Re: "My dad is a pirate."

[El Tux]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:41:26 +0000, El Tux wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:16 +0000, Unruh wrote:
> 
>> rjack <danw6144@insightbb.com> writes:
>> 
>>>El Tux wrote:
>> 
>>>> In contrast, copying for your own personal use is a legal gray area
>>>> in the US. None of the cases you cited involves such use.
>> 
>> 
>> It is a legal grey area not because it is written in the law( if it
>> were it would not be grey) but because it is impossible to make lawas
>> which 90 % of the population violate. YOu cannot throw 90% into jail.
>> It is also a grey area because making backups IS authorized in law.
>> Thus attempts by the companies to negate that right are themselves
>> arguably illegal.
> 
> What I'd like to see is a law that says any copyright verdict must
> support the original intent of copyright as expressed in the U.S.
> Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
> securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
> to their respective Writings and Discoveries." If you can show that a
> specific application of copyright law is having the opposite effect to
> that stated intent, then that application should be declared
> unenforceable. And if it can be shown that a copyright owner is
> deliberately abusing copyright law in a manner that is *clearly* in
> contravention of that intent, the judge should have the option of
> declaring his copyright null and void.
> 
> The same should go for patents.

I knew I should have put my tinfoil hat on this morning - they're
reading my mind!

    http://p2pnet.net/story/12313

    In Lava v. Amurao, pending in the Southern District of New York,
    in White Plains, Judge Charles L. Brieant has entered an order denying
    the RIAA’s motion to dismiss counterclaims for (a) declaratory
    judgment of non-infringement and (b) copyright misuse.

    The Judge also granted the motion of the Electronic Frontier
    Foundation for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.

    The copyright misuse counterclaim calls for the plaintiffs to
    forfeit their copyrights in the songs which form the basis for their
    suit, on the ground that they are “competitors in the business of
    recorded music…..[and] are a cartel acting collusively in violation
    of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling
    all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an
    unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all
    cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers….. Such
    actions represent an attempt….to secure for themselves rights far
    exceeding those provided by copyright laws……Such acts constitute
    misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive
    rights…..”.


This just means the RIAA will either drop the case and run or call in
some serious legal firepower to steamroller a defendant with limited
funds. You never know, though, it sure seems like judges are showing
less patience lately with the RIAA's abuse of our legal system.