Re: [ga] More RIAA nonsense: RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
 
You seem annoyed at the gamesmanship of the Copywrite and Trademark arena. 
Perhaps you suffer from a very modernistic view and have no historic 
perspective.
Modern "Western" concepts of ownership of symbols and words really can be 
traced back to around 381ish AD. Just a little place named Nicea. Seems up 
until then you could go around using a symbol willy nilly. And therefor it did 
you little good. 
 
Well along comes this Imperialistic megalomaniac, for fun let us call him 
Constantine. Let us make the symbol a cross. Let us call the Court that got to 
make the decision as to who got rights to the cross, either the council of 
Nicea or the Nicene Council. Well deciding who had the power and right to use 
the cross was easy. The Council of Course. How they came to that conclusion had 
some minor details like "was it devine or was the author who made it famous 
devine?" Well in the end they licensed the highest bidder, Constantine to use 
it.
 
You see it was not the cross that made this guy, it was his righteous claim of 
use that forever changed the world. The council that decided was not that 
important, the due process they used was not that important. It was everyone's 
agreement or acquiescence that old Constance had the right that was important.
 
So whether or not RIAA wins or loses a battle is not important, or how they go 
about doing it is not important. What is important is that we recognize through 
agreement or acquiescence that they have the right to fight the battle under 
the banner of righteousness.

--- On Sun, 1/18/09, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] More RIAA nonsense: RIAA Walks Away From Another "Discovery" Case
To: "Ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "icann board" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN 
Policy staff" <policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, "twomey@xxxxxxxxx" <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>, 
"Ray Beckerman" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "GAC Rep" <ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep" 
<aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Admin supp. Manager Karen Lettner" 
<karen.lettner@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Dan Halloran" <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN 
Kim Davies" <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx>, "icann legal" <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN 
Marc Salvatierra" <marc.salvatierra@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Marilyn Vernon" 
<marilyn.vernon@xxxxxxxxx>, "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, January 18, 2009, 7:20 AM

All,

  Well here we go again.  Seems ICANN's IPC member, the
ever stupefying RIAA decides it can't win so just drops the
case...  But was able to at least scare two John Does into
paying ransom.  >:(

  Ray, I think that the RIAA is still going to do some night crawling
for awhile longer...  What is baffling to me is why ICANN's
IPC still keeps the RIAA AND the MPAA around...  Maybe
their hoping for ACTA to give them some traction, or the new
administration with their two choices for the IP division at
DOJ to do same?

See:
 http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ NewYorkCountryLawyer
writes "You may recall that the RIAA
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/14/015210&tid=123 walked
away last week from one of their 'discovery' cases seeking the
identities of 'John Does' who attended Rhode Island College. We 
have just learned that
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#3600307732730029650
they walked away from another one, BMG Music v. 
Does 1-14, in Greensboro, North Carolina. 2 of the 14 John Does had
settled, but the other 12 who hung tough will never be identified to the
RIAA lawyers and will not have to pay any 'settlement.' This adds fuel 
to the debate over whether the RIAA has finally
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18199 seen the light or is still 
sneaking around in the dark."

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827