[PLUG-TALK] Wanna' Help a Lawyer Defend Against the RIAA?

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Jeme A Brelin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> As much as I hate to see the RIAA stomp on innocent people, from the 
>> evidence presented, it seems probable to me that *someone* used the 
>> ISP and other devices in question at the times in question to violate 
>> a copyright.
>
> Once more, Ed, repeating it doesn't make it so!
>
> Many legal scholars in the United States (including Stanford Law 
> professor Lawrence Lessig and former USDOJ Special Prosecutor [in US 
> v. Microsoft] David Boies) believe and argue that sharing files in the 
> manner described here is perfectly legal and a protected fair use of 
> copyrighted material. Copyright isn't the all-encompassing control 
> over content that the industry would have you believe.  The 
> interpretation as such is extremely new and bolstered by an amazing 
> propaganda campaign (since pretty much all media outlets are 
> beneficiaries of the copyright industry, the campaign goes largely 
> unchallenged).
>
> You can look back to our discussion of this very topic nearly two 
> years ago here:
>
> <URL: 
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/2005-February/002262.html >
Yeah, I remember the arguments. I don't much care one way or another -- 
I don't fileshare and I don't buy 90 percent of the material published 
that people *do* fileshare. If there were a thriving "black market" in 
performances of the Shostakovich 11th symphony, I might be tempted, but 
just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean it's something I want 
to see or hear. :)
>
> This should be the primary focus of the defense, in my opinion.  There 
> is no evidence, in this case, that the defendant did anything at 
> all... only an argument that certain machines and addresses were 
> used.  Machines and addresses are not people and should never be 
> mistaken for them.
Yes, I'm in violent agreement here. It should have been thrown out of 
court because from what I saw, someone else was using the machine. But 
that "someone else" has no right to expose Ms. Lindor to a lawsuit by 
such behavior, legal or illegal.
>
>> In short, I find it pathetic that someone (probably a relative) has 
>> probably committed a crime using Ms. Lindor's ISP and Ms. Lindor has 
>> to defend herself against the RIAA as a result.
>
> I don't think any crimes were committed in this case (see above and 
> think back into the past).  And I think it's absolutely fantastic that 
> Ms. Lindor has a chance to stop these spurious and baseless cases by 
> setting a strong precedent.  Her fight will be a victory for millions.
Assuming of course that she wins. All the way up the chain to the 
Supreme Court. Think about it -- think about what's required for her to 
win. I'm not talking about getting the suit dismissed. I'm talking about 
a *victory* -- overturning a piece of legislation. Do you really think 
she has a chance?

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/

If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.