RIAA v Howell cleanup

[Craig White]

Thinking about der.Hans idea of helping Jeffery Howell (his final brief
was due today and there will be a hearing/oral arguments Jan. 24). Not
that I really believe that there's much we can do and wondering if this
isn't just self-aggrandizing but...

We send a public letter to the judge (copy on our web site and notices
to interested bloggers, news media ) - stating...

0. Case is controversial, local, and significant
1. We are offering our opinions as a friend to the court
2. We are PLUG...(short description)
3. We have enthusiastically discussed the issues of Atlantic v. Howell
4. Our discussions are archived and public - URL
5. None of us are lawyers, paralegals, interested parties, have met any
of the parties to the controversy (Michael Schwartz cannot sign since he
met Ira Schwartz)
6. We are aware of Federal Trade Commission report that clearly states
that users of Kazaa software are often unaware that Kazaa software
locates and shares music files. Plaintiff is party to that report (see
comments) and is likewise aware. URL
7. We are aware that associate counsel for Plaintiff has made statements
regarding the legality of users making digital copies of music that they
legally own under oath only to be disavowed by president of RIAA on
national radio (URL)
8. Plaintiff has unclean hands
9. Plaintiff is unfairly exploiting confusion over that which
constitutes legal fair use and actions that infringe the rights of their
clients.
10. Despite all pleadings in this case, there is no way to discern which
activities constituted infringement and a finding for the plaintiff will
not provide additional clarity.
11. PLUG members feel harmed by the failure of plaintiff, RIAA to
clearly state which activities are legal and which activities constitute
infringement and feel unfairly nervous that they could befall the same
fate.

That's sort of it, in very brief form.

Keep it short, to the point, minimal legalese.

Feel free to rip it up, if there's interest, we can expound on it.

Interesting things to discuss surrounding this case...

Washington Post retracted (this will make Chris happy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403607_2.html

Wired refutes retraction...
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-still-thin.html

New article today, Wired
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-believes-m.html

Satire on subject
http://www.newstarget.com/z022437.html

Craig