it follows that they do not have a proper control on their assets.

What of other examples in which the power of valuation of an asset is determined by the damaged party? Where are the controls on that? How are these damages sought in relation to ethical standards?

By: steve

steve — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:18:24 +0000

How about the Fair Comment Doctrine? These songs define pop(ular) culture and in many cases use free speech to comment on matters of public interest or create matters of public interest.

By: Frauditor

Frauditor — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:18:44 +0000

It seems this is very similar to petty theft claims made by the victim (retail store) where $350-750 is sought with the threat of civil action. I am enthusiastic about lawyers who stand up and challenge rather than lay down and bill.

When the tech and music industry aligned it seems everybody was happy, including every American who could copy tape-to-tape. Nobody cared. Today everybody has music-to-copy media and it is a problem for obvious reasons.

Where is the happy median? It seems the music industry started to get it by selling songs and not entire albums, but if they failed to protect the product they created and wrote law instead, I agree the courts are being used as a collection agency for lack of due diligence and prudent business dealings.

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:23:04 +0000

“to equate sharing music with theft”
It is theft. And you have chosen to defend theft. People who buy tickets to an event or a book agree that they bought certain rights. Not the right to film the event or photocopy the book.
The fact that you are on a high horse for the digital world doesn’t change the fact that creators or those who distribute on their behalf are entitled to determine the scope of the rights they sell.

By: ed moose

ed moose — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:52:45 +0000

I read this article and I have a couple of questions that I like to see answered by those in the Riaa?

1. If a person is listening to a song on the computer and they download the song from a radio station. Is that not a form of peer to peer? If so, then the radio stations are just as guilty of putting the songs out over the net for the peer to peer listening.

2. I would like to see the Riaa be charged with the R.I.C.O. Act, because they are using undue pressure to extort money from the consumer, by using the radio stations as a front. By the way who owns the airways when sending songs over the net or the car radio?

By: Miles Fidelman

Miles Fidelman — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:10:03 +0000

“Isaac has found the justice-of-the-peace case from alabama, which is close on point, an unconstitutional system for passing out speeding tickets unconstitutional because the enforcers were paid from the take.”

It would seem this logic applies to various property confiscation laws (e.g., as in police confiscating property used in drug transactions). Has anybody pursued this line of argument?

By: Zac

Zac — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:05:28 +0000

You’ve probably already read this, but in case you haven’t, I think you might find it interesting: 20 BERKTLJ 1685