Slashdot Mirror

You know...after being validated by someone who actually knows the law, I'm hesitant to keep talking, in case I get something wrong now :)

Here is a primer on the RIAA's legal tactics, that Ray Beckerman wrote.

The only "notice" the "John Does" get is a vague letter from their ISP, along with copies of an ex parte discovery order and a subpoena, indicating that an order has already been granted against them: i.e., instead of receiving notice that the RIAA is applying for an order, they instead are notified that they have already lost the motion, without ever even having known of its existence.

They are not given copies of (i) the summons and complaint, (ii) the papers upon which the Court granted the ex parte discovery order, or (iii) the court rules needed to defend themselves, all of which are normally provided to defendants in federal lawsuits. Most recipients of this "notice" do not even realize that it means that there is a lawsuit against them. None of the recipients of the "notice" have any idea what they are being sued for, or what basis the Court had for granting the ex parte discovery order and for allowing the RIAA to obtain a subpoena.

That is just the first part, where the RIAA establishes that you are tied to a particular IP address. It gets worse from there :)

The Fonovisa court ordered the RIAA to cease its practice of joining "John Does". The RIAA, however, has continued the practice. We are not aware of any contempt motions having been made yet.

Like I said earlier, I consider their tactics to be an abuse of the legal system for a few reasons, but I know I currently lack the nuanced understanding necessary to make the argument properly (your honor, I'm just a caveman...). But that last quotation appears pretty damning, doesn't it?

I know that Tanya Andersen tried to bring a class action suit against them. It was partially dismissed, but at the time it was reported that they were being accused of racketeering.

If there's a chance any counterclaims might stick, they pull out of the suit immediately. Only one case has actually come in front of a jury, and in that case the jury was instructed that infringement can occur without downloading.

I don't consider copyright on the whole to be unenforceable (though like many here I think the term lengths have grown beyond what is reasonable). These cases are of a special type, where the evidence against the person is really evidence against an IP address, and where the actual infringement is often hypothetical. OTOH, in this case you may be right since (AFAIK) the RIAA's agents downloading a song from you doesn't prove unauthorized distribution, since it's their song to begin with.

The other story was about ways to DoS the Great Firewall of China from outside. You can, in theory, overload the content filter parts. If they're too busy to forge RST packets (or they don't forge them in time), that part of the Great Firewall won't work. You can also create false positives. So you can send packets containing banned content into China to create false positives (and tell that it's working by watching for forged RSTs). And you can reflect it by using OS bugs that sometimes reply with parts of the original packet (e.g. pings), which could allow you to create millions of false positives for them to investigate. Unlike most things, those allow outsiders to interfere, who have no worry about being arrested by the Chinese government. Of course, they would adapt things to filter them out, but hopefully that would accidentally create more openings in it by filtering out too much, creating new opportunities.

Those might even work, so I hope someone follows up on them :) Note that I wrote them all as I Believe in Irrational Property instead of I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property. Here they are:

RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy

In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

Microsoft Seeks Partnership With IKEA

After being spurned by Yahoo, Microsoft is seeking to acquire the furniture maker IKEA. Microsoft's Ballmer was quoted as saying, 'They have many assets I can use for leverage in pursuit of future acquisitions.' The deal appeared to get off to a bit of a rough start when Ballmer's tour of one of their factories was cut short after what authorities are describing as a 'bizarre furniture-related mishap,' in which three VPs who opposed to the deal were hospitalized. Authorities are not releasing many details, but one officer made the cryptic comment that, 'I didn't think even Bob Goatse could do that with a chair.' Even so, inside reports indicate that the remaining company officers are now 'very eager' to finalize the deal.

SCO Lawsuit Was Really "Performance Art"

SCO's D

I wish NYCL were here right now. I know he has all that stuff on his site... somewhere.

Here's what I was able to dig up:

* RIAA Lawsuits UMG v. Lindor Index
* April 12th report (this is the long one)
* Another one
* Original declaration (this was the first one, IIRC)
-----
* NYCL's index
* Deposition transcript

If NYCL shows up and contradicts me on any point, listen to him, not me. He's MUCH better than I am at keeping track of all these crazy lawsuits.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

In a completely OT note, if someone posts this before me, it's because I have to wait an hour or more between posts. This is one of the few things I regret about submitting without an account.

I wish NYCL were here right now. I know he has all that stuff on his site... somewhere.

Here's what I was able to dig up:

* RIAA Lawsuits UMG v. Lindor Index
* April 12th report (this is the long one)
* Another one
* Original declaration (this was the first one, IIRC)
-----
* NYCL's index
* Deposition transcript

If NYCL shows up and contradicts me on any point, listen to him, not me. He's MUCH better than I am at keeping track of all these crazy lawsuits.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

In a completely OT note, if someone posts this before me, it's because I have to wait an hour or more between posts. This is one of the few things I regret about submitting without an account.

An article was just posted yesterday; here's the main link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1723253

A direct link to the deposition is here:
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/umg_lindor_070223JacobsonDepositionTranscript.txt

Warning: It's long, but inherently pornographic in nature as the "expert" witness isn't wearing any clothes by the end of it. Enjoy!

How the RIAA Litigation Process Works

There's also an excellent overview of this here, entitled: The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits.

IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):

"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."

Finally, here's another article that Ray has put together, on a Directory of Lawyers Defending Against RIAA Lawsuits

I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.

How the RIAA Litigation Process Works

There's also an excellent overview of this here, entitled: The RIAA vs. John Doe, a layperson's guide to filesharing lawsuits.

IMHO, these should be required reading for anyone who is hit by these lawsuits. If you want the real condensed version, it is this (from the second link):

"The best advice if you are sued by the RIAA is to quickly retain a lawyer who has some experience dealing with RIAA cases. Having knowledgeable council early on won't stop the process from being difficult, but can give you a better chance of protecting your rights."

Finally, here's another article that Ray has put together, on a Directory of Lawyers Defending Against RIAA Lawsuits

I got the latter from the second article. I have no idea if there are defensive legal strategies that any students can employ before they get a letter from the RIAA, but it would be interesting and useful if a skilled lawyer could make the University think twice before just bending over for the RIAA.

I'm actually aware there are 50 separate state bars, but haven't there also been multiple cases in some states? And to further demonstrate my admitted naivete of legal matters I have more questions.

I thought many of these cases had been brought in federal courts? I'm aware of there being separate jurisdictions, but I would hope courts also aren't unaware of decisions that occur in other jurisdictions. My question is why the courts haven't seemed to notice the recurring pattern of behavior that you describe in your blog in How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.

At least to people like myself who only see a small fraction of the high profile cases that get posted on sites like Slashdot, it's a little dumbfounding that behaviors such as the John Doe cases and ex parte discovery motions (with little supporting evidence) are even being entertained let alone granted.

Ohio University is being asked to turn over confidential information that it is legally forbidden to turn over except pursuant to a (a) court order, (b) based on evidence that would be admissible at trial, (c) sufficient to establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement against each person whose information is being sought.

Ohio University owes a duty to its students to force the RIAA to make such a showing before it releases any information.

In 2004 the RIAA was forbidden by a federal court to join different John Does in a single lawsuit. The RIAA has been regularly ignoring that order.

The university has a duty to make sure that that order has not been violated.

The RIAA has a legal obligation to bring proceedings on prior notice, rather than ex parte, whenever it is possible to do so.

The university has an obligation to request of the Court that it make sure the students receive prior notice of the RIAA's motion, rather than find out about an order that's already been entered, with no meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

The reason it's the University's responsibility?

Because it has a legal obligation to do so and because it is the the university that is breaking the law when it fails to do so.

See generally my Open Letter to Colleges and Universities.

I'm not asking the university to defend someone sued in a copyright infringement case.

I'm asking it to protect its students' due process rights, rather than give them away.

Because the RIAA have a history of bullying people, not even completing the judicial process, and even accusing them of not showing up in court, when they had. There's a lot of underhandedness in what the RIAA has done and continues to do. Here's a fairly decent breakdown of it, if you can be bothered to read it. Basically, more often than not, the RIAA will play every card in its hand to ensure that not only do you pay them, but also that they don't have to pay for your attorney in case of their loss. In the end, there's a good chance that you have to pay someone, and these lawsuits can be stalled for years by the RIAA (resulting in skyrocketing attorney fees), so many see it as simply easier to pay them off.

You are right. The record labels who are demanding to take the deposition of a 10-year-old girl are identified in the answer and counterclaims.

They are -Atlantic Recording -Priority Records -Capitol Records -UMG Music and -BMG Music. Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.

Is the order they appear on the documents based on anything in particular? It looked like it might be alphabetical on the state of incorporation (California, Delaware, New York). Atlantic and its artists deserve responsibility, but I'd hate to let Capitol and BMG (or some of their artists, like "Paul McCartney" [Capitol] and "Bob Dylan" [Sony BMG]) off the hook just because of where the corporate headquarters is.

2. The lawsuits are based on a theory that has no basis in the law, and is a fabrication.

3. Even were the theory valid, the RIAA does not have sufficient evidence upon which to base its claim that the defendant did what they claim he or she did.

4. On top of that, the RIAA's lawyers conduct the lawsuits in an unscrupulous manner calculated not to win (they never win a contested case on the merits), but to force the defendant to capitulate due to the cost of defending him or her self.

5. When the RIAA lawyers learn that the defendant is innocent, they nevertheless maintain the case as long as possible in order to confer subpoena power on their lawyers as long as possible with which to conduct an investigation masquerading as a litigation.

6. To take the RIAA's novel theory, flimsy evidence, and unscrupulous litigation tactics and inflict them on any citizen is wrong.

7. To inflict them on stroke victims, Multiple Sclerosis victims, wheelchair-bound people, grandparents, single moms, and others who did not engage in any copyright infringement whatsoever is doubly wrong.

8. This article happens to be about a case against an innocent person who is a stroke victim. I don't have time to write a book about all the things wrong with the RIAA's cases every time I do a Slashdot post. If you want to read about them, there's a growing body of material here.

9. If you think it's irrelevant that the defendant is a totally disabled stroke victim I strenuously disagree; in my value system that does indeed count for something. And I, were I the the plaintiffs' attorney, would NEVER bring such a suit, even were I convinced that the RIAA's theory was valid and its facts valid; I did not go to law school to oppress helpless people.

Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.

The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.

Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.

Correction. Grant wrote that my post was "dry like a bread sandwich".

It's all in there. First read the magistrate's report. Then read the objection to the magistrate's report. Then read Judge Trager's decision.

If you want to go back further, read the motion papers for the preclusion motion in UMG v. Lindor.

I don't know why. I think the judge was just wrong.

Here are the briefs (called memoranda of law) and the Court's November 28, 2005, decision.

But all of the issues in that dismissal motion are on the table now in Elektra v. Barker, which is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in Manhattan. Amicus briefs pro and con have been submitted in Barker by various organizations pro and con, and the real battle as to whether "making available" is, or is not, in and of itself, a copyright infringement, will be played out there.

I don't know why. I think the judge was just wrong.

Here are the briefs (called memoranda of law) and the Court's November 28, 2005, decision.

But all of the issues in that dismissal motion are on the table now in Elektra v. Barker, which is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 p.m., in Manhattan. Amicus briefs pro and con have been submitted in Barker by various organizations pro and con, and the real battle as to whether "making available" is, or is not, in and of itself, a copyright infringement, will be played out there.

The article contains a link to an old Slashdot article which has an incorrect link to the transcript of Ms. Santangelo's appearance before Judge McMahon. Here's the correct link to the transcript: http://info.riaalawsuits.us/elektra_santangelo/tra nscript050506.txt

You are exactly right. The author and Slashdot are incorrect. Only the court can dismiss.

What actually happened is the RIAA has made a motion to dismiss without prejudice.

No doubt Ms. Santangelo's lawyer will be responding to the motion by pointing out to the judge that -- after over a year and a half of complex grueling litigation -- the dismissal should be "with prejudice", not "without prejudice". Assuming the judge agrees with Ms. Santangelo, which is highly likely, then Ms. Santangelo will be a "prevailing party" and eligible for an attorneys fees award. See Capitol v. Foster, July 13th Order and Decision.

iTunes is treating the world outside the US like an unwanted stepchild

I don't agree that suing someone every other Tuesday is our national tradition.

I do think that the rule of law is our crown jewel, and is the bedrock of our democracy, and that in our common law system the law evolves in part through judicial decisionmaking. Respect for law, to my mind, suggests that we should respect the courts, and not litter them with frivolous litigation as the RIAA has done.

I am hopeful that the judges will take action against these bullies.

Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster, where the judge has the opportunity to hit them with a big attorneys fee award, and Elektra v. Barker, where the judge is considering whether the RIAA even has a sufficient claim to warrant filing a lawsuit.

I don't agree that suing someone every other Tuesday is our national tradition.

I do think that the rule of law is our crown jewel, and is the bedrock of our democracy, and that in our common law system the law evolves in part through judicial decisionmaking. Respect for law, to my mind, suggests that we should respect the courts, and not litter them with frivolous litigation as the RIAA has done.

I am hopeful that the judges will take action against these bullies.

Keep an eye on Capitol v. Foster, where the judge has the opportunity to hit them with a big attorneys fee award, and Elektra v. Barker, where the judge is considering whether the RIAA even has a sufficient claim to warrant filing a lawsuit.

Actually the reason it's not happening in Canada is that the Canadian courts recognized that the MediaSentry investigation was not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for allowing the ISP's to divulge confidential customer information. BMG v. Doe. Since the RIAA's Canadian counterpart hasn't been able to find out the names and addresses, they haven't been able to bring lawsuits. The Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent. Foundation v. UPC Nederland.

Actually the reason it's not happening in Canada is that the Canadian courts recognized that the MediaSentry investigation was not sufficiently reliable to provide a basis for allowing the ISP's to divulge confidential customer information. BMG v. Doe. Since the RIAA's Canadian counterpart hasn't been able to find out the names and addresses, they haven't been able to bring lawsuits. The Netherlands courts, likewise, refused to go along with the RIAA's litigation torrent. Foundation v. UPC Nederland.

The RIAA's lawsuits against end users are not based on "uploading". They have no evidence of any uploads. Their lawsuits are based upon their concept that it is a copyright infringement to have files which are "available" for uploading. See Elektra v. Barker, scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007. (See Slashdot discussion)

I'm sorry that you feel that having an actual lawyer who is actually working on these cases, who can report to Slashdot readers with first hand information and analysis as to what is going on in these litigations, is not worthwhile, just because he cannot share with you his innermost thoughts and confidential legal strategies in advance of their being implemented in the litigation.

And I'm sorry you fault me for pointing out that there are many different types of file sharing behaviors, rather than just one, as the post to which I was responding had suggested. And if you know which ones are "clearly legal" and which are not, you are pretty good, since there is not a single lawyer in the country who can say that, since not a single contested case has been decided regarding any of them, except for the partially contested case of BMG v. Gonzalez, in which a defendant admitted to downloading and making copies of 30 song files, arguing that it was a "fair use" to do so, and the Court disagreed with the defendant's "fair use" assessment.

hey! writes: "There are only three logically possible ways to argue that P2P sharing is not a copyright violation. The first and best would be to argue that P2P downloading is not a copyright violation at all, but somehow falls under the heading of fair use."

1. I disagree that there are only 3 logical arguments.

2. Additionally, your statement fails to take into account the fact that there are a great multiplicity of different kinds of "P2P sharing" behaviors involving copyrighted recordings, just as there are a great multiplicity of different kinds of song and record sharing behaviors involving physical copies of phonorecords, cd's, dvd's, cassette tapes, and the like.... some of which might be copyright violations, some of which certainly aren't.

3. If you are arguing that downloading a copy of a copyrighted work through p2p sharing, without a license to do so, for the purpose of obtaining a copy of your own, is a "fair use", I should tell you that I am aware of one case where I think it is fair to say that a similar argument was rejected. BMG v. Gonzalez.

Well my blog and web site are chock full of information about the cases, and provide hundreds of samples of different types of litigation documents that have been used:
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm

Well my blog and web site are chock full of information about the cases, and provide hundreds of samples of different types of litigation documents that have been used:
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/documents.htm

Yeah you're missing some steps.

The ISP knows the person's name and address. The RIAA could ask the judge for an order directing the ISP to give the person notice that the RIAA is seeking an order to get his or her name and address. Instead they go ahead and get the order first, and then ask the ISP to give notice of an order that's already been granted, and with no information about the basis for the order, the basis for the suit, the Court's rules, etc., so that once the victim gets the 'notice' he doesn't know what to do with it, because there's just about nothing he can do with it. See How the RIAA Litigation Process Works.

You've taken another big leap when you say that the person whose name and address is turned over by the ISP has 'harmed' the record labels in some way. They have no clue about that. They just go ahead and sue. Sure that person would be a good person with which to start an investigaton into whether there's someone out there infringing the RIAA sound recording copyrights. But there's no justification for just going ahead and suing that person. See Brief of EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen, AALL, and ACLU-OK and Brief of Communications & Computer Industry Association and US Internet Industry Association.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis. I disagree with it, though, because under Capitol v. Foster, the discontinuance of the case by the plaintiffs does not exonerate them from having to litigate their attorneys fee liability.

Sorry if I was curt with you. Parents are not liable for their children's copyright infringement. If you want to do research read MGM v. Grokster. It will spell out for you in great detail what a plaintiff needs to prove to hold X liable for Y's copyright infringement. You won't find anything in there about X being Y's parent. If you want to read further, you might want to look at this essay published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on parental liability.

But see Capitol v. Foster, where the judge held that the RIAA could not immunize itself from liability for attorneys fees by dropping the case, after first tying the woman up in frivolous litigation for a year and a half.

1. It's all 4 majors. UMG no more or less than the others.

2. I don't know how they bubble up... I just know that they are targeting the wrong people.

3. It's the RIAA's lawyers, not UMG's lawyers, who are involved, and it's not the lawyers that are controlling it, it's the RIAA. The lawyers on this case are attack dogs. They attack who they're told to attack, and don't stand up to their clients at all. Good lawyers don't just follow orders. These lawyers just follow orders. I don't know how they live with themselves, suing children, disabled people, people who never used computers, people on welfare, students. It's unbelievable.

4. What do they think they're accomplishing? I'm sure it's not the revenue stream; they lose money on litigated cases; they lose money on default judgments; and they make a little money on the settlements, just enough to cover the costs of their campaign. I'm convinced that their actual goal is something they don't mention publicly -- to try to monopolize the online digital music field. (See, e.g. counterclaims in Arista v. LimeWire. I don't think they will accomplish their goal, and I think that their litigation campaign is actually increasing, rather than diminishing, their competition, as they've succeeded in creating a whole new breed of music consumer -- those specifically looking for non-RIAA music. See my growing list of sources for non-RIAA music, which I call Liberated Music.

The issue is very fully briefed, including amicus briefs, etc. in Elektra v. Barker, now pending before Judge Kenneth Karas in SDNY.

On the contrary. Kazaa has no case against him. But he has a case against Kazaa for getting him into this pickle. See discussion by judge in Interscope v. Duty at Section C, pages 4-5.

I agree with you that the complaints are defective.

They're all the same by the way, all 20,000 of them.

So far though 6 out of 6 judges have said that this vague complaint is ok for the first round.

We're still waiting for judge number 7, Judge Karas, in Elektra v. Barker.

Mr. Greubel's lawyers are Charles Mudd of Chicago, and John Browning of Dallas. They are two really good litigators. John Browning's the guy who got the excellent order on hard drive inspections in SONY v. Arellanes, which I predict will serve as a model for all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations.

I wouldn't bet against these guys.

In BMG v. Gonzalez a defendant who admitted to downloading 30 songs without authorization was held liable for copyright infringement.

I'm not getting too much into the details because I don't think the rule revisions in their present format are going anywhere. See the comments of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. I'm sure the rule revision will be much, much narrower than what they first proposed.

Yes, but the RIAA says this is the very first time this has happened to them. So I wouldn't diminish its significance. I predict that this decision will be the gold standard for future hard drive analyses in the RIAA v. Consumer litigations, and that the RIAA is not at all happy with it, since the RIAA's ability to manipulate the results of the analysis is greatly diminished. These are not the kind of lawyers that are on a quest for the truth.

A similar, slightly more restrictive, decision was handed down awhile back in Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon, but the RIAA fought it, kicking and screaming. The judge wound up letting the RIAA have the hard drive. They found nothing, but still haven't turned in their report and still haven't dropped the case either. Most likely they'll claim that Ms. Andersen, a disabled, impoverished woman who never even used file sharing in her life, switched the hard drives on them, as they're now claiming with Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never even used a computer.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has pointed out the First Amendment problems with the proposed rules and suggested detailed changes (pdf file) in them.

tddoog wrote:

"Too bad for Newyorkcountrylawyer and his blog. I wonder if slashdot interviews would count?"

If those rules go into effect, both of my blogs, Recording Industry vs. The People, and Ohio Election Fraud (formerly "Fairness"), along with my web sites, info.riaalawsuits.us and Ohio Election 2004 would be taken down, as it would be far too costly and time consuming to comply with the new rules. See my collection of articles on New York's rules and the impact they would have on lawyer blogs herej.

Fortunately, though, the various bar associations and other lawyer groups are very concerned about the rules, and are putting in detailed comments explaining how the proposed rules are too overbroad. And the Appellate Divisions have postponed the proposed effective dates, in order to give the legal community and the public at large more time to comment.

Arguably my entire membership in Slashdot would indeed count, since my profile identifies me. It would of course be impossible to comply with those rules, so I might just have to stop participating in Slashdot, which for me would be sad indeed. I have really come to enjoy it here.

Blogs by lawyers are a pretty new thing, but I think they have made a significant contribution. I think it would be a shame if we had to stop blogging just because we're lawyers.

I don't think the proposed rules will be passed in that form, so I'm not too worried.

For those of you who haven't seen the proposed rules, they're posted here.

Dear Deamuxx:

I commend you for reading the Department of Justice's "Statement of Interest" in .Elektra v. Barker. It is important to point out that it only addressed a very narrow point that had been made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and specifically declined to take any position on the RIAA's "making available" argument. In fact, the government stated in the brief that it had never prosecuted anyone for 'making available' and that its only prosecutions had been against actual pirates.

Secondly, I want to let you know that "with prejudice" means they cannot come back and sue him again. ("Without prejudice" would have meant that they could sue him again.).

The withdrawal was clearly consensual and mutual. Yes undoubtedly Mr. Wilke could have insisted that the case continue. Usually, though, when the plaintiffs want to drop the case, the judge will let them. However, they might still be liable for attorneys fees. See Capitol v. Foster.

No that's an MPAA movie case you're thinking of, Universal v. Sean Hogan, discussed here and here on Slashdot.

This case, Elektra v. Wilke, was discussed on Slashdot here when the RIAA admitted it did not have enough evidence.

No that's an MPAA movie case you're thinking of, Universal v. Sean Hogan, discussed here and here on Slashdot.

This case, Elektra v. Wilke, was discussed on Slashdot here when the RIAA admitted it did not have enough evidence.

I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.