Federal Judge Questions Validity of RIAA Arguments

Atlantic Records, et al., brought suit against Christopher Brennan just over a year ago. Brennan failed to respond to the complaint, never appearing in court to answer the copyright infringement charges. After an entry of default was entered on August 6, 2007, the RIAA moved the court for a default judgment, which Judge Janet Bond Arterton denied in a ruling earlier this month.

In order to obtain a default judgment, three factors have to be satisfied. First, the default needs to be willful. In so many words, the default has to arise out of the inexcusable neglect of the defendant. Second, there cannot be a "meritorious defense" available to the defendant—a defense that is sufficient, "even if not 'ultimately persuasive.'" Last, the plaintiffs need to be prejudiced if the default is not granted.

The judge had harsh words for the RIAA's argument that making files available on KaZaA equates to copyright infringement. "At least one aspect of Plaintiffs’' distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on 'making the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others."

RIAA fails again to get default judgment in uncontested case

The RIAA has once again been admonished in Federal court for trying to present vague "evidence" to support their claims of infringement. The judge in this case also left the door open to once again leave questions about the constitutionality of the excessive awards demanded in these cases while offering no proof of actual damages. It's not an unreasonable request to have the plaintiff in any litigation to prove the damages actually incurred. The mere act of "making available" as opposed to actual distribution of copyrighted files has been the lynchpin of the RIAA arguments in many cases. It's refreshing to have yet another judge in the federal court system question the merits of this ridiculous argument. If one thinks about it logically, how can you ask for a judgement well in excess of any real damages when you offer no proof the actual act of sharing ever occurred?

The judge in this case also admonished the RIAA for using a "boilerplate" complaint that was vague in it's details. The RIAA afterward, said they would be filing a brief to further clarify their position as they had done in other cases. This legal maneuver is an attempt by RIAA attorneys to give as little information as possible to the court in the hopes that they will get a judgement without ever presenting their flimsy evidence for further scrutiny. One would think that the courts will tire of this shady practice and continue to dismiss their claims as unsubstantiated. It would also be prudent for the court to deny acceptance of any brief filed after the fact. Watch closely to this case as it appears that it may end in another defeat for the RIAA and bring us one step closer to the end of these ridiculous lawsuits and awards.

MIT Panel Trashes Comcast's Network Management

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Comcast has confessed to slowing down certain peer-to-peer file-sharing traffic, but is it being clear enough about what it's doing?
That's perhaps the key question that emerged by the end of a lengthy public forum convened by the Federal Communications Commission on Monday here at Harvard Law School.
While none of the FCC commissioners was willing to solidify an answer to that just yet, two MIT computer scientists on an afternoon panel accused the cable company of behaving badly on multiple levels.

As most readers of this blog know by now, I am in full support of net neutrality. While one has to understand the concept of the need to "manage" network traffic, it is incredibly naive to think even for a second that how to do this should be left to the sole discretion of the ISP's. The internet has flourished thus far as a communication medium that is unfettered by government interference. The ISP's were exstatic that they now had a whole new revenue stream to tap into and they gladly made the investment necessary to profit greatly from it.

With the advent of VOIP, video, bit torrent etc..., the internet has outgrown it's infancy stage and has reached the point of being a young adolesent. The ISP's should have seen this coming when the net was in its toddler stage, but they chose to favor immediate profits over long term viability. They've now come to a point where the existing infrastructure can't keep up with the demand needed for today's services. The ISP's seem to want to punish the consumer for their bad business choices. This stone age mentality seems to mirror the strategy of one of my other "favorite" subjects, the RIAA. Businesses that are unwilling to change, because they refuse to make necessary investments, should not be coddled by the government or further supported by the public.

Net pioneers trash Comcast's P2P traffic treatment Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Gut The FCC, So We Can Rip Off Consumers More Easily!

Policy analyst Randolph J. May says the Federal Communications Commission should make needed market reforms to communications policy.

I'm not sure giving providers free reign to dictate content and pricing for what travels on their networks is a good idea. Take for instance, the other day, when the 3 major carriers came out (within hours of eachother)and all announced $99 unlimited plans. Where's the competition there? How does this collusion benefit the consumer? This is not the market dictating the cost at all, and probably cries for closer scutiny. If the services offered here in the US (some people are still only offered dial-up internet) are years behind the technology offered in developing nations, why should we be deregulating the industry? If a person in Micronesia is getting broadband at 5 times the speeds offered here, at 3 times a cheaper cost, it doesn't make sense to deregulate the industry until these companies prove they've built the infrastructure to support the users beyond a level of third world countries.These companies have made huge profits and made marginal investments on the backs of consumers for years. They need to pony up before we take off the training wheels!

Read More On This Self-Serving Blather Here

digg this story

These Dudes Are Out of Their Minds!

Check out this video of crazy bastards that can fly...sort of.

I'm pretty brave, and I say that I'll try anything once, but I think I'd have to pass on this one.

Will the Automotive X-Prize Be Won By The Air Car?

A company named Zero Pollution Motors plans on bringing a car powered by air to the U.S. sometime in 2009 or 2010. The six pistons in the Air Car's engine are pushed by compressed air rather than gasoline combustion, an idea developed by F1 race car engineer Guy Negre.

Air Powered Car Coming to the US

The company claims it's vehicle will get 106mpg and have a top speed of 96mph. It also boasts of zero emissions. The gasoline portion of the system is used to run the onboard compressor that refills the air tanks while driving and produces half the emissions of the Toyota Prius (the current cleanest production hybrid). The vehicle can also be "recharged in about 4 hours using a standard electrical outlet and uses about $2 worth of electricity. The cars air tanks can be filled with an external compressor commonly found in most service stations in about 4 minutes. The tanks themselves are made of a carbon fiber that makes them strong enough to hold the high pressure needed to run the vehicle. In the case of an accident, the tanks will crack instead of exploding like traditional metal compressed air tanks. Thus proving to be a very safe technology for the user.

The company has recently raised $20 million dollars in venture capitol from the India based automaker Tata Motors. This gives it the significant funding needed to enter the highly competitive US car market. The estimated price for the base model is around $18,000. When coupled with the amazing fuel economy, this vehicle appears to be well within the reach of most consumers.

The following video is from an Australian television show called "Beyond Tommorrow" that featured the amazing "Air Car". The second portion of the video features an Australian inventor who has also come up with an incredible invention he calls the "rotary air engine". This amazing engine can be held in your hands, yet produces an incredible amount of power. Is air power the solution to our dependence on fossil fuels and the answer for greatly reduced emmissions? Perhaps, but could they make this technology run in something that isn't so butt-ass ugly?

Industrial Hemp Bill Moves To The Vermont Senate

On Thursday, February 7th, the Vermont House of Representatives passed the Hemp for Vermont bill, with overwhelming support. The vote was 127 to 9! The bill will now pass on to the Vermont Senate where one would expect it will pass. If you would like to read the bill in its present iteration, you can read it at the Hemp Saves the World blog.

I'm glad to see some common sense eminating from Montpelier. This bill paves the way for another business opportunity other than tourism. Our climate is excellent for the production of industrial hemp. Look at how good the non-industrial variety has been grown here...(lol).
The more diversity in agribusiness we have, the better off our economy will be. Once again, Vermonters have the gumption to directly thumb their collective noses at ridiculous Federal regulations. Three cheers for the legislature! I wonder what the opinion of our Congressional delegation in Washington is? Will they support the legislature? Where does the Chamber of Commerce stand on this?
It should be an interesting State vs The Feds battle. My guess is that the Bush DOJ will take the fight to the Federal courts and other Federal agencies will threaten to cut funding. They'll do anything they can get away with to bolster their support of the so-called "war on drugs". George washington and Thomas Jefferson (both hemp farmers) will be rolling in their graves....

U.S. Court Wields the Censorship Hammer on Wikileaks

Wikileaks, a website that has brought to light many scandalous acts by giving whistleblowers a forum to expose wrong doing anonomously, has been ordered by US District Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California to display blank pages and goes even further by barring them from redirecting traffic to offshore servers. It also bars them from transfering ownership of the domain name wikileaks.org. Once again, a Bush appointed judge has over-extended the government's conrtrol over our essential freedoms. If ever there were any doubt about our Constitution being under attack, this would be a shining example.

Wikileaks was founded in 2006 by people from a host of countries, including the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa. It has generated headlines by hosting documents exposing several high-profile scandals, including those related to the collapse of the UK's Northern Rock bank and to prisons in Iraq and and Guantanamo Bay. The site says it has posted more than 1.2 million documents.

In the case in dispute, Wikileaks claimed a bank located in the Cayman Islands engaged in money laundering and tax evasion. The latest agreement came in a lawsuit brought by Bank Julius Baer, the parent company of the accused Cayman bank. After trying unsuccessfully to get Wikileaks to remove the documents, Swiss-based Julius Baer went after Dynadot, the California web hosting company, which according to this copy of the court order, agreed to roll over in exchange for the suit against it being dismissed. Dynadot also agreed to turn over records related to Wikileaks, including "IP addresses and associated data used by any person, other than Dynadot, who accessed the account for the domain name". Wikileaks claims that it is an "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis". But this is true only if its webhosts can be trusted not to pull the plug on its customers or divulge sensitive client information.

Wikileaks lawyers were given only a few hours notice of this latest hearing, and amazingly the judge allowed the hearing to proceed and issued the injunction without hearing any counter-claim from Wikileaks lawyers. One would hope that this type of shotgun injunction will be overturned on appeal based on the patent unfairness of the proceedings. It would also appear that the court is engaging in what amounts to Government sanctioned censorship. It all is a fascinating story to follow.

Wikileaks has also been banned in China and Thailand. Apparently they have pissed off many rich and powerful people around the world. It will be interesting how this plays out in the U.S. courts, as I'm sure this is only round number one. Stay tuned for more on this one.....

Wikileaks.org under injunction - Wikileaks
(you may get a certificate error from this link, but it is safe to follow)

This is the main site: (hosted outside of the U.S. of course)

https://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks
(you may get a certificate error from this link, but it is safe to follow)