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

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric and all,

  I could not agree more, and well said as well!  >:)

  As you recognize, as do I, the RIAA and the MPAA have yet
to recognize such a consideration and really well recognized truth.
And still they must do as they can to insure the rule of law, yet
seem not to recognize the sprit of same.  They seek use the rule
of law and often times common reason that is self recognized for
purposes the law is, and was never intended.  Such a concept
and practice must always be stood up against in sprit, word, and
deed.  And so the RIAA's strategy often than not fails as there
are those of us still in the hallowed halls of justice and faith that
stand opposed staunchly and righteously that seeking to control
all or any forms of expression to the disadvantage of the many
cannot and will not stand!  So to pursue otherwise is just simply
silly...

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>
> Jeff, Some times I must look over my shoulder searching for what I
  missed when I find myself in general agreement with you. As with my
  allegory of Constance I hope my sarcasm is not lost in translation as
  it were. What is at stake here is huge. We must respect and protect
  innovaters and artists and provide them safety when sharing their
  creations with us. We must strive to create environments where the
  human creativity and hardwork is appropriately rewarded and revered.
  We must be careful stewards and archivists of the power of human
  thought as expressed in any medium. Renovation, amendment, parody,
  education and improvement are part of civilized growth in society.
  They must be equally protected and promoted and given safety to
  flourish. (where I grew up are the largest{save Alaska} natural
  preserves and parks in the world, here we show our respect and
  adoration of things natural and pure, and we call this the public
  domain) We must do nothing less with things intellectual and uniquely
  human. There must be ever increasing areas that are accepted and
  protected for the public to play with, duplicate, admire and be
  inspired by. We are at a time in our history where the creative Public
  Domain must be expanded and not contracted.

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

       From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
       Subject: Re: [ga] More RIAA nonsense: RIAA Walks Away From
       Another "Discovery"Case
       To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
       Cc: "Ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "icann board"
       <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Policy staff"
       <policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, "twomey@xxxxxxxxx"
       <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>, "Ray Beckerman"
       <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "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, 7:55 PM


       Eric and all,

         Thanks for the history lesson.  But I was already aware.  No, not
       annoyed at all at the gamesmanship.  Rather I find most of it
       as you indicate, mostly a waste of time, effort, and basically silly.
       Power grabbing tactics of this sort serve no good long term purpose
       IMO, but do provide an object lesson or series of lessons that
       unfortunately are repeated for the purposes to educate the ignorant,
       while at the same time seek to inflate egos and than fail to some
       degree and in many respects of the player of this merry-go-round
       comic/tragic relief using the courts as their stage...  >:)

         Frankly so far this law firm that is the RIAA's primary legal
       advisors, should go back to ambulance chasing, or traffic
       violation representation as they are certainly way out of their
       league in this area of legal practice...  Humility also doesn't
       seem to be part of their personality profiles either...  But as
       with most large law firm legal pros I've known, this is not
       at all unusual, but often times counter productive when faced
       with determined opposition.

         As you know or should know, Copywrite, Trademark, and
       IP patent law is now in a huge mess all over the world, the US
       not withstanding.  But the use of harassing tactics is getting far
       less acceptable, and the RIAA as well as their legal eagles
       are having trouble getting this message properly, as is the IPC.
       Ergo it would seem wise and prudent for the RIAA to rethink
       soon and the IPC to either give them the boot, or restructure
       significantly and reevaluate their strategy especially given their
       poor to nearly nonexistent trial court victories along with significant
       loss of $$ for their clients...  >:)

         Additionally, ICANN would be wise to eliminate the IPC all
       together within the GNSO as it's existence clearly is beyond it's
       MOU mandate or at least has morphed beyond same...

       Hugh Dierker wrote:

       >
       > 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

       >

>
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