Slashdot Mirror

Just read the last page of the PDF document.

Let's all pray that the recording and subsequent broadcastings will be a success.

Ah, but as the RIAA would have us believe, making available is indeed a crime.

I was just reading NYCL's article on this whole situation
http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenselessHTMLVERSION.htm

and it seems to me that the RIAA lawyes have come up with a scheme that brazenly uses the legal system to threaten people (nothing new there) but ALSO that the legal system has tacitly gone along with it. The "old boys club" of judges has decided that it's OK for these dirty pirating scum to be hammered through their courts, because they are so sneaky that there is no other way.

To the older generation, copyright infringement like this seems very wrong and the fact that the internet allows it to be done anonymously, with no easy trackdown, also seems wrong and perverted.

So basically they have allowed the RIAA to jam some wedges into the court system and use it to get those naughty infringers.

If they were not at least partially comfortable with the RIAA doing this, surely, they would have close it down long ago, because the whole process is surpremely dodgy.

Personally, in this situation, I'd actually grab a copy of any contract, call NYCL's office, explain the situation, and ask for a quote. His contributions on here have shown me that he probably knows enough to give you the *right* answer, and in a very minimal amount of time. You might even get the Slashdot referral bonus.

....But that's just me, and this is Slashdot.

There already many cases where this has occurred. Lindor, Anderson, Foster to name a few. However these people that actually persevered in court had to spend years and tens of thousands in legal fees to clear their name. Add to that the documented cases where the RIAA sued people who didn't have computers, dead people, etc. Most people I suspected just paid the fine instead going through the whole ordeal. While it may not be successful, the discovery process may unearth what we have long suspected: The RIAA does not adequately investigates someone before suing them, does not dismiss lawsuits when it appears that they may have erred, and will continue to abuse the legal system in this way.

Well according to this guy their investigative methods are untested, have never been accepted in the scientific community, have never been published, were not subjected to peer review, are completely secret, and ... he invented them himself, out of his own head. And according to this guy the "instructions and parameters" for the investigations were given to the investigators by the lawyers.

So why wouldn't you think the RIAA's investigation is reliable, UnknowingFool?

I think the key point is here:
A motion for sanctions under [] shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

It's a safe harbor clause for lawyers. You have to warn someone that you believe they have committed a rule 11 violation and then give them three weeks to fix it (or however long the court specifically resets the time limit to). It is only a rule 11 violation if they refuse to withdraw/correct it. I'm guessing that he has served (or soon will serve) them with such notice.

It's frustrating for us that NYCL isn't directly commenting on this issue here, but as we well know from the SCO case you're not supposed to go running around publishing legal accusations against the other side during a court case - if you a have a legal claim then you make it in court. Sometimes making such public statements is illegal, and other other times such statements are just a dumbass move that can come back and bite you in the ass in the courtroom.

The response NYCL filed directly asserts on page 18 that they "committed a most serious violation of Rule 11", so I expect we'll be hearing more about this soon. Ohhh.... I'm guessing probably the next 21 days or so :)

-

Personal interests

-Recreational distance runner from 5k to half marathon; beginner level student of Kung Fu.

http://beckermanlegal.com/attorney_profile

Or, rather, the memo in support of the motion. I think "vexatious litigation" may be going too far, and there's certainly plenty of irony. On the other hand, the RIAA's allegations don't look, prima faci, very outrageous.

Thanks for the support. The RIAA's motion is frivolous, and I will be responding to it in short order. The responsive papers are due October 13th.

It's just an obvious attempt on their part to weasel out of their liability for attorneys fees, after torturing this innocent woman for the past 3 years.

Some folks have indicated an interest in contributing financially.

Anyone who wants to contribute to Ms. Lindor can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to the Expert Witness Defense Fund, which helps people like Ms. Lindor with hiring experts and tech consultants can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to me, to help me with the work I do in my blogging and getting the word out, can do so here. Another way to help out my blog is to make purchases through the affiliate ads I post on the blog. (If there are products or services you're looking for that aren't represented there, let me know, and I'll try to get affiliate ads posted for them.

Here is my post providing the details of the accusations.

The RIAA's litigation campaign is in its death throes, as are the 4 big record companies who are behind it. I guess this is the way dying hyenas act, they lash out. Not to worry, they will still lose.

This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.

With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case once in possession of the desired name. Putting Safenet under the spotlight puts their methods directly in question, and offers the chance to expose a part of the RIAA's own methodology that seems to much harder to achieve when directly dealing with the RIAA's suits and actions.

All the same, criminal charges against Safenet for what they are doing specifically with technology and information might have unintended, negative consequences. Is the push to prosecute Safenet being put specifically into terms of it's actions as agent in the RIAA cases?

Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal. All normal things that legitimate software might do. Safenet hands that information over to the RIAA, and the RIAA of course misuses that.

Without being clear on the Michigan law, is it the last step, the releasing of that information to a client with the knowledge that it's going to be used in litigation, what specifically defines it as computer forensics and requires an investigator's license?

Sarah Palin is not a libertarian

Correct, but perhaps she's a libertine.

Here is where she stands on technology.

I'm not attacking you here. I'm not attacking YouTube here. Hell, I'm not even really attacking Viacom. I'm criticizing our Justice Department in several regards. Don't take this personally!

I didn't. And I know you didn't take my disagreement with you personally either. I'm a big fan of yours. I just love a good argument.

I don't mean to say our justice system is perfect. Far from it, I've recently been quite critical of the way the RIAA cases are being handled, and made 15 specific suggestions on how the federal judiciary could improve its track record and provide a more level playing field. But I will tell you that in the big cases -- where the party litigating with the content-maniacs is a corporation which has the resources to get good lawyering -- the results have not been so terrible. And even in the RIAA cases, where the defendants are invariably overmatched, the judges are starting to wake up to the fraud that has been perpetrated on them.

By the way, if you think Io v. Veoh didn't worry Viacom, why do you think they requested permission to submit an amicus curiae brief in support of Io? The judge denied their request (PDF), but no doubt read the brief and heard everything Viacom, and its lawyers, had to say. I don't think he was impressed.

Viacom can say whatever it wants to say in its press releases. But I don't think Judge Stanton will be even remotely impressed. He will want to know why they tied up his docket, when they had nothing.

Just because its in the contract doesn't make it legal.

Just because it's legal it does not mean you can enforce it.

Just because it isn't legal doesn't mean you can't enforce it. Ref: http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenseless.pdf/

I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.

Thanks very much for your kind words.

In response to your question,

-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;

-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;

-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;

if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;

if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.

Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.

I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.

Thanks very much for your kind words.

In response to your question,

-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;

-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;

-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;

if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;

if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.

Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.

I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.

Thanks very much for your kind words.

In response to your question,

-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;

-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;

-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;

if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;

if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.

Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.

I had typed a response to this but I think slashdot ate it. I think it went something like this: You are an exceptional person and I greatly admire the continued commitment you have to the cause. I am not of the opinion that all lawyers are sleezeballs or anything like that and the phrase was meant to amuse as it typically does here though I suppose they'd be Maine country lawyers. Either way, you seem to be an exception in many ways. That you take the time to fight the case is not exceptional, there are a lot of great lawyers out there. That you ALSO take the time to update us, to keep us aware of the problems, and give us hope is above and beyond what I'd expect of anyone in any field. I did have a question: Does your client, if you can say, have a homepage or anything where they accept donations to assist them with their legal fund? As the first comment (hell both really) didn't suit properly I'll add that, in short (or really long actually), I truly appreciate the information you're sharing with us and thank you greatly for the time you take to keep us in the loop.

Thanks very much for your kind words.

In response to your question,

-you can contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense fund by PayPal here, or by sending it to my firm and indicating that it's for Marie Lindor;

-you can contribute to the expert witness defense fund here;

-you can contribute to the legal defense funds of Tenise Barker, Joan Cassin, and/or Victor Torres, or to my blog, by making payment to my firm and indicating which defendant it's for;

if you want to contribute to a defendant being represented by another firm, I assume you can send payment to that firm and indicate which case it's earmarked for;

if you want to contribute to my blog you can send the payment to my firm, indicating it's a general contribution to the work of the law blog.

Also you can help support our work by patronizing the advertisers on Recording Industry vs. The People. We frequently have "affiliate ads" listed in the sidebar. If there are particular products or types of products you would be interested in, email me and I'll try to get advertisers of those products.

A friend who wishes to remain anonymous has been kind enough to furnish me with an HTML version of the article, which is now available here

If you'd like to read the actual decision. (PDF)

Nahhhh... my site wasn't down. Internet Law & Regulation, which hosts many of the *pdf litigation documents, was working on some problem with its servers. In the interim, I was taking the documents and hosting them on my own law firm web site. I'm delighted to report, by the way, that ILR straightened out its problem, and all the litigation documents are working fine now.

Why was the above post moderated "Interesting"? I don't understand. Did its author RTFA? Here was my "comment on the merit of this request", within the constraint of a 3-page page limit.

I.e., the plaintiffs' "request" is pure, unadulterated falsehood... it is one lie after another.

Mr. Beckerman (or other attorneys familiar with this case and the relevent law), can you comment on the merit of this request?

I've read the plaintiff's letter and to the lay-person it reads pretty reasonably. In effect, "We can't prove our case because the plaintiffs lied, hid evidence, and generally didn't cooperate to the extent required by law".

I'm sure the plaintiffs are putting the facts of the case in the most favorable possible light to avoid a "with prejudice" dismissal. But without seeing/hearing the actual testimony it's difficult to judge just how overt the defendents actions were, and to what extent the plaintiffs persual of this case had actual merit - i.e. how justified it was and, therefore, to what extent a prejudicial decision might or might not be warranted.