The case is being heard in New York Southern District Court, which would fall to the 2nd Disctrict for Appeals.

...
*Sigh* No I couldn't. I'm a member. I've posted this to the forum. I've agreed to indemnify TLC/LL from all claims. In other words, I'd be suing myself. And TLC/LL would be within their rights to ban me from the forums.Ah, so that line of bolded is the linchpin, is it? It's not that you're advocating copyright reform, you're advocating the abolition of copyright. That's something I cannot support.

So I think that the $4 billion number is a lot of bologna sandwich. It may be true under the text of DMCA, I don't know.

What we see is a 'hypothetical' situation of a person who, if one applies copyright laws in the narrowest of terms, stringently, and unfairly, "might" rack up that price in a years' time. Not that every individual DOES any such thing. That's a totel misrepresentation of facts.

...
Well, being a lawyer doesn't exempt John Tehranian from the status of a "whack job". Indeed, his Rube Goldberg-esque demonstation of momumental infringement by the hapless imaginary average citizen would not make it into court in America. It would not pass the de minimis standard. And many of the examples Tehranian proffers aren't infringement at all. It was, as I suspected, theoretical silliness. That $4 billion dollar figure is NOT true. It's a hypothetical joke told by Tehranian to make his point. You may buy into it, but I see it as undermining his point.

...
Hmmm. So, a listener justifies illegal downloading by saying that artists are being ripped off by their producers so the listener should rip them off too. Copyright infringement based on guessing where the artist's best interest lies is a very dubious marketing strategy. And where did you get the idea that all of the money for concert tickets and t-shirt sales goes to the band?
...
Ummm. I don't see how buying used CDs supports the artists.

P.S.--As far as I'm aware, there is no piracy involved in the buying or selling of used CDs or books. Under ordinary property law, once you own an object (a car, a rock, a dress, or a book), you can do anything you want with it, as long as you don't infringe copyright. You can always sell anything you own. The purpose of copyright is to make sure no one sells things they do not own (hence that clause in Steve's contract with RDR stating that he owned all the necessary rights in the book).

When breaking the law becomes an everyday ocurence, people begin to loose respect for those laws.

All told, <Judy> Brown was responsible for compiling 19 of the joke books, all of which were little more than a collection and repackaging of the comics' acts—or as the original lawsuit put it, "no more than alphabetizing original works."

In addition to the stand-ups themselves, NBC got in on the litigation act against Andrews McMeel Publishing, Sterling Publishing and Rowman & Littlefield, as any stolen joke of Leno's is a stolen joke of theirs. Any comic yarn spun by the host on The Tonight Show qualifies as the studio's property, and each episode since 1992 has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

I actually take a bit of offence in the claim that "they don't realize the impact it has on the musicians and artists they claim to be fans of." The fact is that I am well aware of the impact my piracy is having on the artist. The fact is that musicians have never made much money off selling CD's. In fact, musicians (at least those that are signed with big lables) get between 1 and 2 cents for every dollar spent on the iTunes music store (iTunes take 30%, most of which goes to pay costs, and the rest goes to the studios). The fact is that the major profit center for bands has always been the tickets and merch.

This is one of the big reasons I don't use iTunes (that and DRM), I know that most of the money isn't going to the band. I would much rather pirate the music and save my money and spend it on a concert and a t-shirt (all of which go to the band). I am perfectly fine paying for music when I know that the money will go to the artist (case in point: I just dropped $70 on line for all the songs availible online from a certain unsigned artist who will pocket all the money (and all the songs are CC licensed), and I bought a ticket to his concert too). In fact, my roommate is a dirty pirate just like me and I am looking over at his stack of about $50 of used CD's from Rasputin's (a used CD store). So don't tell me that just because we steal means that we don't support the artists, we just don't put up with BS.

So, anyone who says that downloading something for free is no big deal, tell that to Sarah and all the other people who have lost their jobs because someone got their song or eBook on Kazza (is Kazza still even around?) or another free file sharing sight.


Now that I probably made a fool of myself I'm going back into hiding.

I think it is dangerous to have a strict selection policy in place, because to me, that sounds a lot like censorship.

So, anyone who says that downloading something for free is no big deal, tell that to Sarah and all the other people who have lost their jobs because someone got their song or eBook on Kazza (is Kazza still even around?) or another free file sharing (site).

Now that I probably made a fool of myself I'm going back into hiding.

Shows how much I pay attention, but there was another high-profile copyright infringement case [though not JKR/WB] that was settled in January. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that's already been talked about at length, but I just came across the article.

[...]John checks his email [...]he has set his mail browser to automatically
reproduce the text to which he is responding in any email he drafts. Each
unauthorized reproduction of someone else's copyrighted text—their email—
represents a separate act of brazen infringement, [...]the twenty reply and forward emails sent by John have exposed him to $3 million in statutory damages.

[..] John attends his Constitutional Law class, where he distributes copies of three just-published Internet articles presenting analyses of a Supreme Court decision handed down only hours ago. [...]

[...]Doodling on his notepad [...]he finds himself thinking of Frank Gehry's early sketches for the Bilbao Guggenheim as he draws [...] an unauthorized derivative of a copyrighted architectural rendering.

[...]He has assigned e.e. cumming's 1931
poem i sing of Olaf glad and big to the students.[...]
he reads the poem in its entirety, thereby engaging in an unauthorized public
performance [...].

[...]he remembers to email his family five photographs of
the Utes football game [...]. His friend had taken the photographs. And while she had given him the prints, ownership of the physical
work and its underlying intellectual property are not tied together. [...]

[...]John takes his daily swim [...] revealing a Captain Caveman
tattoo on his right shoulder. Not only did he violate Hanna-Barbera's copyright
when he got the tattoo—after all, it is an unauthorized reproduction of a
copyrighted work—he has now engaged in a unauthorized public display of the
animated character. [...]

[...] John attends a restaurant dinner celebrating a friend's birthday.
[...] he joins the other guests in singing "Happy Birthday."[...]
his video footage [...] clearly documents the art work
hanging on the wall behind [...]

[...]John checks his mailbox[...] he subscribes. The 'zine, named Found, is a
nationally distributed quarterly that collects and catalogues curious notes,
drawings, and other items of interest that readers find lying in city streets, public
transportation, and other random places[...] a magazine
containing the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public display of fifty
copyrighted notes and drawings[...]subjects John to secondary liability in the amount of $7.5 million.

I think that is a very instructive way to look at this. What of the lexicon book is copyrightable?

If authors of preexisting works retain copyright to their materials within derivative works, what then is left of the lexicon book after you take away the previously copyrighted materials?

Steve did admit in his declaration to the court that about 40% of the book was written by Lexicon volunteers in their work for the website.

Judge Patterson also has a copy of Steve's contract with RDR, in which he claims to own all the required rights to publish the book.

Shows how much I pay attention, but there was another high-profile copyright infringement case [though not JKR/WB] that was settled in January. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that's already been talked about at length, but I just came across the article.



It seemed particularly pertinent to this situation, considering this is exactly what RDR/SVA have done in regards to Rowling's work.

Actually, I'd argue that people who knowingly break the law on an everyday occurance had no respect for the law to begin with.

The legal precedent offered for this opening infringement is the famous case involving JD Salinger's personal and unpublished letters which had been made the core of a biography. It would be difficult to equate the publication of a book by Random House to sending an email to Jane Doe. Furthermore, including a copy of the original email in a reply to its author does not constitute infringement. In truth, Tehranian did not offer any lawsuit that involved email for this paragraph. And the figure of $3 million is based on maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the 20 emails. Since this is highly unlikely and, even if an email was forwarded when it shouldn't have, one is probably looking at a fine of $200 to $1000 based on actual court awards.
...
Well, this is a clear case of copyright infringement. And, as a Professor at the Univ of Utah, John should know better. And it is more likely that the university would be found liable and not John. But, again, the damages award aren't likely to be the maximum. However, it would depend on what the terms of each internet website were and whether the entire articles were copied, etc. Each university has a proper procedure for securing rights of this kind and, of course, John could just as easily have emailed each site and requested permission. Or, alternatively, copied an excerpt from each site and provided his students with the URL link.
...
Sorry, wrong again. The work is, no doubt, contained in an assigned text. The reading aloud of the text does not constitute a "public performance" in the legal sense of the phrase and the mere existence of the permitted text negates this interpretation... However, again, the likelihood of maximum statutory damages would be slim even in that case as an actual fee wouldn't likely be more than $200.
...
And so, at the end of the day, John finds himself not owing $12.45 million. Instead, he might be threatened with a lawsuit for one or two thousand. But the courts would want to know that a C&D letter had been issued, that he had refused to comply, and that the infringement had persisted. Alas, the potential plaintiffs would be looking at legal fees in excess of the possible damages to be awarded. And so, no, I don't think John is in much danger of anything but a few angry letters and perhaps a reprimand from the university for not following protocol.

But what if you have to break the law in order to do everyday things? The law should be based on societal norms, not the other way around.