Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Music

Submission + - Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous", Decision S

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has rejected the arguments made by the RIAA in support of its "reconsideration" motion in Capitol v. Foster as "disingenuous" and "not true", and accused the RIAA of "questionable motives". In the decision (pdf), reaffirming his earlier decision that defendant Debbie Foster's is entitled to be reimbursed for her attorneys fees, the Court, among other things, emphasized the Supreme Court's holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. that "because copyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works, it is peculiarly important that the boundaries of copyright law be demarcated as clearly as possible. Thus, a defendant seeking to advance meritorious copyright defenses should be encouraged to litigate them to the same extent that plaintiffs are encouraged to litigate meritorious infringement claims." Judge West also noted that he had found the RIAA's claims against the defendant to be "untested and marginal" and its "motives to be questionable in light of the facts of the case"; that the RIAA's primary argument for its motion — that the earlier decision had failed to list the "Fogerty factors" — was belied by unpublished opinions in which the RIAA had itself been involved; that the RIAA's argument that it could have proved a case against Ms. Foster had it not dropped the case was "disingenuous"; and that the RIAA's factual statements about the settlement history of the case were "not true". This is the same case in which an amicus brief had been filed by the ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, AALL, and ACLU-Oklahoma in support of the attorneys fees motion, the RIAA questioned the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's lawyer's fees and was then ordered to turn over its own attorneys billing records, which ruling it complied with only reluctantly."
Music

Submission + - Does DRM Enable Online Music Innovation?

Submitted by chia_monkey
chia_monkey writes: Here's an interesting article on "Does DRM Enable Online Music Innovation?" from Tech Law Forum that looks "at the range of legitimate online music distributors to see just how much the presence or lack of DRM affected business models." It's a rather interesting read as the author breaks down seven online music stores (iTunes, Napster, Yahoo! Music, Zune, eMusic, Amie Street, and Magnatune...four of which use DRM and three that don't). The article mainly focuses on the ownership and "renting" of the music (which can be seen with the "buy the condo downtown" and "rent a mansion in the slums" analogies) and how it applies to innovation and perceived business models.

The numbers don't lie...price-per-download is the clean winner while DRM-based models also take the lead. Will the market shift toward subscription based models in the future or DRM go the way of the dodo bird (as Steve Jobs has already proclaimed his preference for)?
The Courts

Submission + - Bloggers Immune From Suits Against Commenters

Submitted by
An anonymous reader writes: Suppose a commenter posts a libelous comment here at Slashdot. Can Slashdot and its leadership be sued for defamation? A federal appeals court just held that no, they cannot. The court noted that a federal law was designed to ensure that "within broad limits, message board operators would not be held responsible for the postings made by others on that board," adding that, were the law otherwise, it would have a "obvious chilling effect" on blogger speech.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.

Close