RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan

digime writes "In a recent Slashdot article it was reported that 19-year-old college student Jesse Jordan gave up his life savings to the RIAA for running a campus search engine. He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up. "The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

Comments

Yeah!

[AntiOrganic]

Stick it to the man!

...so you can lose all your money again.

Re:Yeah!

[TedCheshireAcad]

Maybe the RIAA would back off a bit if most of their legal attack squad and mayhaps their fearless leader all had glorious meetings with a large bullets.

...which is exactly why organized crime families should run p2p networks.

Re:Yeah!

[hype7]

Maybe the RIAA would back off a bit if most of their legal attack squad and mayhaps their fearless leader all had glorious meetings with a large bullets. ...which is exactly why organized crime families should run p2p networks.

I wouldn't want to have been the poor sod to have sold a P2P network to Tony Soprano when he realizes he can't make any more out of it than Napster did.

No sirree.

Or maybe worse, they'd start sending heavies round to all the downloaders houses to collect. That sure would stop the downloading

Re:Yeah!

[wo1verin3]

>> Maybe the RIAA would back off a bit if most
>>of their legal attack squad and mayhaps their
>>fearless leader all had glorious meetings with
>>a large bullets.

Nope, not happening. Other then Neo, the RIAA Agents are the only other one who can move like that.

Re:Yeah!

[ampathee]

Why not? The Internet will pay it back (again)

He's already got 97% back from the first time!

No new CDs

[nafmo]

Well, I've given up buying new CDs because of the bully tactics from the recording industries.

Re:No new CDs

[AntiOrganic]

Hey now, the RIAA is just the Recording Industry Association of America. There are plenty of foreign labels like Century Media, Spinefarm, and Nuclear Blast that have plenty of artists to offer.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I still buy a lot of music, just not from those assholes.

Re:No new CDs

[nafmo]

I know, but in the age of the USian megacoprs owning almost every recording company on the planet, it's hard to figure out which ones are the good guys.

If there are any. I'm not sure, it seems like most recording companies are getting buyer-hostile these days.

Re:No new CDs

[Arker]

The European companies are just as bad. Indies might be ok, but most of them are pretty deep in bed with the biggies just to survive too. I only buy from bands directly. There are actually some really good musicians out there selling CDs pressed on their own computer. Go to gigs. If you like em, buy their CD.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not always easy for someone to 'go to gigs' to see live music, especially if you are from say southeatern TN and you are into hip hop...

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've given up buying new CDs because of the bully tactics from the recording industries.

The last CD I bought was the first CD that wouldn't work with my PC's drive. That was a couple of years ago.

Re:No new CDs

[Sycraft-fu]

Just a note, a CD produced on a personal computer is a burned disc, not a pressed one. Mass produced discs are called pressed because that accurately describes their process of creation. The pits are literally stamped into the reflective layer, then the plastic coating is added. With CD-Rs you have a disc with the plastic and reflective layer already setup. However there is an additonal element, a dye added. A laser is then used to burn the dye to the reflective layer, causing it it become less reflective in the burned spots, giving the same effect to the reader laser as a pit on a pressed disc.

So, if you are speaking of mass producd silver discs, they are pressed. Individually produced discs off a burner are burned. The distinction can be an important one when you are talking about selling CDs since pressed CDs are much cheaper per unit, but have a higher minimum production run.

Re:No new CDs

[Seek_1]

Same here.

Maybe I only buy 10 CDs a year, and maybe that doesn't impact the RIAA's bottom line significantly, but seriously, if enough people are fed up with their bullshit and stop buying CDs, then eventually the artists will turn to alternative distribution methods in order to make a profit.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

The pits are molded into the substrate (the polycarbonate) and not into the reflective layer. Likewise, the pits that are "burned" into a CD-R are melted into the polycarbonate; not the reflective layer.

In most cases, the reflective layer is aluminum. Some early CD-R's used gold because it was more reflective (necessary because the process of applying a precision coating of dye was relatively new and difficult).

CD-RW's use a completely different technology. The disc is "sputtered" (vapor deposited) with a sandwich of different materials that, when hit with energy of a certain wavelength, undergo a phase change making it reflective to energy at a certain wavelength. Pumping more of the "write" energy into it forces it's phase to revert to the original "transparent" state. This is what makes it re-recordable.

</pedantic>

Re:No new CDs

[minion]

Well, I've given up buying new CDs because of the bully tactics from the recording industries.

You mean to tell me that if the RIAA was nice and cudly, you'd actually buy the shit they call music these days?

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

tricities in da house?

Re:No new CDs

[geekopus]

Excuse me???

Er, no. I worked as a process engineer for four years at a CD plant. Denon Digital Industries in Madison, GA, if you want to know....

Re:No new CDs

[gerbache]

There's still plenty of good new music being made these days; it's just that most of it never seems to wind up being popular and getting played over and over on the radio. Sure, it's not nearly as easy to find this music, but it really does exist out there.

Re:No new CDs

[Simonetta]

- I would encourage anyone interested in being exposed to new music and not wishing to give money to organizations that will use that money to destroy your life and take your property (you pay enough taxes to the federal government already) to explore the music section at their local library.
Most libraries in major cities in North America have large collections of CDs available for checkout. Be sure to check the on-line catalogs for the best stuff and place a hold or reserve on items that you are even remotely interested in.
With a resource such as this, a new approach towards musical tastes might be cultivated: make an effort to grab CDs that you have never heard of instead of those that you have been previously encouraged to consume by media exposure. In a commercial setting, your music choices are limited by your available funds so you buy and listen to recordings that you know or are similar to those you have consumed in the past, while a library has no monetary limits on your consumption. It is your attention span and the check-out-and-return procedure for the physical library materials that is the limiting factor.
Grab as many CDs as you can physically carry from the shelves and focus on titles that you have no clue as to what they sound like. Try each one in your CD player/PC for a few minutes or bring a portable CD player to the library and take a listen to the CDs there. If they are even remotely interesting, then rip, mix, and burn. Blank CD-Rs are about 20 cents (in the USA anyway) and can store about a hundred songs in MP3 or OGG format. Scan the album covers and insert books and store them in a directory along with the audio MP3s. By the way, a DVD-ROM player will rip an audio 'red-book' CD much faster and more accurately than a CD-ROM.
The CD-R is beginning to show signs of age as medium for trading new music because it is so limited in its storage capacity. Many of us have old hard drives available as we upgrade from 10-15 gig sizes to 100-200 gig drives on our primary machines. Put your favorite newly-discovered music on an older hard disk and trade these drives with fellow music lovers instead of CDs. Be sure to keep the hard disk in an anti-static bag and wrapped in bubblewrap or foam blocks to protect it against shock or bumps as they are quite delicate.
Summing up, the best way to fight the RIAA goon squads and the predatory corporations behind them is to circulate as much new and different music as freely and as cheaply as possible. This is not piracy, this is your birthright. The RIAA corporations are making a massive and bold attempt to seize and control all of the world's culture and heritage. This is like paying off the politicans for patent on air and then demanding that everybody owes them money for consuming their product!

Thank you,
Simonetta
www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2001/virt uebeauty/fantasy. htm

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Man if you're in se tennessee you are in the middle of the best music scene in the world. Open up your ears.

Hip hop. Gah. Listen to some real music you might like it.

Re:No new CDs

[t]

So sad, trying to be pedantic and you get the process for CD-R's all wrong. The pits are most definately not burned into the polycarbonate. The way to think through your theory is to first realize that the bulk of the disc is made of the same plastic. So with that, how does one keep the laser from burning a hold clean through the disc?

Hint: the real method has something to do with the dye you mentioned. I also really don't understand how you can go from one sentence saying the pits are burned into the plastic, then turn around and talk of the difficulty of precision coating of dye...

Re:No new CDs

[Stephen Samuel]

Don't stop buying CD's. Just start buying CDs from local artists and independents. Not only do you stop supporting the RIAA, but you start doing what they are trying to keep peope from doing -- realizing that there are lots of really good artists out there who don't have RIAA contracts -- and that you can make money as an artist without the big recording studios.

Re:No new CDs

[T40 Dude]

The last CD I bought was the first CD that wouldn't work with my PC's drive. That was a couple of years ago. You bought the Celine Dion CD ???

Re:No new CDs

[JonathanBoyd]

This is not piracy, this is your birthright.

Is that what you say to assure your guilty conscience? How is it your birthright to get for free music that other people worked hard to produce and have decided to share with the world, providing it pays a price for it? Just because you don't like the price doesn't mean you're entitled to take it for free. Either pay or don't listen. Sure, the RIAA is heavy handed but the smug moral superiority of people like you who call them predatory and goons is just hypocritical when in reality you are the ones refusing to give the artists money, the ones taking their work without giving them the credit, the ones looking for a free ride, demanding that they give you exactly the music you want for exactly the price you demand. And then maybe you'll consider paying. You're every bit as much of a predatorial goon, if not more so.

Re:No new CDs

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Simonetta wrote:

> Summing up, the best way to fight the RIAA goon squads
> and the predatory corporations behind them is to
> circulate as much new and different music as freely and
> as cheaply as possible. This is not piracy, this is your
> birthright.

Our birthright is not to infringe copyright laws. Our birthright is to make our own music, and to support those who make theirs. So make that music if you can. If you can't, support those that can by supporting independent artists and indie labels that treat them right. Make music outside the RIAA a legitimate and desirable path for artists to follow.

By doing this, you will not be taking the profit from a mere CD from the RIAA, you will be taking the artists away from the RIAA, freeing them from the tyranny of the big five labels. You will be stopping the big labels chilling effect on music (the "discovery" process), by allowing anyone to make music, and the public to do the discovering.

The result will be more artists, and more diverse forms of music enriching our culture. The artists will be free from abusive, bankrupting, contracts, hold their own copyrights, and be in charge of their own careers and their own music. The public will see more variety in music, and with the middleman removed, lower prices.

The evil media sharks need to go extinct, so new media industries can be born. This goes not only for the music industry, but also for all media industries where megacorps used once limited access to technologies to seize control of media, to the detriment of media producers and the public alike.

The technology is no longer a bar to entry. It is past time for anyone who can make music, sing songs, write a book, speak the truth about current events, etc., to stand up and reclaim their birthright!

Bells are ringing: Mothra, Mothra! Every heart is calling: Mothra, Mothra!
Come on, Tok Wira, these sharks have gotta pay! New Kirk calling Mothra, we need you today!

Re:No new CDs

[Torham]

Spinefarm is owned by Universal Music. Century Media is based in California and does the USA disribution for Nuclearblast. Of course you are right, Nuclear Blast, CM are both great labels and my friends over at The End Records certainly aren't involved in this bully crap either.

I have always wondered how The End Records can sell CD's for $10 on there own artists and $12 on licensed/distributed artists and still make profit but the huge labels must charge $18.

BTW Children Of Bodom, Sonata Arctica have all had their albums severly delayed (Over 3 Months) in the USA because Spinefarm/Universal likes to wait to see if its worth there time to release else they license to CM.

Re:No new CDs

[geekopus]

It has to do with the refractive index of the Polycarbonate. It's index is 1.4 (IIRC), so it tends to act as a little bit of a focusing mechanism. The energy density of the beam isn't focused enough to actually cause a deformation until it's traveled approximately 1.2mm (which just happens to be how thick the substrate is), and even then the material that's being heated is the dye (not the substrate; as you said, it's mostly transparent to the laser). Being pedantic (isn't that what started all this? ;-), yes, you're correct that the laser isn't directly deforming the plastic. Rather it's the dye heating that causes this. But, yes, the plastic is most definately deformed.

Here's one reference. There are probably others you can find. I can tell you from personal experience of examining "burned" CD-R's with an AFM that there are deformations in the plastic.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pits are burned into plastic" and "the difficulty of precision coating the dye". If you don't have a nice even layer (down to a few nanometers of consistency) you can't possibly control what's gonna happen when you hit the dye with power. People have been coating things with layers that accurate for years, but being able to do every second of every day on a consistent basis is a real manufacturing challenge.

I suggest you look at a burned disk via AFM to prove this to yourself.

Re:No new CDs

[devilspgd]

Or they'll just blame pirating on continuing loss of sales, and use it as an excuse to hijack our rights even further.

Re:No new CDs

[t]

I fail to see how a planar surface with an index of refraction of 1.4 (or whatever) being struck perpendicular to its surface is going to evoke any form of a focusing mechanism. This is why lens must have curvature (assuming a uniform index of refraction).

And please elaborate on what you mean by "most definately deformed"? Are you referring to the optical transparency properties of the spot? That has more to do with what happens to the dye when it is heated then anything else.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pits are burned into plastic" and "the difficulty of precision coating the dye".

That was bascially rewording the parent post. The reason I put them there is that the parent post talked about the laser burning the plastic, yet made no reference nor even alluded to the purpose of the dye.

I suggest you look at a burned disk via AFM to prove this to yourself.

<sarcasm> Sorry, my AFM is in the shop. </sarcasm> Feel free to post some pictures though.

Re:No new CDs

[geekopus]

Hold on here. Think about this... The disk itself is part of the focusing mechanism. The final lens in the player is more of a collimating lens. The player projects a beam (not a pure euclidean line, but a column) of light. When the light hits the plastic, it starts narrowing the beam. Don't take my word for it. Check this out (about halfway down, the bit about playback), or grab a copy of the Red Book. It's well known that the disk is part of the focusing mechanism. It's part of what makes CD's such a reliable mechanism.

The deformation in the plastic is part of the optical properties of the disk. It's not possible to separate what of the dye is causing the changed properties, and what of the shape of the plastic is causing it. You can't have one without the other. It's simply part of the gestalt of CD-R's.

My semi-sarcastic blurb about the AFM was intended to point out that I'm not just making this stuff up, nor am I passing it off second hand. I did this for 4 years. I've personally examined hundreds of disks, "stampers", "mothers", "fathers" and masters. I've done it both with electron microscopes, and later with AFM's.

Now, for all I know, you could be one of the authors of the orange book specs, but speaking as one who's "worked in the trenches" smoothing the manufacturing process, I know how this works. My (admittedly over-simplified) definition of how the disks work stands.

Sorry if this comes off as a rant. Guess I'm just bored on a Sunday afternoon.

Oh, and I no longer work there, but give me an address and I'll see if I can get some of my friends that still work there to get me a couple of pictures and I'll send them to you.

Re:No new CDs

[chimpo13]

Plan-It-X Records sells cds for $5 including shipping. It's a super small label, but their bands get paid. Not much, but bands can sell their own cds for more than $5.

One of their reviews says "it comes in a jewel box with full color printing and a sticker. i guess i should explain why. 1st. we decided to start offering our bands what ever kind of packaging they want. 2nd, we wanted to put out a CD that looks just as good as all the other labels CDs and comes with a sticker and still sell it for 5$. just to prove it can be done, lots of people think we sell our CDs cheap because of the packaging but it's not true. this CD cost 1.60 to make. so eat that mutant pop. "

Re:No new CDs

[t]

Hold on here. Think about this... The disk itself is part of the focusing mechanism. The final lens in the player is more of a collimating lens. The player projects a beam (not a pure euclidean line, but a column) of light. When the light hits the plastic, it starts narrowing the beam. Don't take my word for it. Check this out (about halfway down, the bit about playback), or grab a copy of the Red Book. It's well known that the disk is part of the focusing mechanism. It's part of what makes CD's such a reliable mechanism.

If you look at this figure it clearly shows that the shape of the laser is not a column of light as it strikes the surface of the CD. It even lists the angle off of perpendicular as 27 degrees. Hardly negligible. Since the laser is already focused (converging), it will form a focal point whether or not there is a CD in front of it. You can even use the supplied numbers to find that the focal point is (if my geometry is correct) approximately 785 um from the horizontal line given. In fact if the plastic had an index of refraction identical to that of air, it could still be made to work by simply making the substrate thiner, 785 um instead of the approximately 1.2 mm.

To put it another way, you could use the angle of 27 degrees and the index of refraction given as 1.55 to prove that the substrate thickness must be 1.2mm.

Oh, and I no longer work there, but give me an address and I'll see if I can get some of my friends that still work there to get me a couple of pictures and I'll send them to you.

Post a link in your journal when you get some, I'm sure everyone would love to see them.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one want to thank you for the description.

And seriously, maybe you should be talking to howstuffworks.com if they don't have something similar already.

Re:No new CDs

[wampus]

Polycarb = 1.589, and since it is flat on both sides, it has zero refractive power, so its index of refraction means absolutely nothing.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually only major record label owned by U.S. parent company is the Warner Music (owned by AOL TimeWarner).
Sony == Japanese,
UMG == Vivendi == French,
BMG == Bertelsmann == German,
EMI == British

Re:No new CDs

[nepheles]

It seems that whenever a story related to music comes up, somebody tells us in self-righteous indignance that they never by CDs by the big-bad record companies.

Enough!

Re:No new CDs

[runderwo]

I suppose the word "plagarism" doesn't mean anything to you huh?

I have never seen a word called "plagarism". Wait... perhaps you meant "plagiarism"?

Re:No new CDs

[canajin56]

Hehe
"These cars can't cost more than a few hundred dollars to make, yet you're asking for $20,000! That's an outrage! Tell you what, here is $500, I'll just take the red one now....what? Listen to me, if you want my money, GIVE ME THE CAR! On MY terms or I'll just take one for nothing! It's not grand theft auto, it's my birthright! Look, I'm not a bad person...I just don't think your prices are fair. I'm MORE than willing to pay for the car...but only $500. The ball is in YOUR c....Ummmm....hello officer....I was just.....*FEET ON PAVEMENT*"
-Trying the "I only do it because YOU charge too much" philosopy at your local Ford dealership.

Re:No new CDs

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, I know you think you are really clever for using the term USian, but it is REALLY fucking stupid and makes you look like a mindless drone just trying to be cool.

The current accepted terms are American to refer to those things of the United States of America. Similarly, things of Europe are known as European.

A bigger problem is how would you apply your logic to a corporation of the United Kingdom. Is it UKian in origin? or British? English? Welsh?

I think you get the idea.

Re:No new CDs

[Art Tatum]

Nope, almost everything on earth is owned by the French megacorp, Vivendi.

Re:No new CDs

[olman]

A car costs considerably more than a few hundred dollars to manufacture. And the design costs are quite a bit more than it takes to record a CD.

A sieve does not hold water.

Dentist... how appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is time for someone to pull the RIAA's teeth

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[deranged unix nut]

Where can we get a list of RIAA mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses?

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[CineK]

do you remember that movie with dustin hoffman running into the nazi dentist?
It was Marathon Man directed by John Schlesinger.
I wonder if that lawyer had this kind of dentist on his mind ;)
here is the review of that film

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it safe?

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a threat of physical violence to me!
RIAA, meet RICO.

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[flyneye]

I was thinking of working on RIAAs shyster/dentist after the style of dentistry in "straw dogs".

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[lfd]

Is it safe now?

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[deranged unix nut]

From www.riaa.com
RIAA Leadership:

Hilary B. Rosen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Cary Sherman, President

Board of Directors
â Roger Ames, Warner Music Group
â Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
â Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group
â Jose Behar, Univision Music Group
â Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group
â Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company
â Clive Davis, RCA Music Group
â Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group
â Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
â Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group
â Don Ienner, Sony Music U.S.
â David Johnson, Warner Music Group
â Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group
â Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group
â Alain Levy, EMI Recorded Music
â Roy Lott, Virgin Records
â David Munns, EMI Recorded Music Worldwide
â Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc.
â Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group
â Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment
â Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music
â Andy Slater, Capitol Records
â Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment
â Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can we get a list of RIAA mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses?

Well, on their website, you can find a list with none of those things!

Re:Dentist... how appropriate

[ModsOnCrack]

... and get modded informative for pasting it to slashdot!

Thanks moderators. I love you guys.

It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[Anonymous Coward]

And a clearly-spoken public campaign to discredit these scum at the RIAA. The "dentist" can go fuck himself. The threat by this "top" RIAA attorney is assault and he needs to be criminally prosecuted.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[jeffasselin]

Yes, a boycott. That way, RIAA sales will go even further down, and they'll continue to blame piracy

"See it's rampant, and increasing, our sales are even lower than they were! We must have the right to destroy those evil pirates' computers"

Which will not help at all until EVERYONE gets in, and that won't happen very soon. And we still need to enjoy music, and some mainstream music is good, it's just that most of it is so identical to the last one out.

The real problem is the power of corporate america, how they can bully through legal system, how they can bully politicians and buy laws in their favor, how it takes a superhuman effort from the populace to defeat such lawsuits or stop such laws from being passed. Congressmen do not really bother listening to their own constituents (as they understand their re-election is more dependent on the cash they get from corporations than on the votes of the people they're supposed to represent), and it takes a LOT of noise to make them do so.

So you either need changes in the legal and electoral system, or you need changes in the rights of corporations. Take your pick. I'd go for some of all three. One, it's forbidden for one party to spend more on defense than the other party can afford, unless you agree to pay for both defenses upfront and cannot get it back later. THAT would deter frivolous lawsuits. Two, No more soft money and contributions are limited in proportion to the number of people living in the area, and donations from a single person is also severely limited. A corporation cannot give more than a single individual could. Three, corporations cannot bring lawsuits against individuals with whom they do not have a business relationship without prior approval from a judge.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[bwcbwc]

The real problem is the power of corporate america, how they can bully through legal system, how they can bully politicians and buy laws in their favor, how it takes a superhuman effort from the populace to defeat such lawsuits or stop such laws from being passed.
Bingo. When I was in Econ 101, I was taught that the concept of "limited liability" for corporations was so powerful compared with other business models, that the government attempted to counterbalance it by "double taxation". And guess what's happened to the dividend and capital gains taxes over the past few years?

The beauty of the boycott is that it will play into the RIAA and MPAAs paranoia about piracy to the point that they will do something foolish, like actually frying people's computers. Mistakes will be made and the boycott will grow as more F*ups occur.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it hard to understand this argument. Yes they may say that it is down due to piracy, but the media and the courts will know about the boycott. If the boycott is going to be big enough to leave a dent, the media will pick it up when they discuss the sales going down. The message will get out.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[The Axe]

Except for the fact that RIAA sales have been increasing. No matter how much they bitched about piracy affecting their business, they couldn't deny the fact that they made more money in the past few years than they ever had.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[noldrin]

I thought a boycott of the RIAA and MPAA was already going on for years. Maybe not a large organized one, but just a bunch of objectors. Which seems funner that they are complaining that sales are down. Well yes you dummies, you are running against a boycott.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[BiggerIsBetter]

If the boycott is going to be big enough to leave a dent, the media will pick it up when they discuss the sales going down.

I beg to differ.

The "media" is instrinsically linked to the, um, media industries which these clowns claim to represent. Haven't you noticed the way TV plays movies by say Tom Cruise right before a new Tom Cruise movie comes out on the big screen, for example? Or that TV, Radio and News agencies are often owned by a few large corporations? I suspect there may be some small comment about any "dent" but don't expect it to be front page or on CNN news.

Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT

[Funksaw]

Why not just set a spending cap of $25,000 for a congressional campaign, $250,000 for a presidential campaign?

Oh, that's right. Those in power like the system just fine.

-- Funksaw

...Teach him!

[tomstdenis]

That'll teach him that democracy and freedom runs rampant in the good ol' US of A.

What I have to question, do *AA laywers live for bad-press by the nerds of the world? Sure, people are still buying their tripe but the non-nerd part of the world will figure it out eventually. Weird....

Tom

Re:...Teach him!

[The Only Druid]

Um, this has nothing to due with flaws in the American system. If his comments to CNN violate the terms of the settlement, then the RIAA is fully in its rights to rescind all benefits from that dismissal.

Now, I am not sure - glancing at the interviews and the dismissal agreement - whether or not he's violated it or not. Frankly, thats for someone with a more precise legal background to handle than me. But thats the key issue: we simply cannot rant against the RIAA unless we first confirm that they're doing anything wrong.

Re:...Teach him!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Blizzard didn't invent the word"

A bit like "warcraft" ;)

Re:...Teach him!

[The Only Druid]

You know what, I made a mistake about the word "warcraft", so I'll definately give you the point for making an appropriate joke. I'm nothing if not mature enough to know I made a mistake there.

Re:...Teach him!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this interview violates the settlement then the RIAA are doing something wrong.

Re:...Teach him!

[Blondie-Wan]

But thats the key issue: we simply cannot rant against the RIAA unless we first confirm that they're doing anything wrong.

Oh, we can confirm they're doing things that are wrong, all right. The question is whether they're doing things that are illegal. Sadly, there's a difference, I'm truly sorry to say.

Re:...Teach him!

[The Only Druid]

No, he agreed to a settlement. However fair or unfair the settlement was, if Jeremy agreed to it, then he's contractually bound. It would be wrong of the RIAA not to punish him for violating their agreement.

Re:...Teach him!

[bear_phillips]

That is not necessarily true. You could say the same about no competition clauses but courts routinely strike them down. So like it or not, how fair or unfair the settlement was does matter. Routinely settlements can't go against public policy. Courts don't like settlement that keep people from doing basic things like working, prevention of free speech (in narrow areas) etc.

If the settlement is way too one sided (not a little bit, but a WHOLE lot, then a court may strike it down.)

Re:...Teach him!

[The Only Druid]

You're mistaken. Non-competition clauses are not routinely striken down, and when they are, its typically because it askes some excessive or innapropriate demand of one of them, i.e. an excessively large range of non-competition, etc.

Not incidentally, I finished examining that agreement, and see no reason why his conversations on CNN or any other interviews violated that agreement.

Re:...Teach him!

[omarKhayyam]

I read the dismissal. There is nothing in it prohibiting him from saying anything about the case, settlement, or the RIAA. Also, the "search engine" that is back is a dummy search engine (there are no real files there), so it also does not violate the dismissal. So if the RIAA is trying to back out for either of those two reason, yes they are doing something wrong.

Re:...Teach him!

[plague3106]

I dunno, kinda sounds like black mail to me.

If a manager demanded sex from a subordinate to keep thier job...well its not fair, but the subordinate chose to do it to keep her job.

Re:...Teach him!

[Anonymous Coward]

we simply cannot rant against the RIAA unless we first confirm that they're doing anything wrong.

Sure we can, this is slashdot

Re:...Teach him!

[The Only Druid]

No, here's where your analogy fails:

If an employee is forced to do something undesireable by a superior, the contract/agreement is essentially invalid because of the power the superior has over the employee. That is, the employee hasn't acted "freely" in making the agreement, and so the agreement is invalid.

With Jeremy and the RIAA, however, there's something different. The RIAA does not, in any legally important sense, have "power over" Jeremy. You may say that their economic influence is "power", but that simply isn't legally relevant. As to why, imagine if all agreements were null and void simply because one person had more money than the other? It'd be a nightmare: at the very least, you could never be legally employed again since your potential employer could never enter into a contract with you since they're always more economically influential.

Incidentally, neither of these are "blackmail". Blackmail is when you use force to secretly demand action of someone else, on the condition that if they do so you will relinquish [or at least fail to act on] that force. Basically, if the RIAA said "Sign this agreement or we'll kill you", that'd be blackmail; but they've just said "sign this agreement or we sue you". Instead, they sued him, and then offered him a way to end the lawsuit.

thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what happens in criminal justice -- where poor people cannot defend themselves & get appointed attorneys who fall asleep by the court.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely! We are in the process of defending a peice of property ( the house I am living in! ) from a set of frivolous lawsuits. If it was not for the fact that I only rent it and do not own it I would have already had to move. Fortunately for me it is a family property that I rent for 900 a month But the estimated legal costs to defend it are more than the value of the property by about 9 grand. I dont have 100k to defend it but the family does. Of course as soon as the case is over we will prolly have to sell it to recoup the costs, meaning I will have to find another place to live again. The only winner will be the lawyers. As neither party will be able to afford the property afterwards.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[dbrutus]

The problem of rich or super-motivated plaintiffs bringing defendents to their knees via lawsuits is the essence of the motivation behind the tort reform movement. Unfortunately, the trial lawyers who make a mint off the current system have united to become the largest funder (bigger than unions or minorities) of the Democrat party. Good luck getting tort reform passed until there's 60 Republicans in the Senate (or close to it).

Re:thr0d ps1t

[deranged unix nut]

(I am Not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is even possible, however...)

What if every (or a large number of) upset music listeners each filed an individual small claims court lawsuit against RIAA? Would 10,000 simultanious small claims court cases slow them down?

Hey, I have only purchased 50 or so CDs, so I'd be happy with $140 dollars back out of the $700 or so I have spent. :)

Re:thr0d ps1t

[AftanGustur]

One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves.

Exactly, some countries have 'justice system', USA has 'legal system' ...

Re:thr0d ps1t

[captainktainer]

Son, you've got this *completely* turned around. Tort reform has nothing to do with protecting the little guy- it's all about protecting the corporations. Look at Texas. When the regulatory commissions in Texas refused to do anything about the heavy pollutants that have driven many people out of Houston (including members of my family) and have caused disease in others, environmentalist groups were able to use lawsuits to force compliance with the law. Tort reform has made it nearly impossible for the little guy (i.e. black lung sufferers) to get justice or monetary recompense.

Or look at this case. Under the Arkansas tort reform act, and in many other "reformed" states, the college student could have been even more financially crippled- because not only would he have had to pay full damages, he would also have had to pay the legal costs of the RIAA.

Speaking of Arkansas, here's a case close to my own heart. My stepmother was forced to put her aunt and mother in a nursing home. Soon after they were committed, the nursing home used fraudulent means to confiscate every bank account she had, charge massive fees to every credit card she owned, *and* force the sale of her house. But that's only a small measure of the pain they caused. They withheld treatment for diabetes from her aunt, and refused to wash her. When the aunt's legs turned gangrenous and died, they didn't operate- they covered up her legs and refused to allow visitors to check on her health. Naturally, she died. Similar things happened to her mother.

Under the Arkansas tort reform act, hailed as a "model of responsible legislation" by Republicans around the country, she could have collected $500,000- $250,000 per lawsuit, not counting any lawyer's fees that the nursing home managed to accumulate. That's unjust, and I thank God that there was a grandfather clause in that act.

So you see, I am *very* skeptical of tort reform. It doesn't do much, if anything, to protect the average American against the depredations of those companies that give the rest a bad name. It protects the wealth and power of those who have obtained it by insidious means. So, whoever you are, I pray fervently to God that your tort reform isn't passed.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[dbrutus]

I'm not you're son, in fact, I probably have a few years on you. Respect your elders, would ya boy?

The current system of torts is absolutely devastating our medical profession (which tends to get hit worse than tech though tech's catching up). They have to airlift patients out of areas with bad legal frameworks because all the specialists have either retired or moved away. Look at West Virginia for a very good example.

Does anybody here want to airlift out all those tech jobs that are litigation risky to nations with loser pays? It's remarkably easy with technology jobs.

You're assuming that this student actually did something wrong. From the 'dentist' comment, it's pretty obvious that he didn't and that this was pure judicial harrassment. Loser pays speeds up settlements for the guilty (they don't want to have to pay any more of their opponent's fees than necessary) and it makes the unjustly accused stick to their guns. That's a two-fer win that works to everybody's advantage but the legal criminals who use the current system to intimidate and unjustly profit from the current rules.

I can live with those gomers being upset.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Skjellifetti]

You are both right. There are times when defendents need to be wacked up the side of the head with every law book in the library and made to pay enough to run them out of business. But there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits as well. I would place no limits on pain and suffering awards where someone's life was ended or made forever miserable as a result of the defendent's actions. But I like the idea of loser pays in the event that the lawsuit is deemed frivolous by the court. Even better would be to make the plaintiff's lawyer pay in the event the lawsuit is declared frivolous. This would serve as a check on the worst of the ambulance chaser class of lawyers.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[paganizer]

A paper-based, legal, slashdotting of the maf-IIA?
That is, indeed, something to consider.
Someone with more time on their hands than me want to run with this?

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've read this somewhere before...

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed! Mod the parent's parent down!

Re:thr0d ps1t

[plague3106]

and it makes the unjustly accused stick to their guns.

Bullshit. People can't stick to thier guns if they cannot continue to pay a lawyer. As soon as that happens, the unjustly accused is defenseless, loses the case, and then has even more legal bills to pay. Which i'm willing to bet is most americans. Such tort reform would only encourage big corporations to file more lawsuits, and discourage someone who is actualy hurt by them from filing, for fear of losing. I'm really suprised you can't see that.

Winning the case does not prove someone right or wrong. Have you been keeping track of the number of people being freed from prison after being wrongfully found guilty? I believe there was about 10-15 just this past week..freed because new DNA evidence appeared that proved innocence, or because it was discovered that cop was corrupt and racist.

If the courts never made a mistake, and rulings were always fair and just, your tort reform might work. Unfortunatly, our system is far from that fantasy.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[plague3106]

I would place no limits on pain and suffering awards where someone's life was ended or made forever miserable as a result of the defendent's actions. But I like the idea of loser pays in the event that the lawsuit is deemed frivolous by the court.

I believe lawsuits are declare frivolous before they even go to trial. Correct me if i'm wrong, but a judge typically reviews that case and decides if there is merit to it before beginning a trial.

If when you hear frivolous lawsuit you think of the woman that burned herself with McDonalds coffee, i think you need to dig deeper into that case, and the final outcome.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Reziac]

"Justice is not within the purview of the law." -- from a 1980s cop show

I do wonder if statements like the one this "dentist" lawyer made might be actionable in some way -- aren't there laws against intimidation of the defendant??

Re:thr0d ps1t

[AceM2]

People can't stick to thier guns if they cannot continue to pay a lawyer. As soon as that happens, the unjustly accused is defenseless, loses the case, and then has even more legal bills to pay.
I'm not going to argue what a law could be corrupted into or whatever.. but.. In a honest loser-pays system.. If the accused is truly innocent, they often could either FIND ways of paying for their lawyer in the mean time knowing they'll win eventually (might be rough, but..) or.. You figure, if I'm a good lawyer trying to break out and make a name for myself.. I go represent Joe.. Joe's being sued by RIAA, but since I'm a pretty good hot shot lawyer.. I know I can win the case for him. I say to Joe, I charge $500,000 to win this case for you.. If we lose, we'll just 'work something out'.. Joe's okay with this, it's better than nothing.. He has a great interest in winning.. If he loses he's going to be in debt anyway.. Since I'm a great lawyer though.. I win, Joe wins, I have $500,000 straight from the pockets of RIAA.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[plague3106]

I'm not going to argue what a law could be corrupted into or whatever.. but.. In a honest loser-pays system.. If the accused is truly innocent, they often could either FIND ways of paying for their lawyer in the mean time knowing they'll win eventually (might be rough, but..)

Again, this is total bullshit. You talk as if you can magically increase your income to match the expense of paying for a lawyer. This simply isn't the case. If it was easily done, I imagine alot less innocent people would be in prison.

You figure, if I'm a good lawyer trying to break out and make a name for myself

More likely then not, if you are a good lawyer, you already have a name for yourself, and thus aren't inclined to do pro bono work. The ones willing to do pro bono work usually are the ones that are just starting, and thus, probably not very good. Not trying to bash them, its simply a lack of experience.

Also, if they lawyer is good, why would he make a deal that if he loses they'll 'work something else out'? Wouldn't he probably just take a case where he knows he's going to get paid because the client can afford it?

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Skjellifetti]

I'm aware of the McDonald's case (coffee so hot it burned a women's genitals when it spilled). By frivolous, I'm thinking more along the lines of the SCO sillyness. On the surface, that would pass a judge's frivolity test, but underneath, it is pure FUD and Boies and friends should have to pay all of the associated court costs if SCO loses.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Anonymous Coward]

Very, very few frivolous lawsuits ever get to trial much less won because there are numerous safeguards already in place. The problem isn't the system itself really. The inequalities of society simply don't have any boundries. In this case, you can't even call it a frivolous lawsuit. There are safeguards to prevent frivolous lawsuits but there really isn't any safeguards to preven frivolous laws. If someone files a real frivolous lawsuit against you, move for a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 violation. The judge will sanction and fine the other side for filing a frivilous lawsuit. If not, the other side has a case.

In my experience it has been mostly corporations that file frivilous lawsuits.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[dbrutus]

Loser pays means you aren't paying your lawyer if you win and most good lawyers are willing to take on such cases because Mr. Moneybags on the other end of the suit can pay their fee. The point of the intimidation racket is to play the percentages. You intimidate 9 out of 10 people, the 10th one sticks and you go to trial, lose but still bankrupt the guy, making him an object lesson.

Now in a loser pays system you're going to trial every time, you still bankrupt the 10th guy because of bribery, lucky jury pick, whatever. But the other 9 aren't settling, they're winning and making news about how you're a big mean bully. Ugly things are happening on the shareholders talk boards and there's a decided downward trend to the stock price because people don't want to be associated with such sleazy tactics (especially when they're expensive and ineffective).

End result, the 10th guy doesn't get bankrupt *because the racket no longer works*. The companies voluntarily stop intimidating people through the court system because it's inefficient and ineffective.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[AceM2]

You talk as if you can magically increase your income to match the expense of paying for a lawyer.
I'm not saying you can magically get a million dollar lawyer, I'm saying you could borrow money.. get friends/family help.. If possible

More likely then not, if you are a good lawyer, you already have a name for yourself, and thus aren't inclined to do pro bono work I never said pro bono. My point was though this could be the fast track to better things for a good yet inexperienced lawyer.

Also, if they lawyer is good, why would he make a deal that if he loses they'll 'work something else out'? Wouldn't he probably just take a case where he knows he's going to get paid because the client can afford it?
I'm pretty sure I stipulated that the lawyer would want to do it if he/she thought they had a chance of winning the case. They would do it to take a chance.. It's like playing the lottery, but with much much much better odds. No, Mr Million-Dollar-A-Year lawyer isn't going to go for this.. However there are lots of lawyers just barely done with public defender work or ambulance chasing, that just might see their chance to get to the top. I don't see how it could be much worse than it is now..

Re:thr0d ps1t

[bigpat]

"AltaVista can afford to defend themselves"

these days... i doubt it.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[Sgt_Jake]

Exactly, some countries have 'justice system', USA has 'legal system'

but how many of THOSE countries have a 'justice league'? Ah? Aaaah? [waggles eyes]

Re:thr0d ps1t

[plague3106]

I'm not saying you can magically get a million dollar lawyer, I'm saying you could borrow money.. get friends/family help.. If possible

And if its not possible? Even if it is, with the cost of a laywer, you are likely to run out of funds quickly. And there's no guarantee you'll win. Basically, you have the same problems you have now, except you'll have to pay even more should you lose the case. I really don't see how that helps, especially in the case of John Doe vs. MegaCorp.

I never said pro bono. My point was though this could be the fast track to better things for a good yet inexperienced lawyer.

Its unlikely that a lawyer would lower his price because he lost. There's simply no incentive to do so.

I'm pretty sure I stipulated that the lawyer would want to do it if he/she thought they had a chance of winning the case. They would do it to take a chance.. It's like playing the lottery, but with much much much better odds. No, Mr Million-Dollar-A-Year lawyer isn't going to go for this.. However there are lots of lawyers just barely done with public defender work or ambulance chasing, that just might see their chance to get to the top. I don't see how it could be much worse than it is now..

Again, why would the laywer agree to lower his price at all? What about cases that don't look winable? I'm sure even innocent people get into a situation were it is likely they'll be convicted...its already happening. What happens ot those people?

Re:thr0d ps1t

[AceM2]

Since you're stubborn, please explain to me how it's so much better to have a bad lawyer that's going to lose your case anyway.

Re:thr0d ps1t

[AceM2]

As a follow up.. I also wanted to point out that high-price lawyers would also be going for these types of cases just because they'll be making the same amount of money as if they were only representing millionaires and such.. I mean.. Seriously, good lawyers will be able to double.. triple.. etc.. their pay because they'd be able to take on many more cases while charging the same amount of money they might charge on 3 or 4 cases a year as it is.

The search engine is NOT back up

[moonbender]

The article says: "He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up."

Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website (also linked in the article):

The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.

He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real ...

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[RickHunter]

The search engine that's up right now looks to be him thumbing his nose at the RIAA. Try doing a search for "Metallica" or "Linkin" (or other popular band names) and take a look at the results. Searching for "linux" also produces amusing output.

I approve. Very nice way to show that he's not intimidated by their legal protection racket.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[dbrutus]

And isn't this the entire point of the exercise? The RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) aren't looking for legal remedies for a particular instance of lawbreaking, they're looking to create a mass of cowed serfs who take their hats off and bow when their lords and masters pass by them.

Using the legal process as an intimidation tool is just how the lawyers like it. We need tort reform now!

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[shadowbearer]

9:34 MT, Chewplastic search engine

System load levels indicate a network update is in progress, try back in 30 minutes.

load levels, heheheh.

SB

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[PetWolverine]

I liked this part:

Max allowed load:
11

Current load:
124.

Yeah, that's /. at work.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[shadowbearer]

Strikes me that this must be pretty alpha; if 11 is his max load, it wouldn't even be an effective uni intranet search engine.

Hmm.

SB

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[Anonymous Coward]

I approve. Very nice way to show that he's not intimidated by their legal protection racket.


Except he was...

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[MickLinux]

My guess is that if he brings it up, he will comply with his agreement, and *not* allow RIAA songs to be found [to the best of his ability].

I think that was item four in his agreement.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[PetWolverine]

Sure it would. Considering how little time it probably takes to actually execute a search and serve the resulting page, having a max of 11 such processes going at once seems pretty reasonable.

To be fair, though, whoever modded you as Flamebait is insane.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[JaredOfEuropa]

The dismissal states that he is forbidden to make materials to which plaintiff owns the copyrights available, on or through his site. Linking to such copyrighted material is explicitly mentioned, so the dismissal does forbid him to run his search engine if it'll turn up links to mp3s.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[RickHunter]

Only problem with tort reform is that a sizable percentage of politicians and aides are or were lawyers. And will be lawyers again when their terms are up. Nope, there's no conflict of interest there!

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[shadowbearer]

I wonder. In a good sized school, if the SE is popular, he could easily be getting the ~150 requests that slashdotted it. I don't know much about stats on college search engine use tho, so you're probably right.:-)

Whoever modded me flamebait obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say, and thought I was trying to put this guy down (I contributed to his fund, damn you, idiot moderator). Said moderator can fuck off. THAT'S flamebait.

SB

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[plague3106]

We need tort reform now!

Tort reform would be more harmful to the small guy then it would be helpful. We do need to fix some things, but tort reform isn't the proper solution.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[chesapeake]

There used to be a search engine running on my college LAN on a community based site with forums, chat, etc. Since all of this legal crap has gone on, and we can't afford lawyers, the search module has been switched off.

This has resulted in webalizer stats dropping from 106,000 hits/day on average to 6,000. So, a search engine that serves approx. 2,200 students will obtain roughly 100,000 hits/day.

All the same, it's fairly amazing how well that server stayed up under a slashdotting, considering all the company sites that go under...

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[shadowbearer]

Thanks, I was wondering about what kind of load colleges dealt with nowadays (it's been >15 years since school).

So with 2200 students, ~ 100k hits per day, /24/60/60 results in about 1.5 hits per second. If the average query serving time is about two seconds his software should do ok. For 2200 students, anyways...

SB

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[ralphclark]

somone with points please mod that one up...

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[dbrutus]

Oh that's taken care of already as the trial lawyers collectively have decided to back the Democrat party (and have become their #1 money source). With all the blockers in one party, if your #1 problem is the judicial criminals who inimidate through litigation then all you have to do is vote out the Dems.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[dbrutus]

Tinkering around the margins with cosmetic reforms isn't going to get rid of the problem. You can argue for different reforms but all the blockers say the same thing, admit some things need to be fixed and never come up with anything constructive, just that whatever reform is proposed is no good.

Tech people getting legally hammered by drive by lawsuits are only a small part of the problem. People are not getting better and even dying because medical specialists are being priced out of wide jurisidictions (West Virginia seems to be worst). When you have to go to a different state to deliver your baby, that's just wrong. So what's going to take care of that problem except tort reform?

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[Nykkel]

I found searching for RIAA to be rather amusing.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[patmoore]

Well -- solving the correct problem would help.

The medical insurance issues that you speak of are caused not by the lawyers but rather by the Medical Boards failure to discipline the doctors that have repeated malpractice claims against them.

Public citizen's report about the true cause of the rising medical malpractice

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[RickHunter]

Problem with that theory: The Democritanss persecuted one of the biggest judicial criminals in the country. (Microsoft) The Republicrats let them off the hook with a slap on the wrist, and haven't done a thing to move towards tort reform in their three-plus years of almost total control of the Senate and Congress.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[Asprin]

...the dismissal does forbid him to run his search engine if it'll turn up links to mp3s.

...of RIAA music. I assume MP3 recordings of lecture notes or his own poetry would be posted without violating anything.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[dbrutus]

If it were medical boards that were just slack in punishing bad doctors then you wouldn't see the same litigation behaviors outside of the medical field. Medicine would be a unique problem. Instead you see it in every field with medicine being worse because it's easier to generate the sob story necessary to work the popular version of the scam. Of course, the RIAA variant on view in this story wouldn't be touched by your refom but would be managed by loser pays rules that are common in tort reform bills.

Now you think slack medical boards are the problem. Slack medical boards would tend to be slack across disciplines. Laziness doesn't pick and choose favorites. Instead, what you have are high risk disciplines creating a disproportionate share of the problem. You would think the sham docs would concentrate where it was easy but no! Those doctors, by your theory, are concentrating in hard disciplines where there's a lot of emotion, a lot of bad outcomes, exactly where they're at most risk of being scrutinized by grieving relatives. NOT! The phenomenon of certain specialties being lawsuit magnets really puts a wrench in your theory.

Insurance companies can track bad docs nationwide and they can price malpractice insurance out of reach of the bad doctors If they are the cause of unprofitability. They also could much more easily pressure state legislatures to tighten up on doctor licensing (most doctors are more than happy to rid themselves of the hacks and quacks in the field).

But that's not where insurance companies are putting their lobbying dollars. They're fully behind tort reform because they hear the shakedown stories every day and get to see the frivolous lawsuit racket happen all the time.

'Gimme a $20k settlement or I'll go to trial and give you a $50k legal bill by the time you get to dismissal' is how it often goes. Those $20k settlements add up. Bad results happen all the time in medicine. It doesn't mean that it's malpractice, just that professionally, doctors are trying to stave off death and everybody eventually loses in that attempt.

So you're left with a little reform fable that it must be the licensing board's fault when the lawsuit distribution of such an oversight failure would be completely different and those who would gain most in profitability (good doctors and insurance companies) are in complete agreement that lax state oversight is not the main issue.

Finally, I've been a jury foreman on a medical malpractice case. I saw the scam up close and personal. We had two jurors in my jury who were willing to convict and in a different random population distribution, we could have had all 12. Playing the jury's heartstrings is real and suing when you don't have a case is real, and Public citizen needs to get its head out of its butt because they're just not living in the real world. Whether or not that's on purpose is beyond my competence.

Sorry, try again.

Re:The search engine is NOT back up

[Warpedcow]

HELLO! It's summer folks, students aren't at campus! Just wait till this fall... then she search engine will be back up finding real warez and music. WOO! :)

______________________________

The article says: "He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up."

Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website (also linked in the article):

The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.

He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real ...

Mirror

[GigsVT]

Dismissal

I don't think Jessee will mind a mirror of the settlement PDF.

Re:Mirror

[GigsVT]

The site is getting slashdotted, here's the post from his blog too:

I have posted my Order of Dismissal (settlement) to the lawsuit filed against me by the RIAA. As stated in the settlement, I settled solely to avoid the costs of litigation. There is a very long story behind my settlement.

I am truly appalled by the RIAA's unprofessional conduct in dealing with my case. A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a "dentist" that I would not want to "have another visit with". I will not be intimidated by the RIAA - they're just going to have to put up with me.

The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN. Despite the $12,000 figure in my settlement, the other terms of the settlement were carefully negotiated over the course of several weeks.

"My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement).

It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech. On the surface, the RIAA claims to support the right to free speech - but only when it benefits their bottom line. When their victim speaks out against them, they step up the intimidation.

They were so desperate to undo my dismissal that they were resorting to blatant lies. I have even been accused of tricking the RIAA into signing my dismissal.

Unfortunately for the RIAA, their basis for undoing the dismissal was so ridiculous that the judge didn't even take up my offer to mediate with the RIAA over their issues with the dismissal - he decided to enter the agreement.

A number of documents surrounding this issue will soon be published. For now, read my order of dismissal.

Re:Mirror

[PetWolverine]

It appears he got a slight discount. The settlement is to be paid in four installments, the first one $5000, the other three $2333.33 each.

Now, for only $11999.99, paid in four easy installments, you can run a search engine defying the RIAA!!

Re:Mirror

[Idarubicin]

The site is getting slashdotted...

Right. The RIAA doesn't intend to sue him again, or really attempt to rescind the settlement. They're just going to keep doing things that result in /. stories, and kill the kid with bandwidth costs.

How does it feel to be a puppet of the regime, everyone? ;)

Re:Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! I easily outwit them by never reading the article.

I love America

[TripleA]

Keep in mind that it is companies like this, aggressive, immoral capitalists, that run the USA through their lobbying organisations. No wonder daddy's boy has also started his way to bullying the world into WW3.

Re:I love America

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, everyone knows George Bush is just a puppet of the Illuminati.

Re:I love America

[Angry White Guy]

I thought it was the Lindburgs?

Re:I love America

[gearheadsmp]

And he's obviously got his priorities fscked up, because he was jerking off with Iraq while he could have been "rectifying" the North Korean issue.

Re:I love America

[dbrutus]

Oh, no, N. Korea's an entirely different situation. Who are the Iraqi version of the S. Koreans? you know, the guys with more population, a hugely bigger economy, and right on the border with this lunatic nation of their co-ethnics?

S. Korea, Japan, and the PRC could take apart N. Korea by themselves if they wanted to. But who was able to do it in Iraq's neighborhood and clean up the local bully? Iran? Please. They sacrificed a generation of their children to Iraqi gas and minefields. Saudia Arabia? ROFL! Kuwait? you're kidding, right? Turkey's really the only candidate and they just aren't interested, as taking responsibility for Iraq would set back their ambitions of joining the EU for decades. They've got enough trouble with Cyprus.

But fear not, there are interesting moves afoot in N. Korea and Rumsfeld's likely to soon announce some force structure changes that have already been leaked to the press that remake the old status quo. He's pulling forces back off of the DMZ and it's driving the N. Koreans nuts. How can they justify their repressive measures (which in reality are there to stop revolt) when the great boogie man is pulling his troops off their borders. It also scares the piss out of S. Korea because they have to come up with the replacements for those troops at the DMZ. The extra cost should focus their minds pretty well on the cost of playing friendly with a psychotic regime.

Re:I love America

[nomadic]

The sad thing is that the slashdot crowd constantly criticizes the corrupting influence of corporate money, but next time election time in the US comes around we'll get dozens of posts from people bragging about how they never vote because their one vote won't make a difference.

Re:I love America

[Seek_1]

Well it's not like the current president won the popular vote or anything is it??

Re:I love America

[jstroebele]

I think you're a bit confused, first off the RIAA isn't a single company.

Second, I think what you say about the RIAA running the US through it's lobbying organisations, is a bit over blown, but let's go with it anyway, if they can buy lobbiest so can other groups such as the EFF, at least that would level the playing feild somewhat. I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.

I don't think "daddy's boy" is bullying the world into WW3, lets not forget who was in office when the only other major nuclar power in the world, the Russians, hastly sent tanks and troops in to Kosovo, one wrong mover there and it would of been WW3.

Re:I love America

[Anonymous Coward]

if they can buy lobbiest so can other groups such as the EFF

The problem with this is that the RIAA has money from all its member companies whereas pretty much all of the EFF's funds contributions come from donations. Furthermore a good portion of the EFF's donated resources are not MONEY but TIME, i.e. Lawyers working for significantly less money than they would in a private practice or for no money at all, interns working for free etc.

The EFF is a CHARITY whereas the RIAA is an INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION. They have very different abilities as such. Furthermore, the power of these two organizations is not proportional to the interests of people in this country. The RIAA fundamentally is a representative of the interests of the record industry, whereas the EFF is really more about representing the rights of the consumer.

Re:I love America

[oni]

I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.

I predict that you will not recieve a response to this point. It's a good point, but it will be ignored.

Re:I love America

[Anonymous Coward]

But who was able to do it in Iraq's neighborhood and clean up the local bully? Iran? Please. They sacrificed a generation of their children to Iraqi gas and minefields.

Might be easier with the USA not funding Iraq though? Then again, I guess they'd have to be pretty stupid to trust the USA not to.

Re:I love America

[kcbrown]

I think you're a bit confused, first off the RIAA isn't a single company.

No, but they may as well be. They're a cartel. The companies (particularly the large ones) that are RIAA members all act in unison, in lockstep.

Such a thing is explicitly illegal, but they have enough money that they can make the entire U.S. government forget about that inconvenient fact.

Re:I love America

[abelsson]

I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.

The Scandinavian countries.

Re:I love America

[Zak3056]

The companies (particularly the large ones) that are RIAA members all act in unison, in lockstep.

That must explain why Sony (an RIAA member that produces music) also produces things like MP3 players.

Companies like Sony can't even get their own divisions to "act in lockstep," much less do so with their competitors.

Re:I love America

[CrazyDuke]

"The sad thing is that the slashdot crowd constantly criticizes the corrupting influence of corporate money, but next time election time in the US comes around we'll get dozens of posts from people bragging about how they never vote because their one vote won't make a difference."

Maybe because no matter who you vote for, they are likely to be corrupted by corporate money. All the big players are heavily lobbied and funded by corporate, industrial, and lawyer interests. The only way one can get around it is to vote for "Bob, the toothless janitor." Good luck getting even 1% of the popular vote. There isn't any choice other than which heavily moneyed factions get the good pork for the next 4 years.

Re:I love America

[plague3106]

He's actually a member of skull and bones. Seriously.

Re:I love America

[gearheadsmp]

Then there's the high probability that Saddam and his sons are in Syria now, *possibly* along with some of the alleged WMD's. My idea of getting them out "cleanly" would be to offer Syria an aid package it cannot possibly refuse, like $4 billion presented by Dick Clark. Or just hire 400 ex-KGB/GRU "employees" to hunt them down.

Re:I love America

[dbrutus]

The old geopolitical game that all the great powers played (yes, including the US) was to not let a hegemon hold Iraq and Iran because that would allow the resulting entity to sweep down and take Saudi Arabia without blinking and there goes our economy.

The mullahs are busy hiring international thugs to beat up their own people lately. Even if the old calculus didn't hold, Iran's just incapable until they get a new government. Hopefully that'll be this year.

Re:I love America

[dbrutus]

According to this article they're currently dna testing remains. We'll know in the next few days.

I'm sure Syria has been made aware of its options. I don't think money is involved, except maybe offering sweetners to the Assad exile package.

Re:I love America

[jmv]

I would like to hear of a more successful system anywhere in the world.

You're joking right? The US is probably the *least* democratic of the "western" countries. As a comparison, in Canada (that's where I live so I can compare) there's going to be a law that will forbid donations from companies and limit donations from individuals (something $10k), plus I think there's going to be a cap on the total expenses from a party. That way, it's no longer he who has the most money that wins.

I find it hard to believe that big corporations (MS, Disney) can give money to representants to get their laws passed... and do so openly as if it were notmal!!

Re:I love America

[nomadic]

It doesn't matter. We don't need saints in congress, or even especially honest politicians. If we're loud, vocal, and vote, they'll do most of what we demand out of fear.

double offences

[Anonymous Coward]

isnt there some double jeopardy law/ammendment in the usa that prevents this?

Re:double offences

[kfg]

As the other poster notes double jeopardy does not apply to multiple counts.

More to the point, double jeopardy does not apply to civil cases between litigants. It only applies to criminal cases.

Money can be argued over forever.

KFG

Re:double offences

[TinoMNYY24]

Indeed, double jeopardy applies to the same offense. If I were to drive over to your house and kill you (example situation ONLY), and I were found innocent, I could then do whatever I wished in regards to your murder and not be re-tried and found guilty. However, in Jesse's case, it is a civil one, and the RIAA can sue as many times as they have lawywers and money for (infinite). Basically, until a judge gets sick of it and legally bans the RIAA from suing Jesse, he can be sued once a day for the rest of his life. There are no laws against lawsuit flooding or scare tactics, because not until now has that been a major problem in America. The RIAA's current case(s) against the college students is just another example of corporate America running the show anyway they want without any regard for individuals. We seem to be approaching some sort of critical mass though, and hopefully there will be an explosion in this situation, and the key things will change that need to change. I just hope Jesse and other innocent people don't get caught in the middle.

Yes, I said "innocent" back there. Before you even start flaming me, read the past articles and his website. Jesse never broke a law, all he did was set up a search engine that allowed you to find files on a local network (like the one built into all operating systems). This search engine would crawl through the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's network, indexing available shares. When you performed a search, it would search through the list of shares, and display the results in the form of direct links to the other person's computer. Jesse did not archive any actual files, he did nothing but provide a "phone book" of sorts, where you could look upthe file you wanted, and he would tell you which subnet and computer the file resided on. The system is actually quite brilliant, and very useful for finding legal and illegal files. Unfortunately, the RIAA decided that Jesse could not continue running this perfectly legal entity, and sued to have him shut down. Suing 4 college students for massive amounts of money during finals is pretty low, but then going after a student after he has settled is even lower. The RIAA needs to be shown that we will not tolerate this kind of behavior, and they need to realize that the world has changed thanks to computers, and they need to change their business model to reflect the popularity of the largest data distribution medium the world has ever seen.

Re:double offences

[plague3106]

He was never tried, so i don't think that would apply.

Re:double offences

[Alsee]

Money can be argued over forever.

Actually you have to stop when the lawyers bleed one side or the other dry. Then the other side wins a defaulty judgement for $0.

P.S. 'defaulty' was a originally a typo, but I liked it and left it :)

-

Re:double offences

[TinoMNYY24]

What do you mean? He was never tried, that's true, but my point is, there was no "trial" involved at all. In America, a civil case in court is called a "hearing," and any lawsuit can be "heard" multiple times.

Re:double offences

[kfg]

Oh Lordy I wish that were how it worked. They are often quite happy to bleed you dryer than dry. When one side runs out of money the other side gets a default judgment for whatever they ask for.

Collecting it is another matter though, but they can then use that judgement to harass you, quite possibly to your grave.

KFG

Re:double offences

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true: see the Doctrine of Res Judicata -- civil suits litigated in court are barred from being resubmitted.

IANYAL

Re:double offences

[kfg]

See the limitations of and exceptions to the Doctrine of Res Judicata.

A good corporate lawyer can play these like a violin against a broke defendant.

IANYAL either, but I sometimes play one in court.

KFG

Jesse's Business Model

[telstar]

1) Get sued for $12k
2) People donate money
3) Get sued again for $90b
4) People donate hella money
.
.
5) Profit?

Re:Jesse's Business Model

[chief-dot]

He's kinda temporarily profiting anyway.

As part of the dismissal he had to pay $12K but he only pays $5K now and $2.3K next year and $2.3K the year after etc. etc.

So he's ahead for the next couple of years at least :)

Re:Jesse's Business Model

[MaddJackKidd]

keep in mind that this is a COLLEGE STUDENT and that he probably doesn't have $2.3K, much less $5K or $12K...

Oooh scary.

[paroneayea]

A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'
So wait a minute... dentists are supposed to be the ones working for you. So, it seems to me that he's saying he's not the kind of guy you'd want to hire twice. Nevertheless, his comment sounds a lot like this:
Booga booga booga!

Re:Oooh scary.

[gearheadsmp]

Or better yet, notify the "Dentist" that he's going to end up as a statistic - suicidal dentist!

Re:Oooh scary.

[Associate]

Better yet. Why doesn't the ADA sue the lawyer for implying there is something wrong with being a dentist?

Re:Oooh scary.

[dbrutus]

Or he's that Nazi war criminal dentist who kept asking Dustin Hoffman "is it safe"?

Yeah, the RIAA represented by an international war criminal out to get blood money. I like the imagery.

Re:Oooh scary.

[NamShubCMX]

That lawyer had just finihed reading Cryptonomicon...

Re:Oooh scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Might be a most interesting suicide too.

If a 'dentist" was to rip off his own testicles and shove them up his nose and then slice off and shove his penis down his own throat to induce death by asphyxia it would seem to indicate a highly-troubled, sexually-confused "dentist."

Search engine might be "back online," but...

[AntiOrganic]

"06/19/03: The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation."

Oh, how useful.

Re:Search engine might be "back online," but...

[Timesprout]

Actually its a fiendishly cunning RIAA honey trap

Re:Search engine might be "back online," but...

[TinoMNYY24]

Before you get all sarcastic about the search engine being back up, consider the original article. The search engine was set up to search a large college network. What month is it? That's right, it's June. There's no school in June. The search engine wil lbe back up in August, and will be fully operational before the beginning of September. If the search engine worked right now, you'd be able to search for files in Jesse's house, and you wouldn't be able to download those files unless you were actually in his house.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

Re:Search engine might be "back online," but...

[Alsee]

Oh, how useful.

Have you read the terms of use?

Terms of Use: As of January 15, by using Phynd, you agree to have your shared (non-password protected) data indexed. Do not worry, if you do not wish to have your files indexed in Phynd, just add a password to your shares. Alternatively, if you would like to be removed from the database, please use the Feedback form and I will remove you within 24 hours.

Bringing Phynd back up in "dummy mode" is a means of collecting permission to index people's files. His original case was severely prejudiced by the fact that he himself was sharing files. His case was weak because he did not get authorization to index people's files. And he did not provide a removal mechanism.

I am going to seriously oversimplify the settment here and say that it pretty much says that he can't do anything illegal and that he can't knowingly facillitate illegal downloads. If the service goes live again I assume his will honor copyright holder requests for the removal of specific links to infringing files.

This kid's got a huge set of balls flaunting his system in the RIAA's face. It all boils down to whether he got good legal advice or not. There is good reason to think the premise of the Phynd system is perfectly legal. With these minor changes he may be perfectly entitled to bring his system back up. If the RIAA tries anything he may in fact win a suit against the RIAA. Worst case the RIAA wins a hundred billion dollar suit against him and he files for bankruptcy. Not only does he have virtually nothing to lose, it would wipe out the three year $7000 debt he still owes to the RIAA. By suing and winning the RIAA could conceivably wind up getting LESS money from him than if they do nothing.

-

Re:Search engine might be "back online," but...

[TinoMNYY24]

The lawsuit was filed in April, the "by accessing phynd you give me permission" issue was added in January to comply with campus regulations on unauthorized computer access. The removal form was also included at that time. The RIAA collected their data and filed the suit after these changes were made to the system.

Silent Majority

[deunan_k]

Go for it man! You'll never walk alone! (Damn, feels like a Liverpool FC fan)

We are all rooting for you! It's just that most of us rather not be in the open. I mean, we do have balls, large brass ones.. two of 'em! but let's not provide 'em a target if you can help it.

Re:Silent Majority

[Tim Doran]

Go for it man! ...though you may never walk again...

*sigh

Re:Silent Majority

[Anonymous Coward]

>We are all rooting for you!

Apparently so is the other team's lawyer nicknamed 'The Dentist'.

A Dentist?

[agentZ]

A dentist? Like in Cryptonomicon? Uh oh...

Re:A Dentist?

[AntiOrganic]

No, like in Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Man, that Gremlin was the coolest dentist ever.

Re:A Dentist?

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought was THE RUNNING MAN.

...f*ckin' nazis...

Actually, he's worse than that, coz he's also a lawyer.

Re:A Dentist?

[andreMA]

Or maybe Marathon Man. Hmms... dentists seem to get a bad rap in a number of movies. I wonder how they pissed off the RI^H^HMPAA?

Re:A Dentist?

[AndroidCat]

No, like in Little Shop of Horrors (remake). That guy sure looks like plant food to me.

Re:A Dentist?

[Reziac]

More like in Marathon Man.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Must have a hard time walking around... with those large brass things in his pants. :-D

Fight the good fight!

Re:Wow

[Angry White Guy]

I will not donate any more money to him so that it can go back to the RIAA, but I will chip in on a plane ticket to Europe...

The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Tuxinatorium]

These are the folks who ashcroft should be worrying about.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

these are the people that pay Ashcroft to support his Terrorism fight...

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[dbrutus]

They have a plan to take care of that. It's called damage caps and loser pays tort reform. Essentially, it takes away the incentive to make frivolous lawsuits. The guy wouldn't need a defense fund, and wouldn't need to settle because he'd simply go through the process and get his lawyer fees back when he wins.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear to god every time I see a mod put something like this as flamebait, I kiss my Metamod tag.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, I actually got to metamod that flamebait mod. Now it's vanished.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[goon america]

Yea, except the Bush administration only wants damage caps as long as its the consumer suing the corporation (specifically in health care).... they have no problem with frivolous lawsuits so long as its the company trying to screw the consumer.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[SuperFrink]

The guy wouldn't need a defense fund, and wouldn't need to settle because he'd simply go through the process and get his lawyer fees back when he wins.

So either he needs to be able to cover the legal fees before he gets his money back or he needs to find representation that will work on a contingency basis or at least agree to be paid after the fact. IIRC some regions do not allow contingency based representation.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[slycrel]

They key word there is "back". He still has to put it all up front, unless the lawyers go for an after the fact payment.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[ponxx]

How does it work at the moment? I kind of assumed the accuser would have to pay the defendents cost if he cannot prove his case, just like is the case most everywhere else in the world... is that not so in the US?

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[tinrobot]

Yeah, but loser pays means that if the other guy wins, YOU pay. Kinda scary when the RIAA hires lawyers by the dozen. You could be out millions paying their legal fees on the oft-chance that they prevail. Not very good odds, IMHO.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Crashmarik]

Do you have something similar from a respectable paper ?

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

+1, Wicked burn

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[nutshell42]

Where it's implemented usually the court decides the distribution of the legal fees to prevent such stunts

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Alsee]

IANAL.

is that not so in the US?

Nope, though you can ASK for (reasonable) legal costs. Loser only pays defendants costs if the you convince the judge that the lawsuit was somehow unreasonable. Frivolous or malicious lawsuits qualify. The mere fact that you lost is not enough to show that bringing the case was unreasonable.

I certainly see the benefits of a loser-pays system. However the uS system does protect the little guy who sues the big guy. If I sue Microsoft they can easily spend millions defending the case. It's hard enough to beat a corporate opponent as it is, I don't need to risk going bankrupt if they out-lawyer me. I assume loser-pays systems must address this issue somehow?

Criminal cases are completely different. In the process of making an arrest the police MUST inform of certian rights, including some variation of the following quote "You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you". You've probably heard these "Mirada rights" if you ever watch American movies :)

I believe Bill Gates himself can get a free court-appointed attorney in criminal cases. Unfortunately court appointed attorneys are notoriously overworked, inexperienced, and/or not good enough to make it in paid practice.

-

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[dbrutus]

No, it would be like today's contingency lawsuits in that you don't pay at the beginning but the judge would pay the lawyer from the loser's pocket, in other words, lawyers get paid at the end a reasonable fee. I'm sure that jurisdictions could not pass this kind of reform but it would really kill off their local business community.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[dbrutus]

This would depend on the legislation which is not passed yet. Write your congressman if that's not the system you want.

Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists

[Patrick]

I believe Bill Gates himself can get a free court-appointed attorney in criminal cases.

Nope. The Miranda statement is "If you cannot afford [an attorney], one will be appointed for you." You actually have to demonstrate your inability to afford an attorney, which means disclosing your finances to the court. At least, this is the case in North Carolina.

Public defenders are not known for their great track records. US jails (death row in particular) are packed with people who couldn't afford better lawyers.

The Dentist

[Scoria]

referred to himself as a 'dentist'

There isn't anything comparably ominous to The Dentist: "Once I'm done with these here teeth, son, I'll be exploring the lower territory with my drill..."

Re:The Dentist

[ErikZ]

I know! Maybe this guy is used to dealing with toddlers.

"Around here, they call me 'The Barber'."

Where's teh EFF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems right up their alley... this kid was running a general purpose search engine. It indexes everything it finds. It returns results. He made no money off of it. He was intimidated into settling, pure and simple.

Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are google and alta vista immune from similar suits? Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the crap out of the RIAA.

It's a travesty of justice. I wish one of the multi-letter organizations would help this guy.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[yack0]

>Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are
>google and alta vista immune from similar suits?
>Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the
>crap out of the RIAA.

How? They can afford lawyers. College students can't. It's really quite as simple as that. Set the precedent in the court with someone unable to defend themselves and then you can start getting the bigger fish. The same thing happened with Divine, Inc. . Thing is, Divine went Chap 11. So whoever buys their property will do it all again. Lucky us.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Wavicle]

I'm not sure if the EFF and this guy have talked, but I can think of a few reasons why the two might avoid involvement: First, any time you go through litigation, there is a chance you'll lose, which could mean bankruptcy as well as loss of life savings. Second, the court already shot Napster down so it is kind of a touchy area.

The question that would be raised at trial would be "What are most of the files being searched for?" In Google's case, it's probably sex or Britney Spears. In this guy's case it is probably mp3/ogg.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Adam9]

I think the main reason for them not being involved is that Jesse didn't want to go through with *any* sort of litigation. He just wanted to settle since he was in school.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[GigsVT]

Since it was settled, it sets no precedent.

If you want to set a precedent, you have to sue someone who can afford to appeal it up to a pretty high level, since precedent is mostly set with appellate court opinions.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Wavicle]

Ahhh, yes...

Third, litigation takes a lot of time.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he settled. When you settle, you don't have a trial, and there is no legal precedent. Therefore, the RIAA has gained nothing from this (well 12,000 and bad press...)

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[c0dedude]

Yeah, but the law is not blind. Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes. I think it's wise to go back to the lockpick example. As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick. Not because a lockpick is a bad thing, but because of the potential for illegal use. This search engine, which was primarily used to further illegal activity, had no controls against illegal use, thus it became a target. IANAL.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the law is not blind. Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials.

Do you have anything to back that up or is that "well if they sued him then he must be guilty" reasoning?

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Knobby]

The search engine indexes everything it finds on publicly available shares. So, there's a filter that restricts your search to "audio," "video," or "documents," so what?.. How is the addition of a filter (*.mp3) to a search engine (by the way, you could do the exact same thing that this search engine does using the search capabilities included in Windows) illegal?

This search engine, which was primarily used to further illegal activity, had no controls against illegal use, thus it became a target.

What kind of controls are you suggesting? The search engine provides a list of the publicly available files. Shouldn't the students providing the files be targetted rather than the student running a search engine?

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[dipipanone]

Yeah, but the law is not blind.

No, it can definitely see the size of your wallet. The problem it has is seeing what counts as justice.

Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes.

Bullshit. The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for. If something has a legitimate use, then it's perfectly legal. The primary use of cigarette papers is probably to roll joints these days, but because they can be used to make hand-rolled cigarettes, they aren't illegal. Similarly, look at the recent Californian decision over Kazaa. Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.

As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick.

If so, it's because they've passed a law requiring such. Point us to an equivalent law outlawing the use of search engines...

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[/dev/trash]

The EFF? They're off defending some child porn dude.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[MobileC]

I thought he was done for hosting mp3's.
That was his mistake.
(With apologies to Split Endz - please don't sue me!)

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Tokerat]

Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.

Wrong. Kazaa won because, unlike Napster, it doesn't keep a central database of files and.or their locations. (For reference, Napster kept a database of file locations, and when you performed a search , you performed it though Napster's central server) Kazaa simply bounces queries from your node to all the others on the network. Therefore Kazaa, by design, is incapable of filtering such queries, unless you want to have a 300MB database of banned filenames/checksums included with Kazaa...

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is yahoo and altavista don't specifically run a search engine dedicated to mp3 content and nothing else.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Alsee]

Therefore Kazaa, by design, is incapable of filtering such queries, unless you want to have a 300MB database of banned filenames/checksums included with Kazaa...

Shhhh! Don't go giving the RIAA any ideas. I'm sure their lawyers would be more than happy to argue for such a database to be included in every download.

-

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[sjames]

Therefore, the RIAA has gained nothing from this (well 12,000 and bad press...)

Not to mention letting everyone know they could be out their life savings just for knowing someone who knows someone who might have thought about sharing a music file. Which is what they wanted.

In other words, they are using terror to further their political and social goals. Time to bomb the hell out of them and drag them off to Cuba (er, sorry, that's for terrorists who don't pay taxes and bribe polititians).

What this shows is that we have "liberty and justice for all" for sufficiently small values of all and sufficiently large bank balances.

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[Khelder]

The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for.

IANAL, so although I think this is generally true, I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that this is not correct in copyright law: whether a device that can contribute to copright infringement is legal or not may depend on the degree to which its uses are infringing vs. non-infringing. It also depends on other factors, such as whether its use (will) deprive the copyright owner(s) of revenue. In the past, devices that have substantial non-infringing uses have been ruled to be ok, even if they also have infringing uses (perhaps most famously, VCRs).

Re:Where's teh EFF ?

[dipipanone]

Wrong. Kazaa won because, unlike Napster, it doesn't keep a central database of files and.or their locations.

Read the judgement. The lack of a filtering mechanism blocks the RIAA from seeking this as a remedy against copyright protection, but it didn't prevent them from bringing an action to try and shut the network down. The judge allowed the network to continue because he said there were other legitimate uses besides the ability to trade in MP3's and warez. If the only possible use for Kazaa had been to distribute illegal files, the judge would have had no choice but to rule against it.

hmmm....

[The Tyro]

If I read your dismissal action correctly, you are prohibited from trading/transmitting/etc/etc/ad nauseum any sort of copyrighted works via your phynd service.

It also states that the "defendant shall not engage in or sell" software that encourages copying, trading, blah, blah, blah.

How are you keeping your Phynd service up again(or are you just offering it for download)? Is it your contention that your software is intended to do nothing of the sort (ie. just a tool to be used for good OR evil)? That's the only loophole I can see in that document... anyone better with legalese than myself find something different?

I'm a little confused here.

Re:hmmm....

[cliffiecee]

...you are prohibited from trading/transmitting/etc/etc/ad nauseum any sort of copyrighted works via your phynd service...

He isn't.

Re:hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

"prohibited from trading/transmitting/etc/etc/ad nauseum any sort of copyrighted works via your phynd service."

Does that include anything written by the person himself, which is by default copyrighted?

Re:hmmm....

[Wavicle]

I think your pdf viewer automatically detects and removes the word "Plaintiff's". Because what you said is true if you insert "Plaintiff's".

He is prohibited from trading/transmitting Plaintiff's copyrighted works.

The defendant shall not engage in or sell software that encourages copying of Plaintiff's copyrighted works.

He is obligated to implement measures which attempt to prevent the illegal copying of RIAA's (well their member company's) copyrighted materials. And if RIAA ever implements a system to prevent finding of this copyrighted material, he must implement it in his phynd service.

Re:hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the only loophole I can see in that document...

Loophole, shmoophole.

The kid ran a search engine. Just like Google does. Other kids found that they could share copyrighted material through it. He got sued.

He didn't do anything wrong then, and he's not doing anything wrong now.

Re:hmmm....

[TinoMNYY24]

First of all, I'm glad to see that the replies to these posts are finally starting to make sense. The last article about Jesse was filled with misinformed morons waxing about how criminals were being put to justice.
Secondly, nice sig.
Thirdly, my point. The Phynd server never trafficked in, traded, or transmitted copyrighted works. It woked as a "phone book" of sorts. It was almost identical in operation to Google, except Google caches the files it finds, and Phynd does not. You search for a file on Phynd, and it gives you a link that will let your operating system (which has this network searcher built-in, by the way) connect directly to whoever it sharing the file. There is no way for Jesse to even track who downloaded what, because downloads do not go through his computer. If you search for something, all the site records is the text of your search. It isn't even used for anything aside from making fun of people who search for weird porn or playing practical jokes(I know, I'm friends with jesse). Now for the "engage in or sell" portion...Phynd is not for sale from Jesse, the core code is actually owned by the operator of www.phynd.net. There is also a clause that says something to the effect of "there must be reasonable effort made to lower the counts of copyright violation over the Phynd service." If you'll notice, Phynd no longer has "Music" in the "search for files of type:" box. That's a reasonable cut down on piracy, it doesn't filter results based on music filetypes anymore. However, if you type "metallica" into the search box, you will always get metallica mp3s, not that their new ones are worth listening to, but that's for a whole other post.

Re:hmmm....

[Alsee]

Thirdly, my point. The Phynd server never trafficked in, traded, or transmitted copyrighted works.

True, but Jesse himself did. And that fact severely prejudiced the other claims against him and against Phynd. The settlement effectively takes all of his personal file activity out of the picture. The new terms of service specificly grant him permission to index files, another possible weakness of his case. I predict he plans to honor any valid copyright hoder requests for the de-listing of specific links.

Given all of that, Phynd is in a much stronger position than it was before the settlement.

-

Re:hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did he settle? When you settle frivilous lawsuits, you only encourage more. He's just cut himself by settling and the RIAA's sharks/lawyers now smell blood. He has a valid defense under the DMCA which specifically protects search engines with a notice procedure. If he removed links to copyrighted materials after notice from the copyright holder, then they can sue him. Was there something more to the search engine? Anybody with half a brain who passed the bar could've defended him for less than he settled for.

Double Jeopardy

[nuggz]

Not if you do it twice.

Re:Way to go slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...are you guys going to donate days of getting fucked up the ass to this poor idiot?"

• Based on the male/female ratio at RPI, I'd say he's probably already had his fill ... no pun intended.

From Slashdot?

[Wind_Walker]

Yeah, right. Just like we're boycotting Blizzard because of their bnet.d hassles... oh wait, we ran a story on the release and expansion of Warcraft III.

Well, the MPAA is horrible and is taking away rights! But hell, here comes X-2, The Hulk, Lord of the Rings, etc.

The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except when it makes life inconvenient for them. Then they'll pony up to the bar faster than... something that ponies up to the bar really quick.

Re:From Slashdot?

[jwilcox154]

Except, this has nothing to do with the MPAA, this is the RIAA we're talking about. Oh, about Boycotts, I have not bought any cds in the past 2 Years "Except, perhaps, blank CDs", I get my music in Analog form now "I.E. 8-Track, Vinyl Albums, Cassette", and not a single penny goes to the RIAA.

The problems are 1. The Teens and Pree-Teens cant "or at leat think they can't" do without the cookie cutter boy and girl bands

2. Even if everyone were to stop pirating their music, the RIAA would still blame the loss of sale on pirating. "And, I imagine the RIAA would consider my activities of copying music from an analog format to a digital format for my own personal use a form of piracy."

Re:From Slashdot?

[FunkSoulBrother]

The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except when it makes life inconvenient for them. Then they'll pony up to the bar faster than... something that ponies up to the bar really quick.

Just like nearly everyone. You don't think all those rednecks pouring wine in the gutter actually drank French Wine, do you? Know how many anti-smoking people I know who eat Oreos? How many anti-SUV people would actually refuse a ride in one when a friend pulled up in the pouring rain?

Re:From Slashdot?

[John Hasler]

> The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except
> when it makes life inconvenient for them.

Speak for yourself. No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years, nor have I made unauthorized copies of anything of theirs.

Re:From Slashdot?

[garcia]

and would it matter to them if we did end up boycotting them? I highly doubt it. They are not interested in the small, insignificant groups that complain about them.

99% of the population has NO idea what the RIAA/MPAA is until they get busted for downloading Spiderman Divx.

Re:From Slashdot?

[1000StonedMonkeys]

Slashdot is not a single entity.

There are a lot of people that will boycott anything that appears on yro, and there are a lot of people who don't give a flying fsck. Personally I belong to the latter. I don't think what Blizzard did was great, but WC3 was a good game and they got my $30.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Zebbers]

havent bought a new cd in prolly 2 years now

and wont

i dont feel that cds are a valueadded product anymore. thier model is outdated and i wont support such a thing. back in the day, i bought a cd weekly.

i still buy movies every once in a while. cause the value i get from a movie is worth it.

I dont buy nonlinux games because I dont run windows. I used to buy a lot of games. I just bought a windows laptop that I really don't want to change to linux on cause its a collegecompatibility machine. Its gon be hard to resist if a tempting game comes along.

point is. no, its hard, its really hard. but once you get in the swing of things its a lil easier. you still have bumps every now and then but it works. does it make a difference in the scheme of things? prolly not. but its the same with my eating healthy, its hard, i have bumps but overall im 437435x better off than most americans. Will I really affect the overall health of America, hell no. Its gon take a revolution. Same with this. Do it for yourself, your own beliefs and not for the cause.

Re:From Slashdot?

[minion]

Speak for yourself. No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years, nor have I made unauthorized copies of anything of theirs

Sooo, you have large collection of disco records, and that made your life complete? =)

Re:From Slashdot?

[Polyphemis]

Out of curiosity, what do you do for entertainment then? Not trolling or joking, genuinely curious to hear how someone that truly DOES abstain from the mainstream media keep themselves amused. I imagine independent artists and independent films are involved, as well as books, but I want to hear what it is exactly from you. :)

Re:From Slashdot?

[WNight]

I'm not boycotting Blizzard because of bnet.d, though that's not a bad reason.

I'm simply never buying another thing from a company who puts the burden of supporting their cd-check on the customer. I bought Diablo 2 from them and the cd-check always failed. Turned out it didn't like my burner (my only cd drive). I emailed Blizzard and their response was "Buy a new CD drive". Fuckers. Of course the store I bought the game at wouldn't take it back.

Later I found all this was for naught, D2 sucked ass anyways. Well, it's an expensive lesson, but I'll never buy anything they do again, and I'll tell people my story so they know what sort of treatment they'll get if they have a problem.

Re:From Slashdot?

[haystor]

That's not how you do a boycott for this kind of situation.

You start by picking one artist everyone can live with out and put the screws to him. *Force* him to change. Then move on to the next. These are the people signing the contracts with the RIAA/MPAA. Make them change their mind who they should work for.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Chester K]

Speak for yourself. No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years, nor have I made unauthorized copies of anything of theirs.

You're the exception, not the rule. Your average Slashdotter fumes angrily about the MPAA one day, then drools over the upcoming release of the new Lord of the Rings or Matrix or Star Wars movie the next day.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Malcontent]

You won't boycott shit and they know it.

Think about it. The terminator is coming out soon and everyone will flock to see it. THis will make Arnold more money so he can run for governor of california as a republican.

As my sig says. Why would any democrat let alone california democrats go see this movie? Why not boycott it and at least send a message to Arnold?

It's because people can't think outside of their own narrow interests that's why.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

you're insane, move along.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it ever occur to you that about 70% of Slashdot's readers never post a single comment? Did it ever occur to you that not everyone shares the same view on these things?

There is no "We" on Slashdot. You have your opinion, I have mine. If they coincide, so be it, but don't bitch about it when they don't.

Should news sources not post stories about the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or whoever, just because a not insignificant number of readers are against the war?

Re:From Slashdot?

[Qzukk]

I'll tell you what, I haven't seen X2. Or the second Lord of the Rings movie, or the new Matrix movie, or anything else in a while. Not even the second harry potter movie. Thats "haven't seen it at all" not "downloaded some camcorder rip from the net".

Sure, I think I'm missing out on something, but thats ok with me.

Related reading "The Ones who Walk Away From Omelas", Ursula LeGuin short story. Think about that when you talk about boycotting something. Some people feel that the benefits are worth any atrocity, and will just not care about the boycott.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Skiboo]

No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years

Ever bought a CD-R?

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I make unauthorized copies and feel good about it.

But I'm posting anonymously nonetheless.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever bought a CD-R?

As long as you buy data CD-Rs you're fine unless you're unlucky enough to be Canadian. Only audio CD-Rs get taxed usually. At least, in my state they do.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you got a +5, Insightful despite the fact that you're just pointing out exactly the same hypocrisies that people have pointed out in dozens of previous threads. Maybe I should start copying posts from previous threads so I can get free Karma too! Of course, that might be too obvious. Maybe if I just reword, it no one will realize it!

Re:From Slashdot?

[OblvnDrgn]

There's a lot of people who read this site. Perhaps there is one group of people who complain about the MPAA, and another separate group that drools over the newest movie. There are enough people that both opinions can be popular without many individual conflicts, you know.

Re:From Slashdot?

[smokin_juan]

What makes you think that any form of media is really required? Truth is, you can't get away from the media... That car you bought has a radio built in... the assholes at work are listing to limbag and hannnity... the wife has accute tv addition, so on and so forth. oh, and i nearly forgot the net.

yep been about 3 years since i bought a cd. fuck the riaa for acting that way and fuck the consumers/artist for letting them. yeah, that pretty well sums it up, to hell with everyone.

Re:From Slashdot?

[petsounds]

As my sig says. Why would any democrat let alone california democrats go see this movie? Why not boycott it and at least send a message to Arnold?

Arnold couldn't do any worse of a job as governor than Democrat Gray Davis is, who happens to be under attack by a recall campaign after shackling the state with so much debt. And oh yes, that little incident with the power companies.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Chad E Dirks]

Wonderful.

So far as I am aware, I have never given the RIAA any money.

Neither have I given the MPAA any money, except for a single DVD several years back when I was curious what all of the fuss was about.

Have a look at Furthur. It is a p2p (I believe this is technically correct) counterpart to tape trading. Its 'operators' (no, I haven't investigated particularly the network topology or protocol) have gone to great lengths to ensure its legality, including requiring special or otherwise written public permission from all artists and bands whose performances are 'allowed' (I don't know the status of preventing circumvention) to be traded.

One great part about Furthur is that the network makes it much easier (a lower barrier to entry) for everyone to contribute back what they take than it would be, for example, to set up an FTP server listed through etree

If not that, find something to read. If (for whatever reason) you don't think purchasing a book is any better than purchasing from the RIAA or the MPAA, there is nearly 2500 years worth of significant philosophical works available unrestricted by copyrights, and enough of it is online to keep you busy for many years to come.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Pig Hogger]

Out of curiosity, what do you do for entertainment then?

Masturbation.
It's free, it's available anytime, it doesn't involve bothering anyone else, it's healthy, the fantasizing is food for your brain and the only disease you can catch is penis elbow.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

You start by picking one artist everyone can live with out and put the screws to him. *Force* him to change. Then move on to the next.

Uhh, right.

RIAA sells CDs for thousands of artists, but we'll pick one out that everyone can live without (hmmm, Madonna?) and force that one artist to change. That one artist sees thousands of artists making money, but not him/herself, and logically concludes that the RIAA business model is failing, and consequently makes their music available online.

Not seeing any problem here? A boycott of ALL RIAA artists is the only way to make anyone wake up. Even if everybody simply reduced the number of CDs they bought, it would be better than nothing.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Splab]

Not true - I dont really hate mpaa - I buy all my movies etc (those I like that is). You dont see mpaa in all the headlines so I think people are badmouthingen them unjust, they might not only support the stuff we like, but c'mon some of it is pretty darn good. However, RIAA is music, I have bought 2 cds in the last 7 years - I do alot of so called pirateing and I dont give a rats ass. As long as they charge me 20 bucks a cd for one number I like and dont got it on a medium I want to use I aint buying. I once did the thing with downloading and buying if I liked it, but RIAA and the like are just too damn greedy - so ill punish them my way... Ohh yeah and I'm not afraid of them, nice liveing != USA - we got a body like them, but they arent as agressive and our laws gives us alot more room....

Re:From Slashdot?

[hkmwbz]

Well, one can play WC3 without paying for it. You can download the warez version and even play online - on unofficial servers. Bnetd is put to good use, and will continue to be used no matter how hard Blizzard tries to get rid of it.

As for movies, I know about plenty of people who find cinemas a waste of time, who won't give the entertainment industry a penny if they can prevent it, and simply download the latest movies and play them at home, often with large projectors and similar.

So you see, there are solutions. They may not all be legal or moral, but then again, some may justify these actions by pointing out the immoral actions of the entertainment industry. I'm not saying that it's right, but plenty of people do this. And there are even people who don't give a damn about these things and just downloads stuff illegally because it is convenient and they can't be bothered to waste money when it's so easy to get hold of online.

As for your comment about "the Slashdot crowd", it is rather silly. Slashdot is a site with thousands of individuals who all have different opinions. Some may want to boycott Blizzard, some may not. Some hate Microsoft, some do not.

Amusing to see you to try to raise yourself above "the Slashdot crowd" with unenlightened comments like that, especially since you are part of this crowd yourself. So if everyone else doesn't practice what they preach, neither do you - you have implicitly said so yourself.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Jardine]

And even the levy we Canadians pay does not go to the RIAA. It goes to the CPCC which distributes the money in a fair (heh, yeah) way to the artists, writers, and labels.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we boycott blizzard about bnetd? It's development is alive and well ;)

Re:From Slashdot?

[Malcontent]

"Arnold couldn't do any worse of a job as governor than Democrat Gray Davis is,"

Completely irrelevant. If you are a democrat and you go see terminator you are giving money to Arnold so he can work against your interests. Why give money to your enemy? You can be sure that Arnold sees democrats as his enemy and that will become obvious when he runs for governor. Did you hear his speech recently?

Re:From Slashdot?

[julesh]

Can somebody explain to me WTF the difference between audio and data CDRs is? In my experience, you just put the disc in the drive, tell your CD recording software which type of disc you want to produce, give it a list of the files to put on there, and away you go. One disc works for either format. Or is there something I'm missing?

Re:From Slashdot?

[ReelOddeeo]

Can somebody explain to me WTF the difference between audio and data CDRs is? .... Or is there something I'm missing?

There is something you're missing.

Music CD-R's cost more because they include a fee that goes to the RIAA members to compensate them for the inevitable piracy that will occur using the blank CD-R you just purchased. After all, nobody could possibly be buying a "music" CD-R unless they were going to put someone else's copyright material on it. It is simply not possible that you could record music onto a blank recording material without owing the RIAA some money.

So when you are going to record music, be sure to use Music CD-R's so that the RIAA gets paid, even though it might be your very own music or other audio recording. Of course, recording copyright content onto a Music CD-R still doesn't make it legal. That's hypocracy.

Re:From Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why give money to your enemy?

Um, because the movie looks cool?

Re:From Slashdot?

[Malcontent]

Once again proving my point that most americans can't see past their own selfish petty interests.

RIAA behaving like criminals

[bani]

...well, the RIAA was caught price fixing, and settled rather than face conviction, so I guess it's only expected that they should behave like criminals :)

Re:RIAA behaving like criminals

[trainsnpep]

Why is there no stopriaa.com/org/net? There's Spamhaus for Spam. It ALL boils down to money. I don't have the money to host, or to pay someone to manage ('cause I don't have the time at the moment) it. I don't have money for a lawyer. No big-whig lawyer will take it up because of reasons mentioned above. Why is there no organized group for fighting the RIAA? We're just a bunch of whining people until there is one.

Re:RIAA behaving like criminals

[dipipanone]

This is a big whig lawyer.

Somebody who wears one of these is a big wig lawyer.

What an idiot

[anthony_dipierro]

It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal.

Ha! Looks like you fools who donated could have saved yourself the trouble and made your donations straight to the RIAA.

the law sucks..

[SystematicPsycho]

What sucks about the legal system is that anyone can make something up and file a law suit against you, and if you don't have the funds to deal with and defend the allegation then you're screwed in court.

The RIAA was probably looking to make an example out of this person(making examples out of people is what they love) and probably got unlucky with this guy. The best weapon that these guys _think they have against activity they don't like is a detterant (making examples out of people for fun and profit). They'll do it again at a time of their choosing, they've got the dough and the legal beagles to screw with you.

Lawyers are like legal hitmen, give them enough money and they'll do anything you want - desperados, got to feed the family.

Re:the law sucks..

[AntiOrganic]

I'm not so sure on that. I think had he given this the time to take this to court, the EFF would've almost certainly stepped in to help this guy.

Re:the law sucks..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not that he didn't have the funds it is that he didn't have the time. He wants to graduate school so him and his father decided it was best that he settled so he could finnish school without any distractions. Or at least none as big as ongoing littigation.

Re:the law sucks..

[Anonymous Coward]

I know full well about distractions and litigation. For the past 15 years I've been distracted by my father's litigation, a personal injury action. That is, from the time I was in grade 8 (11 years old) to finishing my honours degree (24 years old). How I got this far is beyond me - and I truly believe I could of got better marks and got further if I didn't have this shit.

As it turns out he had no case to begin with but his lawyer insisted that he always did and that he'll win. The case got thrown out of court in 1996 and was ordered to pay the other sides costs. By this time he lost a house (sky rocketing interest rates in the early 90s). Then his lawyer turned around and demanded a ridiculous amount of money - basically he was running to rack up a bill because he knew my father had assets. As it turns out the lawyer didn't even record a retainer, so then litigation started over that - as my father told the lawyer "if I win I will pay you (no win no pay arrangement" but the lawyer said the retainer was you pay me everything at the end. My father won the first trial, the judge said he lawyer could not prove his case so he didn't have to pay his fees, then the lawyer appealed and won, so then my father appealed that but lost. So now my father has to pay his fees _plus the costs of another three trials. So basically, because the lawyer was too incompetent to record a retainer it added another few ten thousand dollars to the total cost. Yes, it's all b0rked up.

Let's go over the scenario, man gets injured at work, goes to lawyer, six years later loses and has to pay costs, then the lawyer demands money, eventually loses that litigation and has to pay that up too plus his fees. What did my father get out of all this? around negative 150K plus psychological trauma.

The most extraordinary thing about it though was the lawyer in his testimony admitted to running the case win or lose because he knew my father had assets and claims to have warned him of the dangers in proceeding to trial (extremely arguable).

Now a few other legal eagles are going over the case to see where the lawyer screwed up. Meanwhile the lawyer demands to be paid and for what? For putting my father back 20 years financially, not to mention the psychological trauma litigation involves. That's the justice system for you - it's possible that you could end up living on the street for trying to find your rights in court and you don't even need to commit a crime.

Best thing is to stay the hell away from the justice system, the way the average man thinks it works is a misnomer. A judge might order you to pay or sentence you to life in prison and that very same night galavant at a cocktail party - that's who you're dealing with here. Usually anyone associated with the legal system is a prick, usually, there are some good guys in there somewhere though - you just need to be able to find them (needle in a haystack).

violating copyright ok now?

[Milikki]

Has anyone considered that violating copyright is a crime, and that criminals deserve the punishment they earn by comitting crimes?

Really now, how can everyone bitch about M$ being this big organization that violates law and does whatever it wants, then turns right around and violates laws themselves and says "its my constitutional right" or "music wants to be free".

C'mon people, lets get consistant out there!

Kevin

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesse never violated copyright.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Violating copyright is not in its self a crime. It only becomes a crime if you do it for profit.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll. The guy didn't get in trouble for copyright infringement, he got in trouble over making it easier for others to do it, maybe inadvertantly, maybe by design, but he dindn't brak any laws. He just couldn't afford to prove that he didn't.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[finkployd]

And he violated copyright exactly HOW?

Finkployd

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

A little harsh on that analogy - more like he published and maintained a phone book which showed the location of every business in town - including the banks.

Hmmm, maybe Apu can try suing whoever published the local Yellow Pages next time he gets robbed...

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

technically, no, he didn't rob the bank himself.

he just provided the guns, the get-away car, the combination to the vault, and the map of the exits.

"honest your honor... i had no idea those bad people would use the guns, maps, combination to the bank safe, and the get-away car i gave them to rob a bank."

No criminal charges have been brought against him, nor as far as I can tell against anyone who used his service. If you really think that a crime has been committed then call the police. Nothing in his settlement would have any bearing on the success or otherwise of criminal proceedings if any crime has indeed been committed.

The civil case brought against him has been settled and dismissed with no findings against him and no admission of any form of guilt.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[kayen_telva]

"except for a few, very limited exceptions, copying copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is a violation of the law. simple and plain. it is wrong."

big difference between illegal and wrong

and he didnt violate copyrights

if he is guilty as you charge, then so is google,
alta vista, search.com, dogpile, etc etc etc

would it be possible for you to actually think for two
seconds before you open your trap ???

thanks !!

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Anonymous Coward]

except for a few, very limited exceptions, copying copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is a violation of the law. simple and plain. it is wrong.

It must be so comforting to live in such a small, simplistic, black/white dualistic world. No multiple choices, no context or circumstance, no shades of grey. Hell is defined as a world run by people who think this way.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[dougmc]

technically, no, he didn't rob the bank himself.

he just provided the guns, the get-away car, the combination to the vault, and the map of the exits.

Hardly.

This is a pretty lame analogy (as most are), but if you must use the bank robbery analogy, all he did was provide a list of banks that provided red suckers within 50 miles.

Where do you come up with guns, the get-away car, the vault combination and a map of the exits? His search engine was asked `where can I find this file?' and it responded.

Google itself is much more likely to provide a combination, a get-away car, Guns and an exit map. (All the links listed were given by google.)

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[Durandal64]

technically, no, he didn't rob the bank himself.

he just provided the guns, the get-away car, the combination to the vault, and the map of the exits.

"honest your honor... i had no idea those bad people would use the guns, maps, combination to the bank safe, and the get-away car i gave them to rob a bank."

Well then why are Microsoft and Apple getting off scott-free? Both provide search capabilities in their operating systems which can target specific files and search an entire LAN, which is precisely what Jesse's search engine does.

Re:violating copyright ok now?

[TinoMNYY24]

Congratulations. I had oringally decided not to respond to "misinforment morons" as I mentioned in a previous post of mine. However, you are so stupid that I just had to post and correct you. using your own bank robbing analogy:
He did NOT provide guns and a getaway car, what he provided was an address for the bank. That's like suing Bell Telephones for sending out phone books, because they could be used to locate people and rob them or assault them or whatever. It sounds ridiculous because it IS (hey, I like that...new sig). Anyway, the phone book cannot be held responsible if someone uses it to find someone to rob or murder, because the people were there anyway, and all the phone book did was make it more convenient to find people and businesses. Bah, I'm not talking about this anymore with people like you. Go back to your hole and keep thinking your thoughts just like the TV tells you to. You're beyond hope. The person with the most money is not always right.

move the site

[rf0]

Would not moving the site and the contents outside the US help avoid this or would the person still be responsbile?

Rus

Re:move the site

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because the search engine needs to be physically on the campus network in order to index anything.

Re:move the site

[GigsVT]

The way I understand it, the software was a search engine for files on his campus LAN/MAN/whatever the buzzword is these days.

Basically he didn't do much more than is included in Windows in the "find stuff on network" thing (been a while since I used windows for anything other than games).

Re:move the site

[Anonymous Coward]

"Campus LAN" quite the buzzword there dumb ass

Re:move the site

[CmdrGravy]

The search engine has to be on his Campus LAN but what would the situation be if the front end of the website was hosted somewhere else and just mirrored the results got from the LAN ?

RIAA wants search engine down?

[jakub_sad]

The RIAA has nothing to worry about, Slashdot has taken care of it FREE OF CHARGE!

Just wait..

[Lysol]

until Mary Bono - wife to the late Sonny Bono, who was the father of the blessed Copyright Extension Act - get's into office. Out with Hillary and in with Mary who called the RIAA her 'ideal job'.

Jesus, what a family legacy..

Re:Just wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

get it stright Hellary

RIAA makes example of him...

[Anonymous Coward]

... he makes example of RIAA, RIAA makes another example of him, blah blah blah. Why don't they just get it over with and have one of their labels sign him to a 3 album deal - that way they can fuck him whenever they want!

Pro Bono?

[wbren]

Isn't there any top lawyer who would take this case on for free? It seems like he could fight them if someone would step up and help him with legal needs. It also seems like a great publicity opportunity...

Re:Pro Bono?

[NormalVisual]

Except that the top lawyers don't need the publicity - people already know who they are, so the only reason they'd take a case pro bono would be if it were a cause they really believed in strongly enough to be worth the loss of income they'd suffer by giving up the time that could be spent on paying jobs. I don't think we'll see that happen any time soon.

Re:Pro Bono?

[sawanv]

Looks like something David Boies might do.....oh hang on. Isnt he fighting for SCO these days? I swear these lawyes would sell their grandma if there wa ssome publicity and money in it. Dont they have any sort of principles or care how they are going to appear in the community.

Re:Pro Bono?

[Mr. Droopy Drawers]

I'm all for Sonny and Cher (or the Band U2). But, What do they have to do with this guy's search engine?

Re:Pro Bono?

[wbren]

I hope you're not serious...but if you are:

When a lawyer represents someone pro bono, he/she is representing that person for free because he/she believes strongly in the person's cause. In this case that cause would be freedom to exchange files online (or something to that effect).

Community insurance ?!

[teorem]

So, he recovered 83% of his lost savings through donation.
Good for him, nice of the donators !
But I don't think we ("the community") will be able to support a lot of people in its situation.
Does it mean that we (all of us) should find in our usual insurance contracts if they cover our responsibility wrt to our programming activities ?

Re:Community insurance ?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it mean that we (all of us) should find in our usual insurance contracts if they cover our responsibility wrt to our programming activities ?

No, it just means we have to release it anonymously, or from a country other than the US.

--

RTFA and the previous one, and the....

[botzi]

Hello???
The guy was not violating any copyrights....
He's running a search engin, remember?He is NOT, repeat, NOT, hosting the files. Talking about search engins, there's one you should know about.... it's here.... Oh wait.... If you search for ANYKNOWNARTIST.mp3... there's a 25% chance that the robot has indexed a page with a link to the file... Well, damn those criminals, lets sue them....
As stated in a post above, the RIAA have exactly the same legal right to go after Altavista, Google or whatever.

Re:RTFA and the previous one, and the....

[teorem]

about google: looking for "revenge english band new order mp3" (revenge is a english band produced by the english band "new order", but you all know that :-).
Anyway, google is proposing on the right of the result page:
Free MP3 Music Downloads
No monthly fees. Fast downloads.
All your favorite artists available
(link to kaz..)

I find this funny.

Re:RTFA and the previous one, and the....

[MobileC]

Again, I thought he was hosting some of the mp3's himself.

Re:RTFA and the previous one, and the....

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I thought he was hosting some of the mp3's himself.

Yep. He was. Mod parent up.
It was part of the reason the search engine was vulnerable to attack. Now that he ISN'T hosting MP3's himself the search engine is (hopefully) immune to being attacked by the RIAA.

Looks like Orrin Hatch blew up his box.

[Mordant]

'Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88'

Current load: 212

[Anonymous Coward]

531 minutes and 45 seconds
Max allowed load: 11
Current load: 212.

Hehe!

Page Generation: 95.88 Seconds

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal Issues: Order of Dismissal
Saturday, June 21 @ 01:46:07 EDT by chew (96 reads)
I have posted my Order of Dismissal (settlement) to the lawsuit filed against me by the RIAA. As stated in the settlement, I settled solely to avoid the costs of litigation. There is a very long story behind my settlement.

I am truly appalled by the RIAA's unprofessional conduct in dealing with my case. A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a "dentist" that I would not want to "have another visit with". I will not be intimidated by the RIAA - they're just going to have to put up with me.

The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN. Despite the $12,000 figure in my settlement, the other terms of the settlement were carefully negotiated over the course of several weeks.

"My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement).

It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech. On the surface, the RIAA claims to support the right to free speech - but only when it benefits their bottom line. When their victim speaks out against them, they step up the intimidation.

They were so desperate to undo my dismissal that they were resorting to blatant lies. I have even been accused of tricking the RIAA into signing my dismissal.

Unfortunately for the RIAA, their basis for undoing the dismissal was so ridiculous that the judge didn't even take up my offer to mediate with the RIAA over their issues with the dismissal - he decided to enter the agreement.

A number of documents surrounding this issue will soon be published. For now, read my order of dismissal.

http://jessej.chewplastic.com/dismissal.pdf

Re:Page Generation: 95.88 Seconds

[MasonMcD]

IANAL, but in the settlement, I can't find (Phynd... get it? Huuur!) anything that stipulates disallowing GPL or BSDing the engine, and allowing others to use the engine, other than some nebulous "indirect contributory actions" or some weasel words like that.

Hey, Jesse, release it to the wild!

Re:Page Generation: 95.88 Seconds

[TinoMNYY24]

Phynd is the property of the owner of www.phynd.net Contact him for a public release of the software.

Re:Way to go slashdot...

[metamechanical]

Hey, the ratio here isn't THAT bad. I mean, I have a girlfriend, as do many of my friends. Granted, they all go to different schools, but I think I've proved my point sufficiently.

Mafia

[Esion Modnar]

More and more, I associate the *AA with the Mafia. Their real source of power is intimidation, usually through carefully chosen lawsuits against financially unprepared defendants. (First Amendment? Not if it goes against *AA interests! *AA uber alles!! Sieg heil!)

Oh, and strategically placed "campaign contributions".

If that bit about "visiting the dentist" is accurate, I hope he gets his teeth knocked out in some unfortunate freak accident with a ballpeen hammer.

Re:Mafia

[Tibor the Hun]

you mean MAFIAA

Re:Mafia

[Soul-Burn666]

I wish I had mod points!!!

Re:Mafia

[kien]

you mean MAFIAA

Finally, an acronym to replace all the various **IA, (MP|RI)AA, etc. etc. Nice one, Tibor!

I just hope the real Family doesn't take offense. Historically, they've had much more business sense than the entertainment cartels.

--K.

Re:Mafia

[redhog]

That would be "Movie, Art and Fiction - Intimidation Associations of America"

Re:Mafia

[Tibor the Hun]

yeah, i approve of the new acronim. let's run with it.

Re:Mafia

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think AAA is really all that evil...I mean they changed my flat tire in the rain. What more could you want?

Re:Mafia

[Str8Dog]

damn I found that so funny I registered the .com domian... Mind if I use your line?

Re:Mafia

[Zarquon]

There's an italian comedian Pat Cooper. One of his routines goes (by memory):

"Daddy, what does the N-double A-C-P stand for?"
"It's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."
"We're italian, what do we got?"
"We got the EMA-AIA-EFFA-IIA-AIA. The Mothers and Fathers Italian Association."
"Oh."

Re:Mafia

[geekee]

Yes. the Kazaa users are the good guys and the RIAA are the bad guys. You can say it all you want, but it's pretty clear who's stealing what from whom.

Re:Mafia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Kazaa downloaders are stealing music, which is not right.

But neither is the heavy-handed legal tactics of the RIAA. Unless you believe "might makes right."

Vilifying one does not necessarily beatify the other.

Re:Mafia

[pahpabut]

you are wrong.

RIAA is a United States terrorist outfit unleashed upon the world.
What we need is no silly boycotts, we need AlQaeda to bomb the fuck out of your asses , PRONTO.

so the rest of us can carry on with our freedom and lives as we see fit instead of being terrorized by a crazy country.

Re:Mafia

[redhog]

No problems :) Have fun filling the site with nice rrants :)

Re:Mafia

[intermodal]

damn it! I hate when the American Automobile Association starts violating my first amendment rights.

Re:Mafia

[dissy]

Being AC i probably shouldnt bother correcting you, but:

> Yes, the Kazaa downloaders are stealing music, which is not right.

Actually is IS right.
Changing copyright laws to what we have now is what is wrong.

Think of it this way.
Would you be happy if all of a sudden all GPL software was instantly and retroactivly changed by our government to be a different licence where you now didnt have to give the source away?

Well, thats exactly what happened with copyright.

Copyright was invented so that an artists work would not disapear from the face of the earth because the creator of that work wanted it.

If they didnt want their work to be public property after a time, they are perfectly free to NOT copyright it.
They made the choice. Live by it.

Now they are not giving back to the public what is owed. I have no reason to give them anything they feel is owed to them.
The streets are all two way.

But no music

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that the search engine makes you choose a file type, where mp3 is not one of them.

Looks like he is obeying the settlement.

Re:But no music

[shadowbearer]

So some professor puts a mp3 of his own lectures on the uni network; now it can't be searched for. Talk about F.U.

SB

Re:But no music

[OneEyedApe]

Ogg Vorbis

Re:But no music

[shadowbearer]

Then people start encoding illegal music in OV....soon the RIAA forces him to drop that too....

It's the principle of the thing, man. Let the RIAA and other corps dictate too much to campuses, and they will become tools rather than learning centers.

Oh, wait...

SB

Re:But no music

[TinoMNYY24]

Leaving "music" out of the "files of type" drop down only stops the morons from finding music (no insult to anyone reading this intended). What I mean is, by removing the built in music filter, all he is doing is making users type "metallica mp3" instead of just "metallica". It still works at finding mp3s, you just don't have a fancy filter to use.

Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine

[mrtaco01]

I am a reporter for the Washington Times and I interviewed Jesse Jordan on Friday night and he said, "I dont think they want me to run the site anymore, but we shall see about that.It's still a question I haven't really answered, I do plan to follow the agreement."

He also explained the reason the Phynd search engine is "up" right now is so people can see how it worked and let people decided for themselves if he broke the law and so media members, like myself, can see how it worked and have a better idea of how to describe it in articles.

Re:Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine

[ProfMoriarty]

You're right ... Jordan hasn't decided ...

We have ...

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88

Re:Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine

[TinoMNYY24]

Please please write an article like "Hamster Lover" suggested. I would love to see a mass-media newspaper like yours actually get something right about technology, instead of turning it into a human interest piece, or details about the lawsuit. Explain the technology, let /.ers helo you, discuss the legality of it all, and help people understand why he was sued, what he was doing, and how they can understand it by making analogies to the real world (phone books, stuff like that). I would greatly enjoy it and certainly buy a copy of the paper if you were to write such an article. Phynd is back up by the way.

Faster than

[matithyahu]

A Super-quick bar pony upper?

Text of the site..

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what you missed --

You Are:
XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
Database age:
536 minutes and 16 seconds

Max allowed load:
11
Current load:
372.

Look for Sort:
In the Index of hits/page:
Advanced Search

System load levels indicate a network update is in progress, try back in 30 minutes.

This is an insult to this fine vocation!

[Hexedian]

Dentists of the world unite! We will not let this offence go unpunished!

The fiends ... erm, lawyers, at RIAA have no right to compare themselves to you, great practicers of the marvelous world of dentistry!

Re:Hey, today it's Sunday!

[Dun Malg]

Too many upseting stories... give us a break! Maybe somebody can post something uplifting???

The world is an upsetting place. Even on sunday.

Pretty please with sugar on top?

What a childish non-sequiter. I'll never understand why people use that phrase. "Please" is simply a word, and can neither be "pretty" nor can it be topped with sugar.

Sue the bastards.

[jcr]

That's intimidation, and you should sue the bastards for harassment.

-jcr

Re:Sue the bastards.

[Reziac]

..and $90B. [g]

Surely some competent lawyer would be willing to take on the case; and remember, folks, such suits are usually taken on contingency: lawyer takes a cut of the winnings.

"on, over, through or via"

[Anonymous Coward]

The dismissal is hilarious.

As anyone with any net saavy knows, you don't access files "on, over, through, or via" a site when it gives you a URL. The browser shows the URL and *you*, the user, get the file (or not).

'HTTP for Lawyers' anyone?

So wait a sec

[doormat]

He is putting up his search engine again with fake results. So even if he is in the right legally, where is he going to get the money??? He thinks we're all just going to keep donating? He folded once because he didnt want to pay for an attorney. Whats he going to do if he gets sued again??

Re:So wait a sec

[TinoMNYY24]

The engine will have real results again in August/September. Remember, this was a college network, and it's now June, so there's no school, and thus, no computers to scan. Jesse did indeed have lawyers, but the cost of them defending his case plus the tuition for the school year he would have missed (the lawsuit's deadline was the week of final exams) was far greater than the settlement fee, but he's fighting this now on his own terms, and we should continue to support him.

Re:Hey, today it's Sunday!

[Dysproxia]

Pretty please with sugar on top?

What a childish non-sequiter. I'll never understand why people use that phrase. "Please" is simply a word, and can neither be "pretty" nor can it be topped with sugar.

Not childish! It was in Monkey Island, therefore it is a serious pop culture quote.

someone wise once said..

[Argonath]

'if you are strong, pretend weak. And if you are weak, pretend strong'.

RIAA is clearly falling to latter category considering its raging around and harassing nearly helpless (and innocent) individuals. This beast should be taken down.

Is it safe?

[Anonymous Coward]

a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'

Ahh, so the "White Angel" has turned lawyer, eh? A natural transition, I suppose. Gotta keep up with the times.

Szell

So, at what point...

[stinky wizzleteats]

Do our protests against the RIAA involve torches and pitchforks?

I suppose I should be somewhat pleased that they've given up all pretense of rational public discourse. No one would consider their points valid in the context of a dentist comparison.

Re:So, at what point...

[Kenja]

You forget who youre talking to. The protest will involve a doven pale guys with beer guts dressing up as Obi-Wan Kenobi chanting "these are not the MP3s you're looking for".

Dentist? More like Proctologist!

[JonTurner]

Because nobody knows as many assholes as an attorney for the RIAA.

3v1l h4x0r5 at RIAA

[z80]

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88

??AA Needs nose thumped

[buss_error]

"The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'" It's obvious that RIAA is upset because now the object lesson of their terror campaign isn't projected the properly meek and submissive attitude to the world.

Sounds like another SLAPP suit on the way.

To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?
To those that are not buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, feels good being a small part of the solution, doesn't it?

Re:??AA Needs nose thumped

[buss_error]

It feels fine, wee-wee boy.
Pigs like being coated in shit. They think it feels fine too. (You get what you give. Come back without the attitude and I'll be happy to debate you in a civil manner.)

Just as with software and shrink-wrap licenses, I buy music and movies, and I agree to the terms of use.
Except that software doesn't have something called "The Home Recording Act" to protect your fair use rights. Also, music and movies are not leased persuant to a contract, as most software is. It's called the "license agreement", and it's designed to limit your rights under exsisting law.

Such things must be a great nuisance to those who enjoy pirating software
I woundn't know. Would you speak to this point?

- because obviously your attitude is in keeping with that of the liberal hippies who think everything should be free.
I don't think Intellectual Property should be free unless the creator of it wants to release it or the term has expired. (The length of the term is another conversation.) I think the creator of the work should be paid. Too bad the major music labels don't think so too.

Oh, and you missed calling me a commie terrorist net nazi unix neck beard. Which is better than being a "compassionate conservitive", because I don't have to keep lying to myself and others while staving children and pregent women while I give my rich buddies huge tax breaks.

In short, we are free to choose what we want to buy or not buy.
I never said you weren't free to buy or not. I said you are a jerk if you keep buying knowing what use the corporation puts your money to. And you are if you keep buying (or going to see) movies by MPAA memebers. You are also a jerk if you keep buying music from RIAA memebers.

Exercising that choice, in a way which tweaks your collar, should not subject us to pathetic insult from those who disagree with us.
This from someone that uses liberal as an insult. Go study logic again. Oh, sorry, conservitives don't go for that long haired trash stuff like that, do they?

Re:??AA Needs nose thumped

[Kris_J]

To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?

Meanwhile, small music store businesses with owners that got into it because they enjoyed music are being nailed to the wall. It's not as simple as you make it look.

Re:??AA Needs nose thumped

[JetJaguar]

You know, I have sympathy for the mom and pop music shops, but I also believe very strongly in progress. Progress in science and technology has always caused some business models to collapse while providing new opportunities for others. That's part of life, will I shed a tear for the independent music seller? Sure, but I can guarantee you that there will be a new business opportunities for these people if they can adapt to the new environment. But there is no reason to try to keep the status quo just to keep the independents in business. In fact, I would expect that the next generation business models will probably come from these same independents, because they are nimble and quick whereas the RIAA and it's cronies are slow and too conservative to ever come up with something new (unless they buy it from someone else).

Re:??AA Needs nose thumped

[Kris_J]

I would expect that the next generation business models will probably come from these same independents, because they are nimble and quick

Unfortunately the RIAA has successfully lobbied to prevent anyone from being innovative in the music retail industry.

Re:Way to go slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that sucks so much here. All the chicks here are either ugly, or lesbians. So the tiny dating population is shrunk even more.

Oh well, there are always chicks from other schools. :-)

Donations

[rmohr02]

It seems Jesse has recovered much of his life savings through donations. He has a paypal link on his site (unfortunately I can't give the link to you--it uses post). If you want to donate, go here, sign in/register, and send money to jordaj@rpi.edu

One of the other college students sued by the RIAA, Daniel Peng, also has a paypal donation page.

Re:Donations

[Animats]

Yeah, he's collected $10,850 at this point. So he's only down about $1200 at this point. Even better, he only has to pay the RIAA $5000 this year. The remaining amount is due over several years in the future. Probably after he gets a high-paying job with a search engine company.

violating copyright ok now?

[harriet nyborg]

nice try kevin...

calling a spade a spade on this board is a waste of time.

this is the alternate universe known as slashdot where stealing (digital) property is not a crime.

to answer your detractors...

technically, no, he didn't rob the bank himself.

he just provided the guns, the get-away car, the combination to the vault, and the map of the exits.

"honest your honor... i had no idea those bad people would use the guns, maps, combination to the bank safe, and the get-away car i gave them to rob a bank."

except for a few, very limited exceptions, copying copyrighted material without the permission of the owner is a violation of the law. simple and plain. it is wrong.

helping people to do it, like your hero who is the subject of this thread, makes you as guilty as they are.

if you don't like the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics - don't listen to the greedy, sell-out bands that sign contracts with them.

at the end of the day, THE MUSICIANS are the source of this problem. no one else. without them there is no RIAA, there is no music industry, there is no copyrighted material to steal.

when bands quit being greedy and quit selling their music to companies who are even more greedy, all of these problems go away.

boycott the sell-out bands. don't go to their concerts, don't listen to their music, and ridicule them.

they all suck anyway.

Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[varebel]

For what it's worth, back when WC3 was released, me and about a half dozen of my gaming buddies were discussing what next game to all invest in. We had narrowed it down to Warcraft 3 or Neverwinter Nights. After explaining to everyone what was going on and how Blizzard were being pricks over the whole bnetd project, we settled on NWN.

Six sales Blizzard lost. Certainly not even a scratch in their sales. But, the point is, some people do take boycotts seriously.

Hey, I would love to play WC3. But, I am strong enough to resist temptation, even if the hypocrits that you point out aren't.

Re:Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[kien]

Six sales Blizzard lost. Certainly not even a scratch in their sales. But, the point is, some people do take boycotts seriously.

Seven. :)
Boycotts do work and idiots do get exposed (read: Orrin Hatch flap).

Society doesn't turn on a dime but if enough people lean on the steering wheel long enough, it can negotiate a curve.

--K.

Re:Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[dnoyeb]

I refused to buy wc3 because of the crime that was diabloII. I was not upto par with what I expect from BLizzard, so I assumed they had switched from pride mode to $$$ mode. I assumed wc3 wouldnt be much to talk about.

Yep, I bought NWN. Having hard time finding reliable group to play with on a regular basis. awesome game, but its so purely D&D that you really need a real group a friends. battle.net style idiots wont cut it.

Re:Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[JudgeFurious]

Add two more to your running total of people who aren't playing WC3 because of the bnetd thing. I refused to buy it (and won't be buying anymore of the Diablo or Starcraft titles either for that matter) and I'm an approaching 40 year old who's been buying their titles (and enjoying them) since they first appeared.

After talking to my stepson about it he didn't buy either. I didn't talk him out of it though. He was already gearing up for NWN and pissed about the bnetd all on his own. I think he was more irritated by it than I was.

Anyway counting the two of us that makes 8. Anyone else?

Re:Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[Anonymous Coward]

I bougth it and playing it right now!
And loving it!
Sorry count me out.
Oh and I will buy the expansion!
The game is that good :)

Re:Blizzard Boycott not a total loss

[JudgeFurious]

Sure it is. Hey, I said I didn't buy it, I never said I hadn't played it. That game sucked monkey balls and you just dig the eye candy.

That 'dentist' comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

was an unfortunate remark. Remember back in the day when cops were being openly called pigs? There were several national advertising campaigns to refute that term.

However, in spite of the longstanding animosity shown towards lawyers (back to Shakespeare even), the ABA has never done a thing to counter people's opinion of their members. It took them a decade to pass an ethics code that even frowned on an attorney sleeping with a client. Even today it's pretty damned hard to get dis-barred. Too hard.

I know a lot of good, hard working, non-wealthy lawyers. I know more than a few who wonder why they ever got in to the field; as if being an attorney was itself enough to provide some kind of happiness.

But I still think many, if not an outright plurality, of lawyers, especially in corporate circles, are power-tripping dirtballs.

There's a whole lot of media I just do without..

[dentar]

I don't even bother anymore. There's nothing on CD that I even WANT. I'm an old fart now, and don't much care for their content anymore.

I also don't much care for CNN / MSNBC / Faux News, so I don't watch them anymore either. I've also quit watching clear channel stations.

The news, and musical artists, are both manufactured now, nothing's real anymore.

Slashdot Effect

[tcort]

from site:

Max allowed load: 11
Current load: 156

"The artists"

[Lemmy Caution]

What the have in common, also, is something that really pisses me off - they always invoke "the artist" and the artists rights when they pull this crap. The Sonny Bono act was touted as a victory for, exampled, Harold Lloyd, the silent film star whose films were going to go into public domain. He's been dead for years, but it was being treated as his victory because his grand-daughter would be able to restrict distribution of his old films, and make a profit on them.

The idea that "the artist" - which is really a misnomer, since the term should be "whoever happens to own the rights to a work" - has some God-given right to perpetual profit from and control of their work - is untenenble. I certainly don't: I do my work for hire, and if I want more money, I have to do more work. But the Bonos and the RIAA and MPAA seem to think that an "artist's" granddaughter not having to work for a living is more important than an open society and a free discourse about the cultural works in it.

Re:"The artists"

[Maul]

Exactly, Harold Lloyd had the opportunity (and likely did) to profit off of his works when he was alive. Now that he's dead, his works BELONG in public domain, so that they can properly be used and studied as a part of our culture.

Thanks to these megacorps, the original purpose of copyright is dead, and copyright has been turned into a means for people to profit off of works from generations ago.

Re:legally walking away

[Anonymous Coward]

"My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", Hillary Rosen.

I don't think that what she is referring to is breaking a contract. Rather, the artist should be screwed so hard by their contracts that they can't walk. Ouch!

Great job guys

[dankinit]

Cost of tuition for one semester: $2,000
Fees and settlement from lawsuit: $15,000
Having to deal with a /. attack on top of everything else: Priceless

Re:Great job guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost of tuition for one semester: $2,000

Actually... "The tuition for a normal undergraduate program (12 to 21 credit hours a semester) is $26,400 per academic year."
Source: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/catalog/tuition.html

I hadn't checked recently but, I see it is slightly higher than the $17k we all complained about when I went there last century...

Re:Great job guys

[TinoMNYY24]

Haha, maybe tuition at your school is $2,000, but at Rensselaer, where Jesse goes, it is more than $27,000, including food and housing, which is required for freshmen.

Re:Great job guys

[MaddJackKidd]

The total cost of living might be $27,000, but the post above referred to 'tuition', which is completely different...

Re:Great job guys

[TinoMNYY24]

Ok then, we'll just count tuition, which is $17,000 a semester, or $34,000 a year.

Re:Great job guys

[MaddJackKidd]

that's just crazy at my state school here in TX (Texas A&M), i just got my bill for the fall, everything - dorms, tuition, food, all fees - except for books: $3,974.66

Re:Great job guys

[TinoMNYY24]

Well Jesse doesn't go the A&M Galveston, he goes to RPI, which is ridiculously expensive.

Hire a law-yer

[Militant Pedestrian]

Maybe it's time Jesse gets a lawyer? I'll send him some more money if he decides to.

Re:Hire a law-yer

[TinoMNYY24]

He has a whole team of lawyers, otherwise the settlement wouldn't nearly been as favorable for him, but they are currently working for free. The money you give him might encourage him to produce a lawsuit of his own for wasted time, harassment, and unwanted publicity. Email him at jordaj@rpi.edu

Danegeld

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Danes first came to England, they were paid to leave without looting. The next year they were back, saying "pay us to leave again."

It makes no sense to give anything to these litigational terrorists. Not money, not in taking down a web site, and definitely not in buying their CDs.

DIE DIE DIE

[ninenine78]

Why don't we march on the RIAA bastids and tear their buildings and offices apart brick by brick, and let their blood run in the streets.

Re:DIE DIE DIE

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't shed any tears if the b17ch and her goons took a 8ull37 -- Sopranos style!

Make up your own mind

[djroute66]

Hey, we're not tools.

Just because some people boycott a company for a certain reason doesn't mean everyone on Slashdot does.

Think a little.

I wish I had mod points today.

[Anonymous Coward]

I literally laughed out loud. Why did did you post AC?

The Search Engine isn't Returning Real Files

[Nintendork]

"EDIT (June 17, 2003): At this time, the search engine is operating for demonstration purposes ONLY. Therefore, the indexer/spider is not functioning and your computer will NOT be scanned if you submit a search."

Link

-Lucas

Fair is fair

[AndroidCat]

...which is exactly why organized crime families should run p2p networks.

Great, organized crime on both sides of the fight, that would be interesting.

CDs

[loconet]

Well thats it, I'm not buying any more CDs and telling all my friends and family not to buy anything either. It will hurt the artists/labels? Well I don't care, they need to figure out an alternative way to bully RIAA .. bunch of donkeys.

Re:CDs

[Reziac]

But "hurting the artists" is not necessarily a bad thing, if it gets more of them to leave the RIAA cartels (assuming they're not already indentured for life) or think twice before giving up their independent status.

Another good thing would be some artist with the money and the balls to actively break an RIAA-member contract (might not some be invalid under "right to work" statutes??), then drag it through the court system as loudly as possible, or invoke RICO, or whatever it takes to get these typically usurious contracts invalidated. Maybe artists themselves could start a class action suit against their RIAA masters??

"Dentist"

[EisPick]

Strange choice of words. Wasn't Dr. Mengele a dentist?

Re:"Dentist"

[Ophelan]

Personally, the first thing that popped into my head was the Dentist from Cryptonomicon, along with all his lawyers.

Daniel

voting

[my sig is bigger tha]

running for office takes money and connections. electoral candidates get money and connections (directly and indirectly) through corporate money. there is no real choice involved in elections, just different directions/takes on business and profit/exploitation.

RIAA.org

[dema]

What's up with theRIAA website? I went to the main site and it downloaded that has some jibberish and says "HTTP/1.0 302 Moved Temporarily ". Same sort of thing happened with other pages within. Strange.

Re:RIAA.org

[Loosewire]

NewsCo *The RIAA tuesday cleaned up at the Loosewire Awards ceremony. A glitzy event held on skid row, they walked away with the Most hacked website award, the Most Hated Organisation award and hilary Rosen the ugliest woman award, in an interview after the show she said "I dont know what these awards are for but thanks anyway" to much laughter and applause.... *
- thats how it would be if i had a news channel :-)

Server go boom: Slashdotted.

[Mmm coffee]

Google cache of the site, please note that the cache doesn't have the update that this story mentions. Although it does have some of the back story, for those who are interested.

Prepaid legal service is a must nowadays

[illumin8]

When I started my current job, one of the optional benefits was prepaid legal service. Basically, I elect to have $15 taken out of my paycheck every month, and in case I need legal services, there is a network of attorneys around the country that will come to my defense. It is basically "legal insurance".

I don't do anything illegal, but if the RIAA ever came after me, it would be nice to know that I have my own cadre of legal professionals at my beck and call. I wouldn't have to just cave, I could actually have my lawyers stand up to them for once.

I would highly recommend that everyone get this. If it's not offered through the company you work for, you can still get it for about $20 a month. If you ever need to use it, it will be the best $20 you ever spent.

Re:Prepaid legal service is a must nowadays

[Lew Payne]

Please don't be so naive, to the point where you are spreading false hope. Prepaid legal plans do very little for you. Yes, they're fine for when you need a lawyer to write your noisy neighbor a letter, or to call and threaten your mechanic with a lawsuit if he won't release your car. But beyond that, they're "paper-mill" lawyers.

Read your contract carefully... and you'll find they will "refer" you to an expert should a case get ugly (require serious litigation)... at a "reduced" rate. You'll still be paying hundreds of dollars an hour, and require a hefty retainer up-front, as well as all costs advanced.

Don't ever bother with a prepaid legal plan. It isn't worth the contract it's written on.

Re:Prepaid legal service is a must nowadays

[jerdenn]

Yup, and you'll get the absolute minimum service required. Do you really believe that you'll get a zealous advocate under this plan? Just like with Doctors and HMOs, there will be financial incentives for your attorney to minimize time spent on your case. Its likely that you'll be encouraged very strongly to settle. I'd also research your policy for possible exclusions, etc.

Frankly, my opinion of pre-paid legal is that it is a scam. (And I use legal services fairly often, too...)

-jerdenn

Re:Prepaid legal service is a must nowadays

[illumin8]

The only exception I have in my policy is that I can't sue my employer (since it's partially funded by them). But I agree with the general sentiment of what you're saying. You're not going to get stellar service out of them, but what you will get is the ability for you to have a lawyer write a letter for you. This will cause 99% of the stupid RIAA type of harrassment to stop, once they realize you have an attorney working for you.

I haven't had to do this yet, but do you agree this might work?

Re:Prepaid legal service is a must nowadays

[jerdenn]

Yes, I agree with you here - and considering it costs me about $500 to get my lawyer to do pretty much anything, it may be cost effective, as well.

My concern is that often these policies are portrayed as something that will cover huge legal expenses - They probably won't. But if you are merely looking for minor legal services, they may be effective.

-jerdenn

Just a thought..

[eastshores]

IANAL.. but heres a quick loophole that came to mind. In his settelement he is not allowed to seel or give the software that he used to anyone, but what if someone h4x0rd his site and stole the source code and set that up? If he chose not to prosecute that individual, could anyone else? I have heard of district attorneys being able to do such a thing so maybe this is not such a good loophole =)

Innocent until proven guilty?

[JonTurner]

>>we simply cannot rant against the RIAA unless we first confirm that they're doing anything wrong.

You're new here, right? ;)

College student ?

[Nix0n]

In a recent Slashdot article it was reported that 19-year-old college student Jesse Jordan gave up his life savings to the RIAA for running a campus search engine.

heh

hehehe

Hahahahahaaa

bwahahahahaaahahahaahahahaahaaha

AHHHHH HAA HAAHAAHHHAAHA AHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA !

Re:College student ?

[TinoMNYY24]

Um....yeah....the men in the white coats are coming pal, just sit tight and wait for them.

With apologies to War

[The Monster]

I know you're workin' for R-I-A-A
They wouldn't have you in the Ma-fi-AA!

Why can't we be friends?
. . .

/.ed

[Performer Guy]

Can you try any harder to slashdot his site? I mean it's one thing to post a link to the relevant part of his site but a couple of links, one to the large scans of the original agreement we allready know about and don't need to see, why?

Jesse should get back in touch with his contacts in the press and try to revive the story. The mainstream ran the story about taking his life savings, they'll run another about the continued harassment.

irrelevant

[dh003i]

His search engine is no different from Google.

It neither promotes, nor discourages, nor anything. It simply catalogues things and puts them in a database, and allows users to search that database and obtain the results.

It is content-neutral -- as the internet should be, see Lessig -- so it most certainly does not encourage the trading of the RIAA's copyrighted works.

The RIAA has no basis for attempting to undue the agreement. They're only doing this because they didn't expect that people would much rather give him money than they, so now they want to steal what is his again.

Legal Ethics violation

[bear_phillips]

"A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

Could this be an ethics violation? Each state bar association has its own ethics rules. It could be possible that making threats like this, threating to rescind a lawsuit etc.., could be an ethics violation. Especially if it was done without any legal basis and only as a threat. It might be good to file an ethics complaint with that states bar. It might not get him punished, but it would probably be a thorn in his side.

A law professor of mine was a US attorney. He said that when they had a case against a mafia figure, the mob attornyes would ALWAYS file an ethics complaint against the prosecutors. The complaints always proved false, but they would show that the mob was willing to fight hard and would sometimes shake up the government attorney. Having an ongoing ethics investigation could prevent an attorney from getting a new job, promotion etc.

IANAL

Re:Legal Ethics violation

[spamchang]

from chewplastic.com:

The infamous RIAA "Dentist":
"You don't want to have another visit with a dentist like me"
-- Matt Oppenheim, RIAA senior vice president of business and legal affairs

There is a Matthew Oppenheim listed as a '93 graduate of Cornell law. link here: [google cache]

Matthew Oppenheim, a lawyer representing SDMI, said the group doesn't want to limit academic freedom or research, "but if somebody releases a paper that provides very specific information about how to attack that type of technology, it's problematic."
link here: [google cache]

re: the felten paper that the RIAA implicitly threatened to sue a princeton prof et al. over:

Matthew Oppenheim, head of litigation for the association, said he found the lawsuit mystifying, "It's like a bully who is looking for a fight, and the other kid doesn't want to fight, he said. "He just keeps pushing you and pushing you and pushing you."

link here: [google cache]

what a bloody fool and hypocrite oppenheim is. everything the lawyer stereotype is all about.

Re:Legal Ethics violation

[theLOUDroom]

It's a shame this can't be modded higher than 5.

It's would be great if we could come up with a few goods ways to deter the RIAA from behaving this way.

Distributed donations

[MyDixieWrecked]

It seems to me that this is the start of something...

Jesse's life savings have almost been replentished by donations from everyone else. Concidering that most of those donations are coming from "pirates," anyway, this is probibly making the RIAA happy. They'll continue seeking higher and higher retribution fees and the masses will pay their "swap tax;" and WILLINGLY.

...Not that I'm saying not to donate, I'm just pointing out that this could be setting a precident. As more kids get caught up in the unfair suits that the RIAA it throwing at people, more kids will follow Jesse's lead. Right now, it may seem like you can get hit with a lawsuit without conciquence, but eventually, everyone will be fed up with donating.

Jump on the bandwagon while people still wanna help out the little guy!

;)

He's doing better than we thought

[operagost]

According to the settlement, he doesn't have to pay the whole $12,000 at once. $5,000 is due on June 30, and the remaining balance is split up over THREE annual payments. If he has 83% of the judgement in his hands right now, he's actually in the black. If he were to invest the rest of the donations wisely, he could still break even.

Major search engines with MP3 search

[arth1]

Speaking of major search engines, there's also this one:

FAST MP3 Search

FAST used to be a Norwegian search engine (from the ftpsearch.ntnu.no guys), and presumably hard to get at for the *AA, but now their Internet Search has been sold off to a US company (that's the 3. Profit!! part).

Still it appears that it's easier to go after the little guy...

Regards,
--
*Art

The bastards!

[AyeRoxor!]

"A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

They even end their sentences with prepositions! Have they no couth?!?!

Re:The bastards!

[AyeRoxor!]

Go ahead, be a troll-mod, mod me something besides funny just because you don't like my sense of humor. My Karma is excellent, I post at 2, and I routinely get modded up. Your idiocy is powerless against me because I am actually an asset to this society. I post informed, educating, thought-provoking posts, and I supply humor now and then. You, on the other hand, are simply a worthless Trod. suck it.

what he/we should do

[sewagemaster]

he should just release the code on sourceforge... let people from every school use it within their networks... even in non-american universities... (because riaa's american?) let's just make a big fucking scene out of this.

Big difference

[epepke]

If you play nice with the Mafia, they'll let you do what you want and even help you.

Re:There's a whole lot of media I just do without.

[Tumbleweed]

> I don't even bother anymore. There's nothing on CD that I even WANT. I'm an old fart now, and don't much care for their content anymore.

Exactly.

"Everybody knows Rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact!"
- Homer Jay Simpson

Don't get yourself so worked up, grandpa. :)

What he said on CNN...

[PetoskeyGuy]

Click here for the Transcript

Lets hyphenate that

[Anonymous Coward]

"Justice ain't cheap"
"Best freedom money can buy"
"Guilt has more to do with economics than actual
guilt or innocense"
"it's not what you know, it's who you can afford"

Welcome to your republican controlled reality!

I fully sympathize with Jesse, however...

[ihatesco]

I don't understand why this made /. main page. There is only a page put up by Jesse accounting his part of the story. Unfortunately there are no pictures, or recordings, or testimonies of the RIAA lawyers screaming, yelling and pleading in a court to reverse the dismissal. Not that I doubt Jesse's good faith, but we should take ANY piece of information with a bit of salt. We are not part of the RIAA and we don't have to make FUD to live. + + + + Please, leave out MAFIA from RIAA (see the MAFIAA jokes)... Mafia is made of men, not of lawyers, and in the end still has a code of honor...

Piracy the new boycott?

[gad_zuki!]

>The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except when it makes life inconvenient for them.

Not really, its been pointed out before that boycotts really don't do anything in the age of uber-big business, conosildated monopolies, companies running in the red for years, etc.

The boycott is just archaic and more or less useless now. Its the negative press that follows the word boycott that really ever gets anything done. Considering the *IAA couldn't care less about their image its even more useless.

Amusingly enough, I think the slashdot/techie crowd would be best at a modern "boycott." They have the skills to find, download, and never pay for anything the *IAA sells. Of course, no one would consider it a boycott, just piracy, but if it hurts the bottom line then its really all the same.

Arguably, this tactic is working, even if the downloaders don't realize they were "boycotting" at all. Napster et al are tools written for the layman to share media files. Now there are four or five legal song downloading services. Coincidence?

Re:Piracy the new boycott?

[petsounds]

The boycott is just archaic and more or less useless now. Its the negative press that follows the word boycott that really ever gets anything done. Considering the *IAA couldn't care less about their image its even more useless.

Boycotts aren't simply about not buying the product; the PR is a necessary part of the campaign. The "negative press" you mention is *part* of the boycott initiative.

Boycotts can still be quite effective. Animal testing is one off the top of my head. A boycott against the Proctor & Gamble corporation (the worst offender of animal testing) was successful in greatly reducing the animal testing they do.

However, I agree with you that the PR is the most important part of a boycott campaign in this day and age. The majority of people are too self-centered and short-sighted to accomplish a boycott against a big corporation purely on a financial level.

Tar

[j_w_d]

. . . and feathers would seem more appropriate.

Something else

[SunPin]

I'm with the parent poster. IMO, all commercial music has two problems: 1) music by committee and 2) music for promotion. If they want to sell ads, that's great. They just won't get it from me. Look no further than f'n FUBU to see that music is explicitly intended to sell crap. That makes it an advertisement. I can easily do without them.

This is America, brother. There are *plenty* of alternatives for entertainment besides mass produced crap noise. You aren't asking the correct question. You are essentially asking how the man avoids spending money on music. It's fundamentally flawed. How about no question at all? How about just a statement?

Like, "I'm going to do something else."

WWF Bravado?

[SpaceTaxi]

How pathetic. Sounds like this lawyer probably got one too many wedgies when he was in sixth grade.

Read Carefully: RIAA May be Correct

[the end of britain]

The dismissal says "Now Therefore, without admitting or denying liability and soley in order to save the time and expense of litigation, the Parties have determined to settle the Action in its entirety andf dismiss the complaint with prejudice..."

IANAL, but it looks to my untrained eye like he IS, in fact, in violation of the dismissal. He's been running around television, his web site, etc. vigorously DENYING liability. The text SPECIFICALLY says this is not the case. I have no idea if this is illegal, etc. or if he could be cited for contempt, but I see the point those RIAA lawyers are trying to make. His actions and statements do seem to stretch, if not break, the spirit and letter of the agreement.

Carry on buying your media by all means please

[MAFIAA]

But you don't have to give your money to those-who-need-no-more if you don't want to. Just buy your stuff 2nd hand - there's stacks of shops about (here in the sticks anyway so there must be in larger towns, etc) which sell stuff in perfectly good condition second hand. No reason why you shouldnt have the original video/dvd/album/etc that you want (unless you one of those that HAS to buy stuff on the release date then that's your problem). You get the item, someone else has already paid for it (and they would have anyway) and then discarded it. Can't remember the last time we put money into a megacorp's pocket but we usually get a new flic or CD every week of something or other. I like owning the orig stuff but I really object to emptying my pocket into theirs for the privilege. On the other hand if the artist were to sell direct I'd pay them happily knowing the cash all went to their organisation and they had control of how they distributed it it to themselves and their staff.

and...?

[Hamster Lover]

Do you think he broke the law?

Do you think sites like Google or Alta Vista likewise break the law? (such as their image search)

If so why, if not why?

Will you submit an article to that end?

It seems that whenever I pick up a newspaper and read an article on technology I invariably throw the article down in frustration. I realize that most reporters work very hard to write a readable, balanced story, but the difficulty I find with most mainstream media is the lack of the in-depth coverage. The more newspapers or TV news I watch the more I believe the media is attempting to foster emotion more than thought.

As a self described geek I find I have no real voice in the media so I turn to the Internet for the meat and potatoes of what I want and need for news, comment and information.

There are, obviously, newspapers and journalists that try and do get it right, but it seem the incessant pressure to sell something is working to make this obsolete. I am afraid that all we will be left with is tabloids and CNN.

Re:and...?

[mrtaco01]

please contact me at mrtaco@nmo.net, I'd like to get some of your views and possibily use them for my article. I will need name/phone #

Abject lesson

[Rogerborg]

You either win utterly and completely, or you become their bitch for life.

Don't compromise. Don't cut deals. Don't back down. You really have very little to lose by fighting it every step of the way.

Thanks for making that clear, RIAA. So noted.

Actually, EVERYONE Does not have to get in

[leoaugust]

Which will not help at all until EVERYONE gets in, and that won't happen very soon.

We don't need EVERYONE to get in but a small part. If a small part of us in the CD/DVD consuming unverse, 6.7 % by my calculations, starts showing support to the defendents in the cases against the RIAA and MPAA, we would have the same firepower as these bullies.

It works like this:

If at least 6.7 % of the CD/DVD consuming community donates, not a small share, but the COMPLETE price of the CD or DVD not bought from the members of RIAA and MPAA, for the defense in these cases, we shall have a sufficient amount to take on the RIAA/MPAA lawyers. The logic is that the RIAA and MPAA get a share of the CD or DVD's price to attack us, we array the "complete" price of the CD or DVD against them.

Our contribution, on a per person basis, will be at least 15 times more in value (probably much more as I don't think RIAA and MPAA are getting a dollar from every $15 disc sold; ignoring the movie ticket's revenue) than the crowd buying CD's and contributing to the RIAA's and MPAA's coffers.

Mathematics, luckily says that a share that goes towards them can never be bigger than the complete which goes against them . So, the RIAA and MPAA are bound to be finished.

And if more than 6.7 % of the music consuming community can be brought together we shall have more funds to beat the RIAA and MPAA and their members on their head. And, once we cross the threshold, there is no way to reverse this growing snowball heading in their direction.

People can differ with my assumptions of the numbers, but the point is that EVERYONE does not have to buy in - just a small and dedicated share has to.

Re:Actually, EVERYONE Does not have to get in

[BiggerIsBetter]

If the EFF has the sack to set up a fund specifically for combating the MAFIAA, I'll happily donate. If Jordan can get 10 grand in donations for giving in to them, I suspect the EFF could do very well.

Disclaimer: Yes, I know I should donate anyway...

Re:Read Carefully: RIAA May be Correct

[GuNgA-DiN]

The old "shoot the messenger" bit. Jesse is running a Search Engine (and now it is just a demo with no real files). I don't understand how he can be held liable for files that other people are sharing? If this were the case -- the RIAA would have to go after Google. After all aren't they "aiding and abetting piracy" too? Isn't this what the judge decided in the Gnutella case? How can you hold someone liable if they aren't breaking the law? Jesse never broke the law and he still isn't.

This is proof of how sleazy the RIAA is..

[Newer Guy]

"My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement)".

This quote from his webpage says it all... The RIAA obeys the laws when it benefits them...and flouts them when it benefits THEM!. It's only too bad that they have such deep pockets with which to bribe Congress. Their arrogance will prove to be their undoing in the long run though. Only freaks like Orrin Hatch will be left once that happens..and frankly I think Hatch is so far out on the lunatic fringe that he's more a liability then an asset for them these days

there's a way to deal with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

send someone to whack these assholes.
Someone just do it out of the kindness of their heart for this poor kid.
Just do it and say nothing..

New ways to screw with the RIAA?

[GuNgA-DiN]

I just noticed the RIAA put up a new site. One feature they added is the "How to Report Piracy" page here:

http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/report.asp

" For those who want to contribute an ounce of prevention, RIAA is making it easy, and potentially lucrative. In August of 1999, RIAA launched its CD-Reward program that provides monetary awards of up to $10,000 to an individual who provides the association with information regarding CD manufacturers illegally producing RIAA member company sound recordings.

Consumers, retailers and replicators can report any suspected music piracy to the RIAA by dialing a toll-free hotline, 1.888.BAD.BEAT, by faxing this Badbeat Form, by sending email to cdreward@riaa.com, or visiting the website at www.CDReward.com."

So, let's get to it! I see a 1-800 number, an email address, and a fax number(1-202-223-8322). What could we possibly do to tie up resources and cost them money? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

Re:New ways to screw with the RIAA?

[Reziac]

1) Call RIAA
2) Report yourself
3) obligatory ...
4) Profit!!

RIAA == Mafia

[Mooncaller]

Every one need to remember that RIAA and Mafia are interfaces to the same object. The RIAA is just not Mafia-like. It is a part of the Mafia, one of their quasi-legal buisnesses. So why is everyone suprised when they act like the Mafia?

At least some in the Mafia

[Soporific]

Admit to being criminals and turn informant after they've been caught.

~S

Re:At least some in the Mafia

[AndroidCat]

In the Mafia, if you break the code of silence, the worst they can do is kill you.

The RIAA can play That Achy-Breaky Heart over and over and over...

Thank goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a reliable, unbiased source for all the news needs of the aging geek. /. is coherent /. is totally unbiased /. is all the news you need to know /.

Re:Could if be, FP??

[GreyWolf3000]

Way to go, Wesley Willis.

It's on Cable

[smagruder]

If you want to hear the good stuff coming out, go to the "CoffeeHouse Rock" channel on DMX. It'll make you realize that not all the new stuff is rot-gut shit.

Re:It's on Cable

[gerbache]

I've been listening to this "Indy Pop Rocks" station on iTunes radio lately for some good stuff. Discovered a band that's been spending by far the most time on my turntable lately (yes, a turntable, and not for DJ use!). I'm also fortunate enough to go to a university with a very strong college radio station that isn't afraid of playing new and offbeat stuff, so I get to hear good new music from a couple places.

My latest thing, actually, is to buy mostly vinyl from independent labels. I figure this way I'm killing two birds with one stone: helping keep a "dead" (but superior sounding) format alive, and helping keep the indies in business.

Grammar, Please!

[NecrosisLabs]

Just because you're a high priced scumbag RIAA lawyer, it doesn't mean you can just neglect the rules of language.. It should be " referred to himself as a 'dentist with which I would not want to have another visit.' "

Re:Grammar, Please!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "with whom".

Re:Read Carefully: RIAA May be Correct

[Anonymous Coward]

The settlement says that I deny the allegations. Read it again.

--jesse j.

What DID he say on CNN?

[nutshell42]

"The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN."

OK, perhaps I'm blind or the only one here not watching CNN 24/7 but I couldn't find a transcript of said comments on CNN.

Could anyone tell me please? thx.

Re:Hey, today it's Sunday!

[Dun Malg]

Although spell checker wouldn't detect it, because it is spelled correctly, your use of the word their is incorrect **hint - think there

Heh. Yeah, and if you look more closely at my sig you'll notice "they're" is used incorrectly as well. So is "its/it's", "then/than" and (one off my personal favorites) "loose" instead of "lose". It's meant to illustrate four of my least favorite /. grammar errors.

The lawyer as dentist

[dcavanaugh]

From the article: "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

In a recent survey, 10 out of 10 consumers attempt to avoid substandard dental care.

Lets send the *AAs on a mission to the Middle East

[Anonymous Coward]

There they can inspect the area for pirated music, software etc. And maybe, just maybe, a stray RPG will hit their car...

Not the Artist's Association

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA claim to represent the artists do they?
Then why is it the Recording Industry association, not the Artist's Association?

By carrying on with this ill-directed legal campaign, the RIAA are damaging the reputations of the artists they claim to represent. People will see injustice in the actions of the RIAA whether there is an injustice or not. Should a sizable number of people decline to purchase works under the RIAA's domain, then the artists lose out both directly through any percentage sales deals, and by the RIAA taking more out of the deal to make up the shortfall.

As artists are unlikely to complain, I see no resolution to the situation until an Artists Union (to which artists pay membership in return for accountability) is formed to protect artists from the industry that controls them.

Perhaps the International Association of Recording Artists? (I couldn't think of anything to match IRATE ;) ).

If you want to help w/ article, email me!

[mrtaco01]

Any and all /.ers who wish to put their two-cents in, e-mail me at mrtaco@nmo.net ASAP. I will need phone numbers where I could contact you tomorrow morning/afternoon. I never planned on making this another "human interest" piece. I just wanted to explain what the RIAA says he did wrong, what he thinks, what the technology behind it, etc. Basically, take the technology behind this and put it into real world language so the everyday reader can understand it. I'm open for comments/suggestions/etc. But let's not tie up /. messageboards with this, so PLEASE e-mail me at mrtaco@nmo.net with all comments related to my article.

Re:RIAA.org vs .com

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you looking for 'riaa.org'? I found their site at 'www.riaa.com'. What's the difference?

No my SSN

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA form for reporting CD copying operations requires an SSN. Even if I was on their side, they'd never get my SSN.

RIAA

[salesgeek]

The current round of saber-rattling coming from the RIAA is nothing but the precursor to the coming end of the world as the recording industry knows it. They've successfully segmented their market to the point that they can't profitably sell most of their artist's products. They've sliced the pie to the point they can't sell the whole pie any more. Now they can't compete with small time distribution. LOL - idiots.

SG

How about snipers for the dentist

[tjstork]

How about: "You don't want to deal with a sniper like me!" In reply to:

The infamous RIAA "Dentist":
"You don't want to have another visit with a dentist like me"
-- Matt Oppenheim, RIAA senior vice president of business and legal affairs

I've enjoyed my boycott...

[afxgrin]

I've been doing my part of the boycott. It's been a couple of years now and I'm actually a lot happier checking out other musicians available who are much more giving of their music.

And when it comes down to the movies, they all seem to suck recently. I figured, being a fan of the original Matrix, I would pay to go see Matrix Reloaded, and for some reason got bored of it really quickly. Since then, I just don't really care for em.

*shrug*

Who owns the rights to the soundtrack in my head?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the RIAA often touts artists rights in defense of it's anti-piracy tactics, it is clear to most that this is simply a ploy to maintain profitability for the rights holders, who may or may not be the original artist or composer. Simply looking at the RIAA's own definitions is insightful because it makes it apparent that their real interests lie in protecting profit for the holders of recording rights, not the "actual lyrics and notes on paper." Snippet from RIAA.org [hey, don't sue me, I'm crediting your site and I am already broke] http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/penalties.asp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "In the recording industry, there are usually two copyrighted works involved: The copyright in the musical composition, i.e. the actual lyrics and notes on paper. This is usually owned by the songwriter or music publisher. The copyright in the sound recording, i.e. the recording of the performer singing or playing a given song. This is usually owned by the record company."

Back up?!

[alexburke]

He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up.

You call this "back up"?:

06/19/03: The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.

More searches...

[Anonymous Coward]

Searching for "RIAA" also produces interesting results. ;-)

counter productive

[Anonymous Coward]

Actions as such by the RIAA will just convince me MORE to never ever buy ANY CD as long as i live.
Every illegal download completed will be celebrated with a raised fist and wide gleeful grin.

I knew the courts are slanted on this one...

[ToadMan8]

They even put their paper through the fax machine sideways.

Get it... heh. OK, yea, that was bad, but you laughed :-P

RIAA Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

It has come to our attention that you have reposted information from our website. Thats, uh, uh, uh, yeah illegal. Send us your life savings and first born. If not we will sue you. Yes, thats right. We may even sue your family, your friends, your neighboors, your customers, your old friends, the doctor that delivered you, your pets, your pets friends, some other people you don't know. We suggest you just put all your cash in a bag and mail it to us. For your convience we will also be offering an online payment service for you to electronically transfer money to us. This makes it fun and easy!

New business idea

[vuud]

Hello, I am forming a new company and am seeking shareholders and investors. The entire business plan consists of people giving us money. In turn we will turn around and launch lawsuits against people with the entire aim of simply inducing them to settle the lawsuit. The profits will them be redistributed to the investorts. Since no one will be able to withstand a court battle against a giant pile of money and lawyers it should work out fine Mind, you we are not going to target anyone capable of defending themselves, but your average person. (note: This is not an actual investement scheme - do not send money, as well as this is working for the RIAA I dont plan on emulating it)

Re:Dentist... RIAA phone #, email addresses, smail

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link from a 1998 victim of the RIAA that includes email IDs and (old) job titles for most of the RIAA's big shots, and makes it easy to figure out the email address for anyone who started later... Do We Have To Sue the RIAA?? The millenium has changed, but not the RIAA's tactics or most of the top names. You'll find the main address, phone and fax number for RIAA Headquarters, plus a long list of RIAA staff names, job titles, and email IDs at the end of the story. Some of the job titles have changed, but their email IDs are certainly still the same. There's even a link to send messages to ALL the email IDs they have listed!

Why is Phynd Server so hard to find

[asscroft]

It's not illegal software. It simply allows a search interface to the windows network. I can find the client, but not the server? Seems to me this should be as prevailant as DeCSS. It could easily be modified to look for files that are very much legally shareable (our company has a proprietary file format and test files are always in demand) I could modify Phynd to allow only searches for this file format and we could easily browse the entire organization's network for these files. As it is we use XP's search engine, but phynd would be much more L337

i think a lawyer is starting to cross a line...

[LifesABeach]

referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

it is painfully clear that i am not a lawyer, but couldn't this statement be considered a threat? i just wondering if this lawyer isn't starting to violate a persons basic civil rights...