faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
bugs
hof
| Felten vs. RIAA Hearing |
Posted by
michael
on Friday November 30, @01:45PM
from the scenic-trenton-new-jersey dept. On Wednesday I attended a hearing in Felten vs. RIAA, the lawsuit filed by Professor Felten, other Princeton researchers, and USENIX against the RIAA, SDMI, Verance, and the Department of Justice. As you already know, the judge dismissed the case. But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works.
An incredibly brief review of the case: SDMI created an open challenge to break various forms of technical restrictions they had designed to allow music publishers to control how people use legitimately purchased music. A team led by Felten participated and was mostly successful at breaking them. The team wrote a paper, intending to publish it at a scientific conference. The RIAA/SDMI sent a letter to Felten, his employer, and the conference threatening them with legal action. Private legal discussions and a very public flap broke out. Felten filed a pre-emptive lawsuit, seeking to have his right to publish vindicated without waiting for a suit from the RIAA or SDMI. Immediately afterward, the RIAA publicly and repeatedly withdrew their threat to sue. Eventually the paper was, in fact, published, but the suit has continued.
Or just read through the Slashdot stories.
On to yesterday's hearing. The judge has before him a request from the defense to dismiss the case - they state that there is no real issue since the threat has been withdrawn. The Plaintiffs oppose this - they feel the threat is real, even if the RIAA has now withdrawn it.
Each side is represented by a half-dozen attorneys. Felten and several of the other plaintiffs are present as well. There are four or five press representatives. Other than that, the courtroom is empty. The first thing the judge does is take care of some routine business - the plaintiffs have requested that a C program, tinywarp.c, be filed under judicial seal with the court. The judge accepts this. He then goes briefly over the case so far, saying that he feels fully briefed by the papers submitted by both sides. He invites the plaintiff's lawyer, Gino Scarselli, to speak and respond to the last set of papers filed by the defense, but cautions him to avoid repeating any of the arguments set forth already in the many papers filed.
Scarselli emphasizes that the plaintiffs are in court for more than just the single threatening letter - he notes that the threat of legal action was considered quite real by the universities, who assigned lawyers to deal with the threat. He notes that Felten's paper was described as a "recipe for circumvention" by the defendants. He says that Felten also fears criminal prosecution due to his desire to publish a paper on SDMI in Scientific American - since Scientific American pays for papers, unlike the conference, this makes publication of the paper a commercial enterprise which might be charged as a criminal violation of the DMCA.
The judge is rather skeptical. He states that the difference between Felten and Sklyarov is "night and day". Sklyarov's actions are clearly criminal to the judge - Felten's actions not at all.
Scarselli and the judge spar a bit over a possible amendment to the complaint, regarding what exactly the plaintiffs were seeking in the lawsuit, and Scarselli retires from battle. Next up is David Kendall for the RIAA, responding to Scarselli.
Kendall starts off by talking about a stipulation (an agreement on facts) that both parties were negotiating over. Apparently both sides had almost been able to reach an agreement, except that the RIAA wanted the agreement to include dismissing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not. Kendall moves on to emphasize the argument they are making - that the suit should be dismissed because there is no conflict between the RIAA/SDMI and Felten. There are three reasons why a suit might be dismissed in this fashion - for mootness, because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit, or because the issue isn't ripe. The judge asks Kendall which of the three would apply to this case - Kendall disclaims mootness (because that implies there once was an issue, but no longer), and states that this could be dismissed under either of the other reasons.
Richard Phillips is called to speak for the Department of Justice. Phillips states that his argument has been covered by the papers submitted and sits back down.
At this point only 40 minutes or so has elapsed. Normally, the judge might now take the case for decision, then some time later issue a written decision - instead, he decides (obviously he planned to do this in advance, since he has notes prepared) to render his decision in the case orally and immediately. He notes that he's doing so to save both parties further time and trouble, which indicates that he agrees with the defense that the case should be dismissed.
The judge starts off with the basics, which must have been rather boring to the lawyers involved. Under the Constitution, courts are limited to deciding cases where there is an actual case or controversy. He states flat-out that he sees no case or controversy here, in case anyone in the courtroom missed the hint he's already given.
He now takes a deep breath and begins going through his notes. He recaps the case from the beginning. I'll spare you that, read the documents if you wish.
Finally we get to his analysis. There are two separate issues - is there a case against the private entities? Is there a case against the Federal Government? The judge looks at the private entities first.
Again he discusses the requirement that cases be limited to actual controversies, that judges can't rule on abstract, theoretical, or speculative cases. He uses the word "speculative" approximately 20 times during his opinion, always referring to the plaintiffs' case. He relates a rambling analogy about bank fraud, essentially saying that the plaintiffs were asking for blanket immunity against ever being sued or prosecuted, which was impossible. He covers in great detail the RIAA's retraction of their threatening letter, how they've plainly denied any desire to sue Felten or anyone else over Felten's original paper.
The judge now looks at the First Amendment considerations relating to the suit against the RIAA/SDMI. He notes that the courts are required to avoid Constitutional questions if at all possible. He also notes that according to case law on the subject, there must be a real and immediate threat, that must remain throughout litigation, in order for the courts to consider the Constitutional questions around a non-criminal law (that is, the part of the DMCA that doesn't involve criminal penalties, only the possibility of civil lawsuits). Since the threat has not remained throughout litigation, he sees no Constitutional questions relating to the non-criminal part of the DMCA. He also notes that Plaintiffs do not allege they intend to violate the statute [ed. note: I'm not sure which part of the DMCA the judge was talking about right now - he may have been getting ahead of himself and talking about the criminal penalties.] and thus proceeding further would be "pre-enforcement review", which is not permitted. He closes this section by saying that he finds the Step-Saver and Salvation Army cases (referred to in the briefs submitted by both parties) instructive.
Somewhere during this speech, one of the attorneys for SDMI starts grinning, hugely, as if his team has just won the Super Bowl. He continues grinning and looking over at the attorneys for the plaintiffs until the hearing is over. None of the other attorneys for either side show any particular reaction.
The judge now continues with the suit against the Federal Government for Constitutional violations. He notes that the plaintiffs have not been directly threatened by the Government, nor prosecuted. He contrasts Felten's situation with that of Dmitry Sklyarov - the plaintiffs don't sell their program to the public, they do it for scientific purposes. Again he mentions the Step-Saver case. He quotes from the DMCA extensively. He states that the Government and plaintiffs have no adverse legal interests - that is, there is no possible criminal threat to Felten for doing what he's doing, in the judge's opinion. He notes that in the Sklyarov case there is such an adverse legal interest - obviously, Sklyarov was imprisoned! - and suggests that the Sklyarov case is a better way to get any First Amendment consequences of the DMCA adjudicated by the courts. The plaintiffs are not "manufacturing", according to the judge; nor are they offering their code for sale. The judge segues to what he sees as deficiencies in the plaintiff's legal complaint - they did not assert they planned to fully violate the criminal sections of the DMCA, mainly their assertions were that the Act is unclear and vague. Finally he closes - the plaintiffs must have an "objectively reasonable fear" of prosecution in order for the required legal conflict to exist, and the judge sees no such objectively reasonable fear.
A few more sentences and he's done. He reminds everyone that he may revise his written/final opinion from what he just dictated. He doesn't provide a time-frame for when the written opinion might be expected.
And that's it. My impression is that the most important phrase in the decision is "night and day". Judge Brown saw Sklyarov as a pirate, well-deserving of a long imprisonment term, and Felten as a goodie-two-shoes scientist who didn't have a care in the world. The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all. Both the Justice Department and the RIAA prefer to have their test cases with suitably unsavory defendants - Russian pirates and shady hacker magazines are much preferred over all-American Princeton professors. The RIAA won't make the mistake of sending threat letters to professors again - not until the DMCA issues have been well-settled in the courts, anyway. Some people have criticized the EFF for over-reaching - trying to make a case out of nothing. But to a great extent the civil liberties groups have to play with the hand they're dealt. Felten was legitimately threatened, and even if the RIAA saw their mistake and starting trying to weasel out of it, I can't fault the civil liberties groups for trying to pursue this. They plan to appeal, of course.
| |
|
< OSI Turns Down 4 Licenses; Approves Python Foundation's
| Open Spectrum: Free the Airwaves >
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Felten vs. RIAA Hearing
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 250 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
Relevant to DeCSS? (Score:2, Redundant)
by kenl999 on Friday November 30, @01:52PM (#2637717)
(User #166189 Info)
|
All I need to do is write an academic report on how to hack CSS?
Of couse, said report would need to include the source...
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Relevant to DeCSS? by ichimunki (Score:2) Friday November 30, @01:55PM
- Re:Relevant to DeCSS? by firewort (Score:2) Friday November 30, @02:09PM
Re:Relevant to DeCSS? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Paul Johnson (paul@cogito.org.uk) on Friday November 30, @02:31PM (#2637912)
(User #33553 Info | http://www.cogito.org.uk)
|
Which is what Dr. David S. Touretzky has done here [cmu.edu].
Its noticable that Dr. Touretzky has been threatened by the MPA, but the threat has neither been withdrawn nor acted upon (AFAIK). It seems to me that the EFF might have used that in the Felten case as evidence that the threat against Felten was not an isolated case, and the withdrawal of the threat against Felten was an attempt to avoid clarification of the law.
Paul.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Sausage (Score:5, Insightful)
by Tackhead on Friday November 30, @01:53PM (#2637720)
(User #54550 Info)
|
> But taking a look at the hearing might
provide some insight into how the judicial system works.
Those that love sausage and respect the law should never see either being made.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
The judge gave us an answer. (Score:3, Interesting)
by Lumpy (dont_type_this.timgray@lambdanet.com) on Friday November 30, @01:56PM (#2637741)
(User #12016 Info | http://www.lambdanet.com/)
|
Everything must be released for science and research.
So when I release how to let's say hack the judges email account I must preamble it with....
This is purely for scientific and study research.
Is this how a ruling is used in courts? or is it basically the judge blowing gas out his robes and just deciding that the RIAA coffers lubed him quite well?
(I know, in courts the most money wins, not justice or truth.... we have O.J. to thank for showing the country that.)
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:The judge gave us an answer. by Omnifarious (Score:2) Friday November 30, @02:12PM
- Re:The judge gave us an answer. by dillon_rinker (Score:2) Friday November 30, @02:53PM
- No precedent set by kabir (Score:3) Friday November 30, @02:56PM
Re:No precedent set (Score:5, Informative)
by Brian See (bsee.columbus@rr@com) on Friday November 30, @03:14PM (#2638138)
(User #11276 Info)
|
As far as I know (and I might very well be wrong) there is _no_ precedent here. Dismissals aren't legal decisions, they are a _lack_ of legal decision. No legal decision has been rendered, thus no precedent set.
Here's a lawyerly answer: It depends.
The Felten dismissal sets no precedent on the DMCA. The judge never made a ruling on the constitutionality of the DMCA, because he ruled that there was no justiciable case or controversy.
No decision on the DMCA == no binding precedent established on the DMCA.
On the other hand, if the decision is published (and it likely will be), the case will set (minor, advisory) precedent on JUSTICIABILITY issues. The court's making a decision on constitutional standing, and future courts may be bound by it.
Of course, since it's "only" a federal district case, other federal trial courts would only give it advisory, and not binding status. If the EFF takes the case up to the Third Circuit and gets the same ruling, the Third Circuit opinion (if published) would control all lower courts -- in the Third Circuit. Again, when I talk about "setting precedent" in this paragraph, I'm talking about the constitutional standing (justiciability) issue.
Moreover, dismissals are NOT just a "lack of legal decision". A dismissal, such as a summary judgment, can be entered by the court "with prejudice". These types of dismissals can operate as an adjudication on the merits, which means that the case is resolved with just as much finality as if a jury returned a defense verdict.
For anyone who's left reading this digression into civil procedure, I'll stop before getting into res judicata (claim/issue preclusion).
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
- Re:The judge gave us an answer. by j_w_d (Score:1) Monday December 10, @01:41AM
- Re:The judge gave us an answer. by tswinzig (Score:2) Friday November 30, @03:11PM
|
Free Music Philosophy (Score:2, Offtopic)
by Sierpinski on Friday November 30, @01:59PM (#2637763)
(User #266120 Info)
|
While perusing the net, I came across this site on Free Music [ram.org] by a guy named Ram Samudrala [ram.org]
He has listed a 'Free Music Philosophy', which (I think) has merit. I think as a community, there should be a much larger effort on this subject to help further the cause.
I know it will be a long, hard fight (which might be impossible to win, who knows) against the RIAA, but they've done so many things lately that make me hate them to no end (like the proprosal on Ashcroft's Anti-terrorism bill that would allow them to hack into our computers and spy on us), so I would love to see them go down in flames.
Any article about someone suing the RIAA would definitely be of interest to me, and hopefully to many of you.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
always good to look to Bruce Schneier's thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
by scratch on Friday November 30, @02:00PM (#2637768)
(User #8862 Info)
|
Crypto-gram 108 especially has some good stuff.
Links: here [counterpane.com] for good DMCA analysis.
Bruce has called the entertainment industry the single biggest threat to the computer industry, and I think he's right.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Another take on night and day (Score:5, Interesting)
by Software Cowboy on Friday November 30, @02:01PM (#2637779)
(User #9112 Info)
|
I think what he probably meant is that one was for commercial gain (Dmitri) and the other was for research (Felton).
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Re:Another take on night and day (Score:4, Interesting)
by SirSlud on Friday November 30, @02:35PM (#2637938)
(User #67381 Info | http://www.besonic.com/nufunq | Last Journal: Wednesday February 13, @02:58PM)
|
You need an amentdment there:
One was for commercial gain by a non American, non wealthy non large corperate interest, and the other was for an American reseacher in good standing.
History is rife with examples of companies that either bent the law, only to have it changed (because capitalism depends on those companies for the health of its economy), where as individuals who seek or toy with similar changes are far more likely to be nailed to the wall. Financial interest is a misnomer. Financial contribution to the economy (~= size of company, revenues) is the true measure the government and judicial process goes by when balancing the rights of the individual, and laws of the country. It's no surprise, for instance, that Disney was one of the main backers, each time the copyright laws have been extended. MS looks like they'll get a slap on the wrist (and a whole new generation of users), in light of the US's current economy.
Meanwhile, the Dimitri's, because their work will not feed back into the economy at nearly the same level as those two behemoths, is jailed. Obviously, it's not cut and dried, but you'd have to be quite naive to not factor in the importance of the participatory groups to the economy the judicial system in question operates in.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Another take on night and day by PolyDwarf (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:35PM
- Re:Another take on night and day by AnalogDiehard (Score:1) Friday November 30, @04:19PM
- Re:Another take on night & day (2 live crew ca by retiarius (Score:1) Friday November 30, @07:14PM
|
the case seems valid to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
by RestiffBard (restiffbard@ureach.com) on Friday November 30, @02:03PM (#2637792)
(User #110729 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
the judges decision seems valid as well. he's right there was no conflict but i understand felten and the university wanting to guard against the future. whats the statute of limitations on the dmca anyway? something i just thought of regarding a federal reaction. considering the recent events (sept 11) and the new definitions of hackers (those that break laws not those that code) as terrorists its possible that (IANAL) that felten could theoretically be charged with cyber terrorism by the feds.
if that were to occur i think the simplest defense is this. 1. gillete makes razor blades.
2. terrorists use razor blades to hijack airplanes
3. gillete is not a terrorist for making razor blades
1a. felten breaks SDMI
2a. bad hackers (terrorist) use SDMI to commit copyright infringement
3a. felten is not a bad hacker (terrorist) for making the tool.
at least thats how i would rule if i was the judge in such a case.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
But *I* didn't sell it... (Score:4, Interesting)
by Christopher Bibbs on Friday November 30, @02:04PM (#2637795)
(User #14 Info | http://www.mdlug.org/)
|
It seems that the judge ruled here that since Felten didn't sell the code or make a product based off of it, he's in the free and clear from DMCA and other laws. He also didn't seem concerned with Scientific American selling copies of that code. I'd think this would make a precedent for anyone that wanted to, say, make DVD decryption software for scientific purposes. Or am I missing something here?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Reasonable ruling, I guess (Score:4, Insightful)
by iabervon on Friday November 30, @02:06PM (#2637806)
(User #1971 Info | http://iabervon.org/~barkalow/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 02, @02:09AM)
|
Right, so you can't sue someone to get a judgement in a case that hasn't been brought against you.
And, as much as you'd like to, you can't actually find out in advance if what you want to do will be judged legal before you do it. You have to wait until you've actually been sued in order to defend yourself.
That makes sense; otherwise, you'd have McDonalds suing everyone who spills coffee on themselves, alledging that the victem knew the coffee was hot.
Of course, it is a flaw in our government that the legislature creates the laws, and the courts interpret them, but the courts only deal with past events, so there's no way to know what a law means until someone is charged under it. It would be kind of nice to be able to say, "I will do this, but only if it's legal", but that's not possible in the US. This is probably because the court system requires motivated people on both sides and a lot of particulars to consider.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Reasonable ruling, I guess by aozilla (Score:3) Friday November 30, @03:09PM
- Re:Reasonable ruling, I guess by nerdlyone (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:13PM
- Can't a judge strike down a bad law? by mshomphe (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:19PM
- Re:Can't a judge strike down a bad law? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:43PM
Re:Can't a judge strike down a bad law? (Score:4, Informative)
by markmoss on Friday November 30, @04:25PM (#2638547)
(User #301064 Info)
|
In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court heard arguments and ruled although the original case was moot (Roe wasn't pregnant anymore) long before it reached the SC. But there were several special circumstances. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. The SC understood that since it takes more than 9 months to get through the various lower courts, any particular woman's case was bound to be moot before they heard it. So they considered Roe as a representative of a class -- there was always _someone_ seeking an abortion. In addition, they consolidated Roe's case with that of Hallford, a doctor who would do more abortions if they were legal and hence didn't lose his standing in 9 months...
The SC doesn't want to decide hypothetical cases for two very good reasons. One is that most of the time the peculiar circumstances of a real case matter more than the abstract principles, so there is a likelyhood that a decision issued on a hypothetical case is likely to be too disconnected from reality. And the other thing is that historically many of the SC's worst rulings came from spewing about abstract principles that went far beyond the facts of the case at hand -- Dred Scott for instance.
On the other hand, the lack of a way to verify in advance that publishing a certain item is protected by the 1st amendment certainly does have a chilling effect on free speech... So is the prospect of having to pay lawyers a few $100K to defend you even when there is little doubt you'll win. Or maybe the problem isn't that asserting your constitutional rights is expensive and risky, but that writing and voting for unconstitutional laws poses no risk or expense for the legislators. Now, if we could have the sponsors of unconstitutional laws liable to pay the defense and other costs, and maybe behead any congressman who wrote 3 unconstitutional bills for treason against the constitution... But I think it would be a little hard to get that amendment through congress or state legislatures.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
- Re:Can't a judge strike down a bad law? by cpt kangarooski (Score:1) Friday November 30, @05:56PM
- Re:Reasonable ruling, I guess by jedidiah (Score:1) Friday November 30, @05:30PM
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Business as usual in the judicial system (Score:5, Insightful)
by Nurlman on Friday November 30, @02:08PM (#2637813)
(User #448649 Info)
|
But taking a look at the hearing might provide some insight into how the judicial system works. . . Normally, the judge might now take the case for decision, then some time later issue a written decision - instead, he decides (obviously he planned to do this in advance, since he has notes prepared) to render his decision in the case orally and immediately
Deciding a case from the bench isn't the norm, but it's definitely not ususual. Long before the oral argument, the parties file extensive written briefs setting forth arguments and case citations, and the Judge (or, more likely, his clerk) has already reviewed those submissions in detail. Many judges believe that oral arguments by the parties don't typically clarify the case beyond what's in the briefs, and thus, decide the case before oral argument even begins. (Some judges even have a full written decision ready before oral argument-- sounds like this judge did.)
The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all.
There's an old lawyer's addage that "easy cases make bad law." (Typical of the profession, there's also an addage that "hard cases make bad law," but let's ignore that one for the moment.) In other words, a judge faced with a situation where one party is clearly right, it's tempting to decide the case favorably to that party, even though the legal reasoning to get there is not the most sound. Here, there is no question that Felten was not subject to any continuing threat from the RIAA, and thus, there was no existing controversy. (The "chilling effect" argument was more interesting, but that goes to show you why easy cases make bad law.)
There's no question that Felten's case would have been far more effective a vehicle to challenge the DMCA if he had gone ahead and published the paper under the RIAA's threat, and then litigated the consequences (if any). But to put one's self in that position requires a martyrdom complex that Felten (and even Sklyrov) doesn't have.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
this is as bad as...... (Score:4, Interesting)
by the_2nd_coming on Friday November 30, @02:08PM (#2637814)
(User #444906 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
the 2600 case [osopinion.com] where Hollywood won.
how can these judges not see that the constitution is a growing entity. communication changes and so does the definition of speech.
just because the framers did not see computers or movies at the time does not make Digital/mass media a playground for first amendment abridgments.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
A jury of PEERS! (Score:2)
by Robber Baron on Friday November 30, @02:11PM (#2637829)
(User #112304 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Felten's case needs to be heard by a jury of his peers, ie: people that actually understand the technology!
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Next move (Score:5, Insightful)
by heikkile on Friday November 30, @02:12PM (#2637832)
(User #111814 Info | http://www.indexdata.dk)
|
Ok, since there is not - and has never been - any reason to suppress academic research, I openly invite Prof. Felten to study and publish matters realted to the encryption involved in Adobe's E-book reader and in the ways DVD's are protected, and in any other controversial case. After all, he seems to be the only one who has an explicit permission to speak freely on such matters!
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Next move by eries (Score:2) Friday November 30, @05:50PM
|
So the RIAA can nickle and dime you to death... (Score:2)
by Greyfox on Friday November 30, @02:14PM (#2637844)
(User #87712 Info | http://www.flying-rhenquest.net)
|
And then withdraw their threat after you hire a laywer. Eventually someone's going to file a SLAPP suit and make it stick. And you could make the argument, when that happens, that if damages don't represent a significant amount of the RIAA's yearly income, they will have no incentive not to continue with their tactics.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Wanted: Loveable hero for copyright battle (Score:5, Insightful)
by Seth Finkelstein on Friday November 30, @02:14PM (#2637845)
(User #90154 Info | http://sethf.com/)
|
Months ago, ZDNet had a great article on the "lovable hero" factor:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5082 221,00.html [zdnet.com]
Wanted: Loveable hero for copyright battle (excerpt)
Although free speech is supposed to protect expression made by
society's fringe elements as well as by the mainstream, public opinion
and even judges can be swayed by tales of mischievous crackers poised
to attack your computer.
"As soon as the judge says 'hacker,' you know you've lost," University
of Minnesota law Professor Dan Burk said. "There is an attempt to
paint defendants as unsympathetic, low-priority, on the fringe--to
make it seem like nobody respectable is going to be harmed except for
weird hacker types."
Sig:
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
What was not said.... (Score:2, Redundant)
by hrieke on Friday November 30, @02:17PM (#2637853)
(User #126185 Info | http://www.polsci.wv...ecream/icecream.html)
|
So, according to this judge, if I give away the program and not make a profit from it, and the program is designed to defeat DMCA/SDMI/DSS/etc, then it's legal.
Ye gods, what a world we live in.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Slightly Offtopic, but... (Score:1)
by cavemanf16 (<cavemanf16> <at> <yahoo.com>) on Friday November 30, @02:22PM (#2637880)
(User #303184 Info | http://www.marotti.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 06, @01:57AM)
|
My girlfriend is studying to be a lawyer right now, but knowing me, she's obviously got a lot of new understanding of why I think certain shitty laws that circumvent other laws should be abolished *cough* DMCA *cough*. IANAL, but hopefully someday in the next few years, I can be married to one, and we can go on a rampage kicking this crappy DMCA all over the map as it is simply trying to hold up progress so that the elite can squeeze just a little more money out of their antiquated way of doing things.
Those who can't deal with change, usually get steam-rolled by it sooner or later. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. There's lots more of truthful cliche sayings out there that DMCA lovers had better listen to.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
EFF's FAQ specifically on Felten case issues (Score:4, Informative)
by Seth Finkelstein on Friday November 30, @02:23PM (#2637884)
(User #90154 Info | http://sethf.com/)
|
Not in the specific
links above, but highly recommended reading, is
EFF's
Frequently Asked Questions about Felten & USENIX v. RIAA Legal Case [eff.org]
Particularly notable:
Q: What is EFF asking of the courts?
EFF is filing a Declaratory Judgment suit, meaning it is asking a
federal court to make a declaration of law. Since we represent the
plaintiffs, (the scientists and USENIX), we are asking the court to
declare that it is NOT a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) and is protected by the First Amendment for Professor
Edward Felten and his team to publish their scientific paper, "Reading
Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge", or discuss their
findings publicly at a USENIX Security Symposium in August.
Sig:
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Next time (Score:4, Insightful)
by the_2nd_coming on Friday November 30, @02:25PM (#2637892)
(User #444906 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
next time Felton needs to ignore letters and keep going untill the RIAA or the MPAA sues him. then they can not deny that they intended to follow through with the threat since they brought him to court. his case will be much stronger.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Code == Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
by GrEp (crb002 AT iastate DOT edu) on Friday November 30, @02:27PM (#2637900)
(User #89884 Info | http://www.public.iastate.edu/~crb002)
|
I can see how the judge threw out the case aginast RIAA/SMDI party because a lack of evidence that harm would come to the plaintiffs, but I totaly disagree about his reasonings for mootnes on the part of the Justice Dept. Code was not equated with writing/speech, so the sale of the professor's works to Scientific American would have not have been a criminal violation of the DMCA.
The best way to get rid of the DMCA and a bunch of other BS that gets passed through congress is to pass one single law. The law would state: "Machine readable encodings are legaly equivalent to human readable text."
As a direct consequence the DMCA would be in violation of the 1st ammendment. Any patents on software would be voided because text to the best of my knowlage is only copywritable, not patentable. The headache of stupid digital legislation would hopefully be behind us.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
20-20 Hindsight (Score:4, Funny)
by Hostile17 on Friday November 30, @02:27PM (#2637902)
(User #415334 Info)
|
What Felton should have done is write the RIAA back saying "BLOW ME" and published the paper. This would have forced the RIAA to either sue him or loose thier ability to to sue anyone for the same issue. As it stands, we have lost a chance to get a constitutional ruling on the DMCA and the RIAA has lost nothing. I beleive he and the EFF mishandled this case.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Moot point? (Score:2)
by DaoudaW on Friday November 30, @02:28PM (#2637904)
(User #533025 Info)
|
"This judge apparently believes that the fact that hundreds of scientists are currently afraid to publish their work and that scientific conferences are relocating overseas isn't a problem," noted Robin Gross, EFF Intellectual Property Attorney. The real issue here is the definition of moot. In the case of Felten, it is a moot point. He won the battle to publish his findings. Perhaps the EFF hadn't defined their case broadly enough to include the hundreds of scientists who are currently stifled by similar threats. Since I'm not privy to the briefs, thats pure speculation. But remember, judges don't act out of conscience or their own belief system, but rather based on their perceptions of the law and the merits of the case as presented by the lawyers. The judge may well see merit in the case that the lawyers didn't adequately present, but they may not act on that! It seems prima facie that EFF and Felten have an important case. Lets hope they can cross all their Ts and dot all their Is during the appeal process.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
by DarkZero on Friday November 30, @02:31PM (#2637914)
(User #516460 Info)
|
This article really opened my eyes. It made me realize something important. Slashdot and 2600 always paint a grim, horrible picture of judges, telling us that they decided after only twenty-five minutes of debate, that they're always completely uninformed, etcetera. But in this case, Felten, the EFF, and their vocal supporters like Slashdot and 2600 are the ones who are wrong. The RIAA is clearly an evil organization. They and their cohorts like Disney and the MPAA even make open statements about how privacy laws are an obstacle to their profits. There's no question that they are evil. But judges have to take cases, at least for the most part, on an action-by-action basis. In this case, the RIAA did something clearly evil (threatening Felten), but they then rectified it. All speculation about their motives aside, they DID rectify it, for whatever reason. Yet after they rectify it, Felten and the EFF try to go after the RIAA in an attempt to get a fully illegal and immoral immunity from prosecution, despite the lack of an ongoing controversy or action on the RIAA's part. If it were the RIAA asking the courts for the right never to be sued by scientific researchers or the EFF, all of us would've said that their actions were illegal, immoral, and just plain ridiculous. But when scientific researchers and the EFF ask the courts for the right never to be seued by the RIAA, we hail it as a wonderful thing and call its rejection a blow against freedom. That's just ridiculous. I fully believe that the RIAA and the DMCA are evil, and that Felten should not be stopped from publishing his work. But the RIAA deserves their right to sue, just like we have the right to sue them. Felten's attempts to get immunity against being sued by the RIAA is playing dirty and going even below their level, because by asking for a right not to be sued, Felten was trying to take away the RIAA's freedom to sue people that may legitimately wrong them. While some may call this flamebait, I just think that this is one of those instances where we were wrong. This case wasn't a fight for freedom. It was a fight to take away the freedoms of others because we don't like what they're doing and the way they use their rights. Isn't that exactly what the RIAA has been trying to do to us? Just because your opponent fights dirty doesn't mean that it isn't wrong for you to do the same.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by Seth Finkelstein (Score:2) Friday November 30, @02:45PM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by O2n (Score:1) Friday November 30, @02:52PM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by trubbles (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:53PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by evilpaul13 (Score:1) Friday November 30, @04:04PM
- the problem is by geekoid (Score:2) Friday November 30, @04:09PM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by AbsoluteRelativity (Score:1) Friday November 30, @04:22PM
- Rectify it??? Not hardly!! by HiThere (Score:2) Friday November 30, @06:06PM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by Kalkin (Score:1) Friday November 30, @06:22PM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by Banjonardo (Score:1) Saturday December 01, @12:47AM
- Re:Legally, WE'RE the ones who are wrong. by benb (Score:1) Saturday December 01, @01:29AM
|
Regarding a law's constitutionality (Score:2)
by poot_rootbeer on Friday November 30, @02:36PM (#2637941)
(User #188613 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
...proceeding further would be "pre-enforcement review", which is not permitted.
This doesn't make any sense to me. No one should EVER be prosecuted under a law that is unconstitutional in nature.
Presumably it's the legislature's responsibility to make sure the laws they pass meet the conditions of constitutionality, but examples like the DMCA demonstrate that they're clearly not doing a very good job of that.
The courts should be reviewing every law that's passed BEFORE it goes into effect. We shouldn't have to tear any Skylarovs away from their families and let them fester in jail while the constitutionality questions surrounding the law they were imprisoned under get hammered out.
-Poot
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Re:Regarding a law's constitutionality (Score:4, Insightful)
by Brian See (bsee.columbus@rr@com) on Friday November 30, @03:03PM (#2638089)
(User #11276 Info)
|
The courts should be reviewing every law that's passed BEFORE it goes into effect.
...and people complain about crowded courts now.
For better or worse, there's a presumption that Congress passes laws that are constitutional. As much as we might be upset by "bad" laws, do you really want to clog up the courts that way?
Who would be the party in interest? If you REQUIRE court review, you'll have to pay someone. Private attorneys? Sign me up, sounds like subsidies for bored litigators. Note that you can't use the Justice Department, since they're the ones that would have to defend the law.
Who's gonna stand up and challenge (in court) the constitutionality of laws establishing the George W. Bush presidential library, or national broccoli month?
While there are often doozies (like the DMCA, or the law outlawing flag burning) that are (arguably) unconstitutional "on their face", many of the laws that are ruled unconstitutional are ruled so because they're unconstitutional "as applied" to a particular plaintiff.
There's also that little troubling thing in the Constitution about Federal courts only having jurisdiction over actual "cases and controversies", but enough ink is being spilled over that issue with regard to the Felten case.
Your rant makes for a nice position on talk radio or for fist-pounding on the table, but if you think things through, it's nearly impossible to implement.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Those who pass them should be punished by Quila (Score:2) Monday December 03, @05:02AM
- Re:Regarding a law's constitutionality by ethereal (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:40PM
- 2 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Time to go back for my degree... (Score:3, Interesting)
by JoeShmoe (askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com) on Friday November 30, @02:39PM (#2637951)
(User #90109 Info | http://www.new.net/)
|
Does anyone else seem to get a sense that in the not-so-distant future the only people who will be allowed to access, examine, copy, quote, share and distribute information will be teachers?
Can I show a movie to a bunch of strangers? No, that constitutes a "public performance" and I would get fined for it. But can teachers show a movie to their class? Apparently they can.
Can I put an a clip from a TV show on my webpage and point out why it's so particularly funny? No, that's illegal copyright infringement and lawyers would have me take it down. But can teachers put a clip from a TV show on their webserver and ask the class to write a ten page paper on the message? Apparently they can.
Can I disassemble an encryption format and post the result for others to examine and duplicate? No, that's a DMCA violation and the FBI would be after me. But can teachers disassemble an encryption format and post an in-depth analysis of how it works (or doesn't work)? Apparently they can.
I could go on, but it seems to me that in the coming years, I might want to think about moving towards "Education" as an excuse for information exchange.
Don't have a warez group. Have a "copy protection analysis and discussion" group. Don't have a TVRip group. Have a "Pop culture examination and analysis" group.
I mean, who's an authority on something? Who is a teacher except someone who can explain concepts to those who do not yet know them?
If Felten seems to enjoy some magical protection, in the eyes of the court, why can't any other teacher? Why can't I become a teacher and enjoy the same protection?
- JoeShmoe
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Doesn't this fit the definition of terrorism? (Score:1)
by WillSeattle on Friday November 30, @02:40PM (#2637962)
(User #239206 Info | http://www.gonetolunch.com/)
|
Seriously, let's think this thru. RIAA took an action against a specific professor, intending to cow any other educational research of it's illigitimate copy protection methods.
They succeeded in creating terror. Now, even though they "made whole" the professor, no other university or college will permit their researchers from investigating the watermarking techniques, as they will be dragged into court and subjected to aspersions against their institution.
This is what terrorists do. They get people scared it will happen to them.
Thus, RIAA is akin to the Taliban. They try to say "Forget 9-11", but we know they will keep attacking us.
And the judge fails to understand that RIAA should be charged as a terrorist organization threatening the peace and prosperity of American researchers.
-
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Debate at CMU (Score:1)
by DeathB (adamp@nOSpAM.ece.cmu.edu) on Friday November 30, @02:46PM (#2637986)
(User #10047 Info | http://coed.org/)
|
Somewhat related debate at CMU [cmu.edu] today between Touretzky and Shamos, who testified on opposite sides of the MPAA vs Reimerdes court cases. A CS department page on the debate [cmu.edu] is up, and it is in progress right now to a packed auditorium. Both of these men are Carnegie Mellon professors, and the debate has been punctuated by slides such as "this slide is illegal" and "you are one click away from destroying the motion picture industry...
Click here to continue"
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
At least DOJ is telling us what they want. (Score:1)
by Medievalist on Friday November 30, @02:53PM (#2638018)
(User #16032 Info)
|
This DOJ filing [eff.org] seems to be saying "put a label on it that says RESEARCH USE ONLY, keep your nose clean, and you are protected from the DMCA." Which is pretty much the best face you can possibly put on such ill advised legislation.
--Charlie
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Implications from this (Score:2, Insightful)
by GreenCrackBaby on Friday November 30, @02:55PM (#2638042)
(User #203293 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
So RIAA threatens to sue under DCMA if Felton publishes his research. This scares Felton and he doesn't publish. Doesn't appreciate the threat so he sues. RIAA withdraws "threat". Court says, "Well, there is no threat now, so case dismissed."
Here's the implications:
RIAA threatens to sue under DCMA if continues to . gets scared and stops . sues. RIAA withdraws threat. Case dismissed.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Please people read the decision before complaining (Score:2)
by aozilla on Friday November 30, @02:57PM (#2638049)
(User #133143 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
The very factors that made Felten a "good" subject for a civil liberties case allowed the judge to rule that there wasn't a case at all. Both the Justice Department and the RIAA prefer to have their test cases with suitably unsavory defendants - Russian pirates and shady hacker magazines are much preferred over all-American Princeton professors.
Did you ever consider that the reason they prefer a test case with Dmitry rather than Felton is because Dmitry broke the law and Felton did not? I said it before the case and I'll say it again. Felton lacks standing and the case was made moot when the RIAA withdrew the threat.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Fucking half-wit (Score:2)
by Legion303 ({legion} {at} {dimensional.com}) on Friday November 30, @02:57PM (#2638051)
(User #97901 Info | http://www.copkiller.org/)
|
The plaintiffs are not "manufacturing", according to the judge; nor are they offering their code for sale. The judge segues to what he sees as deficiencies in the plaintiff's legal complaint - they did not assert they planned to fully violate the criminal sections of the DMCA, mainly their assertions were that the Act is unclear and vague. Finally he closes - the plaintiffs must have an "objectively reasonable fear" of prosecution in order for the required legal conflict to exist, and the judge sees no such objectively reasonable fear.
I guess he missed that whole DeCSS thing.
With this ruling there seems to be a precedent for making DeCSS available again without fear of being legally assraped by the RIAA. Are there any legal-types who want to speculate on this?
-Legion
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
I hope... (Score:1)
by Eccles (slashdot dot org at belltower dot org) on Friday November 30, @03:14PM (#2638139)
(User #932 Info)
|
I just hope the RIAA has made enough of an enemy (in Felton) that he's up for pushing the issue, i.e., preparing more publications they won't like and publishing them anyway if threatened.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Man, is that ruling ever ridiculous... (Score:2, Interesting)
by saint10 on Friday November 30, @03:18PM (#2638153)
(User #248611 Info)
|
Only if these judges actually knew what was really going on. They state the primary reason the DeCSS source isnt free speech is due to the fact that it does not need a "human component" to be functional. They make analogies to recipies and blueprints, as follows:
The Appellants vigorously reject the idea that computer code can be regulated according to any different standard than that applicable to pure speech, i.e., speech that lacks a nonspeech component. Although recognizing that code is a series of instructions to a computer, they argue that code is no different, for First Amendment purposes, than blueprints that instruct an engineer or recipes that instruct a cook. See Supplemental Brief for Appellants at 2, 3.27 We disagree. Unlike a blueprint or a recipe, which cannot yield any functional result without human comprehension of its content, human decision-making, and human action, computer code can instantly cause a computer to accomplish tasks and instantly render the results of those tasks available throughout the world via the Internet. The only human action required to achieve these results can be as limited and instantaneous as a single click of a mouse.
This makes no sense whatsoever! So, if non-humans (computers, machines, robots, etc.) can execute a particular element of free speech without human intervention, the constitution doesnt apply! Commands by any non-human arent covered by free speech.... this is horrible.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Juuuussst brilliant... (Score:1)
by A_Non_Moose on Friday November 30, @03:20PM (#2638164)
(User #413034 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday January 05, @01:42AM)
|
Insufficient evidence of harm, eh?
A C&D letter (a legal threat, essentially) is insufficient?
So, I suppose a Bomb threat poses insufficient evidence of harm as well? If it is *just a threat* and *no on is hurt*...that is insufficient evidence of harm.
A threat, is a threat, is a threat.
So, perhaps we should send a Cease and Desist letter to the RIMPASS's (riaa/mpaa ass.'s, if you missed the joke) telling them to stop breathing...and actually have it sent from the EFF's law offices.
Say that thier lungs are a circumvention device that converts our precious Oxygen into a deadly device called Carbon Dioxide, that could potentially kill a human being and not a facimilie that they seem to be (hey? is a lawyer imitating a human being a copyright violation? Is he/she real or are they Memorex?).
These and other fine synaptic misfires are brought to you by:
Moose (reguards, youse guys)
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Equal protection under the law (Score:1)
by dfenstrate (mgregory@cisunix.unh.edu) on Friday November 30, @03:25PM (#2638189)
(User #202098 Info | http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy | Last Journal: Monday February 11, @01:30PM)
|
It seems to me that when the judge made the distinction between Felten and Skylarov, he violated one of the tenets of the constitution- equal protection under the law. Laws and punishment should be based on action, not intent. Basically, he ruled that it's legal to give away what is illegal to sell... kinda reminds me of prostitution, incidentally....
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
This isnt exactly a surprise. (Score:2, Informative)
by debolaz on Friday November 30, @03:27PM (#2638197)
(User #526572 Info | http://www.debolaz.com/)
|
We all know any attempts to fight the DMCA or the RIAA (the product and the producer) has, is and will continue to be a waste of time. Why? Who knows, maybe every judge can be bought, maybe they just dont realise what they're talking about. My point is that this isnt news. We all knew exactly what would and will continue to happend in all similar cases.
Now, im not a US citizen, neither do I plan to visit the US, so im not worried about the DMCA or the RIAA. What I am worried about is that this is sending a message out to other governments and other organizations saying that buying laws is ok. Keeping people in jail for insane reasons is ok. Threatening to slap lawsuits on someone that doesnt obey you 100% is ok. Evidently, it is ok.
I agree with Alan in censoring security changes. He makes a very valid point. The problem isnt wheter someone will slap a lawsuit on you. The problem is wheter someone CAN slap a lawsuit on you.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
800 lb (Score:1)
by fishebulb on Friday November 30, @03:34PM (#2638230)
(User #257214 Info)
|
i guess an 800 lb guerrilla can threaten people. If felten was threatened to be sued by some yutz on the street, not a big deal. But when a powerful lobby and monopoly threatens someone its a bit different.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
In Theory (Score:2)
by NumberSyx on Friday November 30, @03:34PM (#2638232)
(User #130129 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 20, @04:08AM)
|
In theory, I could setup a Non Profit organization, which provides grants and a place for "Researchers" to pubish thier findings. Say I charge a $1 processing fee, I give a $1 grant for research and provide a Website for publication of the research. I very carefully place a "FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY" disclaimer at the top of every article. Now these Hackers have protection from the DMCA, based on the presedent of this court case.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:In Theory by Jeremiah (Score:1) Friday November 30, @03:55PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Bad legal advice (Score:3, Funny)
by swm (swmcd@world.std.com) on Friday November 30, @03:38PM (#2638250)
(User #171547 Info | http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/)
|
So it appears that the position of the judge is that Felton received bad legal advice from Princeton University's lawyers.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
More hypocracy in the government (Score:1)
by Hari_Seldon on Friday November 30, @04:02PM (#2638422)
(User #13869 Info)
|
"He notes that the courts are required to avoid Constitutional questions if at all possible."
Okay, I know this is a paraphrase, but correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the courts supposed to interpret the law to make sure that it holds to the constitution, thus provoking constitutional questions?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Cary Sherman penalized (Score:2, Funny)
by thumbtack (thumbtack@juno.com) on Friday November 30, @04:05PM (#2638438)
(User #445103 Info | http://www.boycott-riaa.com/)
|
Rumor has that Cary Sherman and the RIAA were penalized 15 yards for taunting after the decision.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
A Heinlein moment: (Score:2, Interesting)
by Rob Bos (rbos@sandwich.net) on Friday November 30, @06:25PM (#2639140)
(User #3399 Info | http://tunafish.sandwich.net)
|
"Before we leave this matter I wish to comment on the theory implied by you, Mr. Weems, when you claimed damage to your client. There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common
law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come in to court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
--Robert A. Heinlein, "Life-line"
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Re:Good writeup (Score:1)
by slow_flight on Friday November 30, @02:20PM (#2637863)
(User #518010 Info)
|
Really? Some one can threaten to beat the crap out of me with a big stick, and that's not illegal?? If that's true, it kinda sucks.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Re:The courts aren't going to help you (Score:2)
by dillon_rinker (dillonunderscorerinkerathotmaildotcom) on Friday November 30, @02:49PM (#2638000)
(User #17944 Info | http://slashdot.org)
|
The problem here is that it's perfectly legal for large corporations to strong-arm the little guy with threatening letters, and subsequently fail to follow through with the threat.
It is legal for roughly the same reasons that few children are ever punished for threatening to tell (as in "ohm, I'm gonna tell...you're gonna get in in truhhhh-ble!") mom, the teacher, etc. It is also legal to threaten to call the cops in a situations that aren't criminal. Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that one side has an overwhelming legal advantage in cases like this.
I see this as being a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. Individuals who are threatened by major corporations fold rather than fight the battle that would prevent the corp from similarly threatening other individuals. The corp then goes on to threaten other individuals, who behave likewise. One, or a few, who stood up and fought would stop such behavior. Unfortunately, people prefer convenience to honor.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Re:The courts aren't going to help you (Score:1)
by nerdlyone on Friday November 30, @03:02PM (#2638077)
(User #539405 Info)
|
_____"The problem here is that it's perfectly legal for large corporations to strong-arm the little guy with threatening letters, and subsequently fail to follow through with the threat. "_____
This is true. You can't get into trouble for threatening to sue someone. You sound like this is a bad thing. While I think bullying with threatened lawsuits is a bad thing, I have two points to make.
First, the lawyer who wrote that threatening letter could, if he misrepresented his client's legal position (or anything else in the letter) be subject to sanctions. It isn't technically "illegal", but a lawyer cannot lie about things like thatunder most states' ethics rules. If the lawyer could not make a straight face argument that he had a viable suit, then he can't threaten someone that he has a viable suit. (Note a caveat here--making a straight face argument is very easy to do, so this isn't much of a hurdle.)
Second, think of what would have to happen to prevent a corporate entity from sending threatening letters like this. What exactly was the plaintiff asking the judge to do? I don't know, I only read the excellent summary of the hearing, but I do think that any remedy against the corporation would be onerous under those facts. To say that they did something actionable could mean that anyone who sends a letter claiming a legal right (and threatening to sue) will be forced to follow through. That would apply not only to the corporation, but also to me and you when we write to Orbitz saying, "You breached our contract for the ticket I purchased...." Orbitz can tell us we are wrong, then sue us if we don't sue them because we "threatened" them. That is essentially what it sounds like the plaintiff was asking for: punish them for threatening to enforce what they think are their legal rights against me.
Again, I have not read the papers. IIAL.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| 21 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
 |
|
|
Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers.
-- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
|
[
home |
awards |
contribute story |
older articles |
OSDN |
advertise |
self serve ad system |
about |
terms of service |
privacy |
faq ]
|
|