Rich Fiscus
13 Aug 2008 6:34
Ray Beckerman, the high profile defense attorney who has spent countless hours battling RIAA lawyers in New York, has recently posted some advice to other defense attorneys on his blog, Recording Industry vs. The People. In light of the recent trend of judicial skepticism about RIAA claims he suggests that a good offense may be the best defense right now.
In particular the RIAA has been spending a lot of time defending their "making available" argument, where they claim that simply sharing files is enough to qualify as copyright infringement. MediaSentry, the firm that finds alleged copyright infringers for them and gathers the information used to get initial subpoenas is also under fire.
With all that in mind Mr. Beckerman is doing his best to help put together an effective strategy against the RIAA. In his August 12 blog post he said "this would be an excellent time to take MediaSentry's deposition, and find out where the truth lies."
He also gives a number of examples that show the corner the RIAA has backed themselves into. The briefs he links to for examples paint a clear picture of the arguments labels have been making for years now. Those same claims, by the way, are what judges are finally ruling on - and shooting down of course.
Perhaps the most striking thing about these cases is the arrogance of the RIAA, whose attorneys go so far as to call MediaSentry their investigator in one brief while claiming in another (in the same case) that "MediaSentry’s actions are analogous to a private citizen going to a public library and reading materials in the library’s collection."
That same brief also cites an opinion by the New York Attorney General on the requirements for licensing which specifically exempts patent infringement investigators working for attorneys. It then argues that copyright investigation is equally exempt.
Setting aside for the moment that patent infringement is a very different matter than copyright, just as patent attorneys are so different from others that they have their own bar exam, it turns out the opinion cited was from 1919, and not even based on current laws.
The question that comes immediately to mind is this. If the RIAA's arguments are so clearly in line with both written and case law why do they have to reach so far to prove it?