About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. john on September 22, 2005 2:10 PM writes...
I think your reference to the motion regarding the 13 year old wanted
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/priority_chan/chan_order_2.pdf
and not
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/priority_chan/chan_order_1.pdf
Anyway, it looks to me as if the judge was refusing to amend the case so the daughter would be plaintiff. The plaintiff would have to file a new suit against the daughter instead. Not really a great victory that I could see, but it's entirely possible that I missed something.
Permalink to Comment2. anonymous on October 3, 2005 1:22 PM writes...
This is not the first time I've heard the word "jihad" used to describe the RIAA's campaign of lawsuits.
But every time I've heard it, it has been inappropriate.
Thousands have been sued by the RIAA. But most of them probably still have their lives and physical health. The same can't be said for the thousands dead after 9/11, or soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people are the real casualties of jihad, not people who download music. Surely you would agree with this no matter how you feel about lawsuits by the RIAA and MPAA.
Please make an attempt to actually explain, in reasonable terms, why the RIAA lawsuits are bad. If you can't do this, don't say anything. It's disrespectful to those who have lost and sacrificed so much for you to use this word so cheaply and to simply to ramp up your own rhetoric.
Permalink to Comment3. Dr. wex on October 3, 2005 2:22 PM writes...
I deliberately use the word "jihad" in mockery of the Cartel's excessively heated rhetoric. People who copy music are no more "pirates" than the Cartel's lawyers are jihadis. Real pirates (and yes they still exist) board ships, slaughter crews, dump the bodies at sea never to be found, and steal cargoes. In a similar vein, the RIAA et all are waging what I would classify as a holy war against music consumers. So, jihad.
Now, as to your question about why the suits are bad, I'll just let Cartel victim Tanya Andersen cover it: fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of due process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.
Permalink to Commenthttp://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/10/03/and_when_force_is_gone_theres_always_mom_hi_mom.php