As yet unnamed, "law professors from Harvard University, New York University and other universities," as well as, "Pressplay, MusicNet, Full Audio and other music services; and international film, music, video and other copyright organizations" are among those who have filed friends of the court briefs to back Hollywood in its attempt to get the Grokster / Morpheus ruling overturned.

A 'friend of the court' is someone who wants to provide lawerly advice to a court on a particular case, but isn't actually involved. Nine times out of ten, the 'someone' wants to influence the outcome.

In RIAA, studios gain P2P legal aid, CNET News' John Borland says:

"(T)he district court's misapplication of law, if permitted to stand, will create loopholes in the law ... that will frustrate efforts to limit online piracy and serve to encourage and embolden potential infringers of creative works," read the brief submitted by copyright holders ranging from Major League Baseball to the Screen Actors Guild. "If allowed to stand, it would permit companies such as those operated by defendants to misappropriate the royalties meant for copyright holders...to an extent that would be limited only by their technological imagination."

Surprisingly, he doesn't say who said friends of court are. But he does say that the briefs come as part of a renewed legal battle over the status of file-swapping services such as Morpheus and Kazaa, "which were emboldened by federal Judge Stephen Wilson's surprise ruling in April. In that decision, he said file-swapping companies should be compared to VCR makers, which are not responsible for their customers' copyright infringements."

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America, and the National Music Publishers Association collectively appealed that decision earlier this month.

It's mind-boggling. Or maybe it isn't.

"Pressplay, MusicNet, Full Audio and other music services" are hardly disinterested parties. And, "international film, music, video and other copyright organizations"? There are plenty of deeply entrenched financial (and other) interests linked to Hollywood and its music and movie elements.

Under-the-counter pay-offs, business connections so far removed from each other as to be all-but undetectable, jobs for the Boys (and Girls), junkets to distant lands, 'promotional assisistance,' and so on: it's all an accepted part of the Hollywood scene.

It'll be interesting to see who the 'law professors' are.

Correctly pointed out, amicus briefs are usually submitted by people who do have a vested interest in the case outcome (else they wouldn't bother).

Yeah, the RIAA and MPAA are mad as hell about Judge Wilson's decision. They want to be able to shut the P2Ps down, and it's very understandable from their perspective why they want to be able to shut down the P2Ps.
Number one, the P2Ps arguably have deeper pockets than any individual they would sue for uploading, and it would be easier to get a judgment that they could collect on from a P2Per.
2) Number two, the attack on individuals was only undertaken en masse, after the ruling showed they couldn't shut the service down at the service level. Sherman and his cohorts are not exactly the brightest pennies in the cookie jar, but you don't get to be a big copyright attorney by being that stupid either. They know that suing regular folks is going to do far more harm than suing a P2P network, but I know what I think happened. Someone at the top at the RIAA said something like this..."We've got to stop this filesharing at all costs...whatever it takes. Get it done."
They have gotten feedback now that not only are people mad, and contacting congress, but are boycotting, and the boycott scares them. That's why they are resuming their attacks on the P2P networks legally. They want to end the sharing as soon as possible, and they know that these actions against individuals, are NOT going to stop sharing. And, the RIAA's argument against the networks is specious. Trying to hold the network responsible for any and all infringement of copyrights which may occur, strikes me like trying to hold auto manufacturers guilty for drunk drivers that hit people, or hold auto manufacturers guilty for people speeding or overparking. It would go like this,Representative of Ford, you are aware that drunk driving is enabled by the drunk person having a car aren't you? In fact, if there were no cars, drunk driving would almost completely disappear except for those driving horse drawn wagons, isn't that correct?
or You are aware that people routinely break the law by speeding while driving your vehicles, aren't you...and on and on ad nauseum.
~code

The fact that the article was pressed only shows me that the RIAA has power over the media. Find another instance of a "friend of the court" application in the press anywhere, and I will print this article, and eat it.

It article is a weak attempt to scare kids. But like you said, they are struggling to get some meat off the bone, and still faced with the hurdle they won't overcome.

One thing to remember is that the RIAA uses its money to try to get people to dro the case. This is going to cost the defendents even more money, did the eff have a hand in this with legal assistance?

"For its part, the RIAA denies it has hired private investigators. "We're not doing that," spokeswoman Amy Weiss said. "From a PR perspective, we know that this program is not going to win us any PR points. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do and to send a deterrent message and curb piracy on the Net. We are looking at the most egregious infringers and those are the people who will be sued."

Weiss said the RIAA will file its "first wave" of lawsuits in early September against hundreds of individual defendants, in multiple federal courts across the country. Other waves will follow, she said.

Is it a lot of fuss over still-to-be-filed lawsuits targeting P2P pirates? Yes, it is. But it'll pale by comparison to what happens if the Justice Department uses the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act to prosecute P2P users for criminal violations of copyright law--a step the RIAA has suggested, but the Bush administration has not yet taken. "

I wonder if Ms. Weiss and Mr. sheRman
really have a clue about the intensity of the hatred the RIAA is generating for themselves. At first, I thought surely they must realize this, and that their statements were calculated to avoid admitting the scope of the backlash that might result, but when they say something like they realize it is not going to WIN them any PR points, makes me wonder if the fact is that they really are so arrogant and out of touch with the common man they actually don't understand the ramifications of what they are doing.
Although they claim they are not using PIs to see who they should sue, how else are they going to decide which cases might be the easiest to win? Since the cases going to court will be jury trials, I think it is interesting that they think that a jury will be less sympathetic to a poor kid with lots of tats, than they would be to some high priced legal sharks in 2000 dollar custom suits, representing fat cats living in multimillion dollar mansions, who have no touch with the common people.

Hmm...in this period of recession with more and more hard working people losing their jobs, with less money, and with the number of people under 30 on the increase, and with more people getting body tattoos/piercings than ever (as opposed to the small number of copyright lawyers and record label execs), which side would YOU identify with more?

BTW, remember that record exec that was arrested for possible murder of that lady at his home, Phil Spector?
Isn't it odd you never hear anything about his case?

Kinda makes you say...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
~code

And by the by, can someone point me to a legit, (free of RIAA PAYOLA), news agency that is covering both sides of the debate nationally?

CodeWarrior:

That's a very good analysis of the situation. The only thing I would add is that the RIAA will try to argue that, while P2P has non-infringing uses, it is currently being used PRIMARILY for distributing copyrighted material. I'm not sure if that's true and the argument probably won't fly, but I think that's the only credible angle they can take.

I suggest this, again,

Make every great speech by a national figure head, and every legal file available to you, available with every P2P you have access to, and leave it there. I'm still very dissappointed that my "JFK Innagural address" isn't hit more than twice a day. I guess everyone already has it.

i would like to file a friends of the court application on behalf of the p2ps
and a seperate one for the isps.... they have stated that anyone using these networks is pretty much engaged in high treason and subterfuge.... of course their dirty laundry isnt aired, somehow they have become above reproach,
interesting that the courts who im sure didnt even know what a peer to peer application was before these petitions were filed are being given a crash course on the whole episode by the ones who are responsible for the filing in the first place.... of course they are giving truthful, knowledgable, and unbiased insights

thats sarcasm by the way.....

The RIAA and MPAA case may not be that good, they are basicly saying that p2p networks have the capability to infringe copyrights and should be shut down, even if it is impossible for the network owners to prevent their networks being used for infringement. But in cases like these that might noe mean much. The RIAA and co have good evil lawyers, and the judge who gets this appeal will probably not know much about the technical aspects of p2p systems.

I agree IFeelFree...I thought about including that as well.
and, theHERMIT,
when you mentioned that, I was thinking about the perversion of Pres. Kennedy's statement about it not being what the government can do, but what you can do for the government that is going on...the RIAA is saying in essence...it's NOT what the music industry can do for the consumer, it's what we can do TO the consumer...or,
it's not what the music industry can do for the consumer, it's what can the consumer do for the RIAA~
~code
PS...for anyone who hasn't written their letter to Sen. Coleman,Sen.Dayton, and Rep. McCullough about including Bill Evans in any panels testifying about the RIAA, PLEASE send out a polite and well articulated letter requesting the inclusion of Bill, Ann Gabriel of the Webcasters Alliance, and Fred Lohmann of the EFF (think I spelled Fred's last name correctly)
~code

I would like to add to your thoughts code, if I may,

As the RIAA is a tax exempt institution, they are the gov't.

They have therefore perverted the summons of JFK into:

"Think not what your country is doing to you".
Sadly, when I talk to the cream of our American citizens, college students, I see just that, ignorance, and yet so full of facts.

Boycott Boycott and Boycott. Let them bleed money till they can't afford their legal terrorist acts.

I bought 2 CDs from an independent label (kill rock stars) toady. Boycotting the RIAA labels is only one side of the coin. Buy indie music!

NCdude

Amy Weiss said. "From a PR perspective, we know that this program is not going to win us any PR points. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do and to send a deterrent message and curb piracy on the Net. We are looking at the most egregious infringers and those are the people who will be sued."

My answer to her is look in the mirror and you will find the most infringer. Also look at your co-workers and you will find the other half of infringers.

To paraphrases the cream of America today:

"Idealoligies and perspectives of law has been in the hands of lawmakers and corporations so long, that I shouldn't mess up the flow of things. I basically don't know right from wrong, let alone injustice. My parents will straighten all of this mess out, and cover my ass, if I break the law."

by all rights, I should get serverly flamed for making that comment.

theHERMlT, right ON brother..
BTW, I was thinking about the profile of how they are supposedly targeting...
that profile doesn't fit me...No tatoos, No beard, No Lice, No up or downloading, and have blond cherubic hair...but, was wondering if the eye patch, three cornered hat, sword, high boots, tendency to spout things like "Shiver me timbers" and "Avast me hearties" and the Parrot that hollers "Just buy indie music", would be a problem?

~code

If you feel the need to further associate with piracy, I cannot stop you. It is a free country for the most part. I will skip over your post if they include those terms, but will continue to invite your form of expression, more importantly your thoughts and ideas of further boycotting the RIAA.

You have a good sense of humor code.

theHermit...it was a joke!
I'm the ONLY one here who looked up the legal definition of piracy and pointed out that filesharing is NOT piracy! Geez...loosen up my friend...
too many people on the board seem not to have a sense of humor anymore.
I thought it was clear that it was satirical and meant to point out the lunacy of calling it piracy,..guess not.
Oh well.
Peace brother, if you think I was saying filesharing is piracy..then you're just wrong.
Have a great day!
~code

gotta scoot for now!
keep em honest while I have to go into the world!
take care bro!
~code

i have a sense of humor. you werern't fast enough.

Hermit- If you want unbiased info, check out the BBC's news website. Basically you have to leave the USA to find any unbiased opinions on this mess.

yes, I need to loosen up. My wife says, "Aye, matey".

Code, you wrote:

>>Is it a lot of fuss over still-to-be-filed lawsuits targeting P2P pirates? Yes, it is. But it'll pale by comparison to what happens if the Justice Department uses the 1997 No Electronic Theft Act to prosecute P2P users for criminal violations of copyright law--a step the RIAA has suggested, but the Bush administration has not yet taken."

In a previous thread, I had mentioned that as the DMCA is allowing a non-law enforcement special interest group to use tactics, by law-enforcement standards are illegal at best. If the Justice Dept were to get involved, wouldn't they have to follow the actual rules (unless the Patriot Act allows for private interests to be exclusive of the 4th Amendment, which I would find that hard to believe) governing the methods to search (with warrants) and seize a Citizen's computer system with regards to violation of the DMCA?

I'm curious to know who here could post a response to my question, as well as an understanding the of whole scope of civil litigation vs crimminal act in such a case that does entail a violation of the DMCA. Code, would you care to respond?

lol...
as I walk out the door,,,
gotta, you're right Hermit
gotta put those smiley faces in so we know its a nudge nudge wink wink...
(and the codewarrior has left the building..)
:::::::::::::=======code

Thanks r0dr0ddy, thats what i've been reading, along with US, national post. I'm trying to find a national US news service that is untainted by RIAA PAYOLA.

Foopah, the Department of Justice is very heavily involved. Members of the selected DOJ are issueing bills to further deter file sharing with hr 2517, and include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (the FBI), in catching P2P users.

Foopah:

For criminal cases the standards for finding guilt are much higher, "beyond a reasonable doubt", as opposed to civil cases, "a preponderance of the evidence". If the Justice Dept. started going after P2P users they would use their tremendous powers to gather all the evidence necessary. They would have no trouble obtaining ISP records, getting search warrants, seizing computers, etc. (They don't like to lose cases.) Also, they could start imposing jail sentences. However, to date, there's been no indication that the Justice Dept. is getting involved. Personally, I can't imagine why they'd want to do the dirty work to prop up failing corporations, especially the record company goons.

I'm a pessimist

also to date 1000 supeonas have not come to trial.

I'd like to see an inquiry of the RIAA's finances. Among finding out how much each artist was paid in royalties, I'd like to know how much money was spent to lobby the House Of Representatives, and Senate. I want to know which head of the hydra is the most important to them.

Hermit ?

Again.. RICO.

But it ain't gonna happen till we can "buy" our own politicians with cash or vote blocs.

-user

IFeelFree: I know for criminal cases the standards are much much higher than in civil (learned that from watching OJ in his crimminal vs civil trial in which he did lose the latter). The question I still beg to ask is would the DOJ have the complete authority/autonomy in going after P2P users without first proving intent, and secondly, wouldn't obtaining an IP from an ISP (logs, records, etc.) still require a litmus test for the courts to issue warrants to get such information relating to crimminal acts?

theHERMIT: from my understanding, all of that information is already public record. If I remember correctly, there was a post on a previous thread about how much the RIAA has, what they've spent, contributions to elected officials, etc.

As for the DOJ, are there any cases, in recent history (< 30 years prior) in which they have gotten heavily involved in regards to a special interest industry/group to prevent "economical" losses*, and how those cases could effect the way P2P cases could turn out?

* if I read the news reports for last year, the music industry actually made more money in that year than any year previous, yet they still determined that they had a large economical "loss and hardship" due to P2P users.

On a side note: with Usenet going back MANY years, wouldn't that be considered the "original" P2P - in theory - since it DOES connect multiple systems together for distributing content on a global basis?

Ack, don't know what happened to the last part of my post... here goes:

As for the DOJ, are there any cases in recent history (less than 30 years prior) that has industry/special interests involved in which crimminal laws were set up to protect such said groups and the DOJ stepping in to persue a case against a crimminal offender in such cases? (i.e. "economnical hardship and suffering in industry*") These would have to be cases similar in theory/law as the way the DMCA is setup, so I was just wondering if anyone had an idea about that.

* The RIAA claims billions of revenue lost in 2002 due to P2P systems, yet, the Music Industry as a whole reported whopping gains in sales over any year previous. The media had reported on this already, so I know there are articles out there on the net that support this fact.

Side Note: wouldn't USENET be considered - in theory - to be the original P2P system? It does share the common goal of P2P - global distrubition on an pseudo-anonymous scale. Why doesn't the RIAA go after MCI/UUNET for distribution of illegal copyrighted content? Why didn't they go after them YEARS ago when Usenet was carrying all of this stuff even before MP3's became popular?

Question for codewarrior: Are you ALWAYS on here?

let me track that public record down, brb. This is a fairly short thread, I didn't see a post indicating, "how much the RIAA has, what they've spent, contributions to elected officials, etc", Foopah.

Hook a brother up with the financial records of the RIAA.

isn't revenue a disqualifying factor of a "tax exempt" status?

P.S. has anyone tried to cat, uudecode, and unzip USENET posts?

Oh wait, there are windows programs that do that automatically for you now!

theHERMIT: there was a previous thread on a different article, try going through the archives on here and looking for it - it should be listed in the last 3 months of news that was posted.

Foopah, we are here to boycott the RIAA. Link everyone to the RIAA's financial documentation, I just want the link. Hook a fellow member up.

take your time foopah, I'm searching the forum myself.

Foopah,welcome aboard! Thumbtack..great new avitar..We can "buy" our own congress, people. But we gotta use the only currency we have..TIME! I know I sure got more time than money..I am organizing street teams to get folks to register to vote and to educate them on these issues. Needless to say, this forum is a highly recommended source that I am spreading so people can judge for themselves.
An important way we will get immediate attention, in addition to boycotts,petitions, and posting like crazy, is to be about organizing and voting. We are already getting notariety for out point of view through our efforts. But we must follow through at the polls. Time is drawing nigh...

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

As a registered voter, I think it is a civic duty to know who they are voting for and against.

"If allowed to stand, it would permit companies such as those operated by defendants to misappropriate the royalties meant for copyright holders"

Has anyone of the owners made any such attepmt thus far? No.

Secondly why doesn't someone just make a P2P app and just throw it out there and don't put your name on it. I there is no company to attack then it will be a lot harder to get rid of. It's like all the warez sites. The site with the program could be hosted in the Netherlands or something.

nyer82...lol..nope...buy the bot I programmed to answer like I was is
~bot for codeWarrior

foopah,yes, law enforcement folks going after someone under the NET act, I believe would have to follow traditional laws for collecting evidence, getting subpoenas, etc, UNLESS...they were to say that the alleged culprit was suspected of being a terrorist, or somehow aiding terrorists. I don't know if there are really hard and fast rules about declaring someone a suspected terrorist, BUT, if they did, the Patriot Act would kick in, and they would be free, under the rules of the Patriot Act, to trample on your rights, like trample on such things as a right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial in any matter with more than 20 dollars in question, the Privacy Act of 1974, and the 4th Amendment.
If they didn't have the Patriot Act, yes, they SHOULD have to observe the traditional guidelines for collecting evidence, however; I don't know if they could use anything collected by the RIAA. That's a murky area/ Sorry for not a better answer, but that's my gut level feeling without much research.

How bout we executesome fuckin RIAA members for violating our privacy. Think they'll get the message then?

Why doesn't the RIAA stop wasting it's time with users and just sue the internet! *LOL*

Chances are that the lawyers in question graduated from the likes of NYU, Columbia, Harvard . . . the usual list of suspects, in other words.

Jeezus...remember when ISP's used to charge by the hour? They stopped that, went to a flat rate, and ended up making tons of money, anyway. In other words, to quote Clint, "they adapted, they overcame"...they found a more successful business model that made everyone happy.

What the hell is wrong with these greasy record guys?

I have just thought of a WONDERFUL idea!!

For those of you members of Boycott RIAA that reside in the New York City area...

Why not head on down to Radio City Music Hall just hours before the MTV Video Music Awards, then go there in waves, holding up protest signs urging people to boycott the RIAA, and have signs saying things like...

"File-Sharing FOREVER!! DMCA NEVER!!"

and other slogans like those!!

DeanSB2000

KNOW YOUR ENEMY:

HERE'S CARY SHERMAN'S/BUTTBOY'S PICTURE:

http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-25/cary-sherman-riaa.html

good idea DeanSB2000 but, at least for me I am not going to fly to newyork for a day to boycott at the MTV VMA's though If i had as much money as the RIAA seems to have then I would. Yeah, NYC Riaa boycotter's It's time to get on the news, (and tv) Publically demonstrait you hatred for the RIAA at the VMA's. Harvard and all thoes god awfull (not to mention preppy) law schools, They turn out the world's evil, Lawers. Oh yeah, even If they make developing P2P clinets and networks illegal, (Which would be a violation of the 1st admendment) I will continue to develop Project Gramps, then they will see the day when We will controol the world.