lawyer Ira Schwartz, Nov. 19, 1996 memories, etc. (was: Re: [...] RIAA document)

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 11:32 -0700, Mike Schwartz wrote:
> On 1/6/08, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 23:10 -0700, der.hans wrote:
> >
> > > That's why I suggested we try to help Howell. I don't support illegally
> > > sharing copyrighted works. I also don't support large corporations
> > > with deep pockets suing people into oblivion. I especially don't
> > > support the big companies if they're using that case to try to cause me
> > > problems. Trying to curtail fair use is definitely something that causes
> > > me problems.
> > ----
> > The issues that we are discussing and were brought to the fore by the
> > various media outlets such as the Washington Post article by Mark Fisher
> > are not the issues that are of specific use to Howell. It is at the very
> > best, an issue to potentially mitigate the damages but he has already
> > conceded the points of the plaintiff.
> >
> > Curiously, plaintiff's claims for a reduced burden of proof came after
> > the simultaneous award for plaintiffs in Capitol vs Thomas and this
> > court request for briefings in preparation for oral arguments...
> >
> > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071003OrderDirectingFurtherBriefingof4Questions
> >
> > and comically, the parties were given a week to submit briefs on the
> > matter and Howell, pro se, probably could have had 4 months and it
> > wouldn't have made a difference.
> >
> > In their supplemental brief for summary judgment, plaintiff makes
> > specific reference to the reduced burden of proof established by Capitol
> > vs Thomas and this specifically relates to fair use.
> >
> > The NPR 'Talk of the Nation' show (which I've been unable to play on
> > Linux...I might have to switch over to Windows to hear it), clearly has
> > Sherman of the RIAA incapable of issuing a blanket statement that it is
> > legal to rip a copy of a CD that you own to your hard drive. RIAA's
> > current position is that they and they alone are the arbiter of what
> > constitutes fair use and while the courts have yet to fully weigh in,
> > it's evident that when you've been selected as their next train wreck,
> > like Howell, the distinction of what constitutes fair use is not going
> > to stop the train that is coming your way at full bore. According to Roy
> > Beckerman, lawyer defending several RIAA targets, this is no accident
> > but rather the deliberate attempt by plaintiff (RIAA) to establish
> > precedent and thereby codify their view of fair use.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 
> "So far", this has been a very interesting thread.
> I haven't followed (read) "all" of the links to outside interesting web pages,
> but I did check out
>     http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=401886&threshold=0&commentsort=5&mode=flat&cid=21859278
> a little bit, and it has a link to
>    http://web.archive.org/web/20070516072606/http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp
> which I found very interesting.
>    HOWEVER, the main reason I am writing now, is that I noticed
> that der.hans picked up on something about the lawyer Ira Schwartz.
> (**NOTE**: no relation to me, as far as I know).
>    It's just that, a lawyer named Ira M. Schwartz (probably the same guy)
> came and spoke to the Phoenix Chapter ACM (which I was the treasurer
> of "at the time) on Tues., Nov. 19, 1996.   (The meeting was also jointly
> sponsored by the Phoenix Chapter of the IEEE Computer Society, and
> I think also a SPIN group too). Ira Schwartz had been invited to speak by
> the chairperson of the chapter, Tony Rizzo.  The topic of his talk was
>     "Software and the law"
> and the meeting was held at DeVry [2149 W Dunlap] and I can tell
> you (I was there) that the presentation was very interesting.  I would even
> say, fascinating.  Also, the speaker seemed to be knowledgeable and
> sorta "able to see both sides" on a very wide range of issues.  Many of the
> issues he mentioned seemed to me, to be of the kind that strikes one as,
> "hey, that is really interesting, I haven't really thought about / realized some
> of that before, (but I probably should have!)".
>      A few days ago (probably 01Jan2008) I e-mailed Tony, to ask him whether
> this lawyer (mentioned in this case) was the same guy.  I still have some
> copies (paper) of the Newsletter that was mailed out announcing the meeting,
> [hence the amount of specific details included above, way more than
>    my "off hand" recollection would have probably been limited to]
> and it says that, at the time, Ira M. Schwartz was
>      << "the managing attorney for Schwartz & Associates,
>             which emphasizes intellectual property law.
>             [...]  Schwartz is [1996] a frequent lecturer on copyright
>             and computer law topics, [...]" >>.
> I may also have at least one electronic copy of that newsletter (probably in
> an MS-word format "older than Word 97!") lying around somewhere...
> -- I'd have to check, and so far I am too lazy --
> so that will have to remain a definite "maybe".
>      Per his prompt e-mail reply, Tony Rizzo apparently hasn't kept in touch
> with that lawyer / speaker (and - hey - it has been over 11 years), so he was
> not sure whether this (the lawyer mentioned in this thread) is the same guy.
> But I think he was local (living somewhere in the valley) at least, at
> that time
> [1996] so I think it is probably the same lawyer.
>     Just thought this was interesting...
> (even though - as far as I know - this lawyer Ira Schwartz is no
> relation to me).
----
#1 - I previously provided links to the slashdot article about the 'old'
archived RIAA statements about fair use. That link however, is not the
position of the RIAA today.

#2 - It's clear that your Ira Schwartz and the attorney for the
plaintiff RIAA v. Howell are one and the
same...http://www.deconcinimcdonald.com/attorneys/schwartz.html

#3 - Clearly you weren't using an up to date version of Microsoft Word
2003 or Word 2007 to open that old document because you would have been
prevented from doing that (sanitized for your protection). I hope that
you didn't violate Microsoft's intellectual property by using a
non-Microsoft program to open that file.

Next time you run into Ira, you might want to inquire if he sleeps well
at night knowing that he earns his living by beating up citizens that
can't afford representation. At least in this instance, it was neither
an old lady nor a young kid but it appears that he did RIAA proud and
would likely get more opportunities to build on this distinguished
activity.

Good to know that he isn't a relative but I recognize that all families
have their 'black sheep' - First hand proof that you can steal more
money with a pen than with a gun.

Craig