Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits

You had some excellent questions for attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, who maintain the Recording Industry vs The People blog. Here are their answers, verbatim, as they were sent to us by Mr. Beckerman.

1) Guilty?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by PrinceAshitaka

If you are completely guilty and are sued, but do not have the money to pay, what are your options?

Beckerman:

One option is to defend yourself, relying on the affirmative defenses. If you can find a pro bono lawyer, great. If not, go in to the pro se clerk at the courthouse and ask for a jury trial. Another option, if it's acceptable to you, is to default. They will usually get a default judgment against you for the exhibit A list (the songs they downloaded) x $750 plus court costs.

2) Biggest Mistake?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by eldavojohn

What's the biggest mistake you've seen people make historically in cases where they're charged by the RIAA?

Beckerman:

It's hard to generalize about that, because each person's facts, each person's personality, each person's intellect and ability, are different. Generally, there is no real good way to handle these cases, so anything anyone does is a mistake, in that sense. But in another sense, there are no mistakes, because there is no right answer.

3) How can we prevent needing your services?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Software

What should we do to prevent needing your services? Another way of putting this is, how do we avoid getting sued by the RIAA?

Beckerman:

All of the cases that I have seen stem from people who are using a Fast Track sharing program such as Kazaa, Imesh, Gnutella, LimeWire, etc., having a shared files folder with copyrighted songs in it, even if the song files were obtained legally. So even making sure to pay for all of your downloads wouldn't protect you from a lawsuit. The only way I know to avoid the present litigation wave is to avoid having shared files of copyrighted songs.

4) Systemic Problem?
(Score:5, Interesting)
by ZachPruckowski

Do you see the current situation as a systemic problem in the current torts system? Specifically, do you think we need legislative intervention to correct the "money bias" in our legal system?

I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to fight an RIAA lawsuit money-wise. It always seems to end quickly: Either the defendant ist so obviously innocent they drop the case or he/she settles for "pennies on the dollar". When do you think we'll see a few definite trials to answer the hanging legal questions about investigative tactics and what an IP proves?

Beckerman:

I think some good rulings by the judges would shut the whole thing down, so no I don't think it's necessary to revise the statutes. I do think it's important for our society to get behind the defendants financially, because if they don't there are going to be a lot of wacky rulings by judges which are going to dismember the internet as we know it.

5) Lawyers from outer space?
(Score:5, Funny)
by hawkeye_82

You guys are lawyers AND like to help people? What's it like on your home planet ;) ?

Beckerman:

Lawyers are just like any other people. There are good people and bad people. The people who come out the strongest against 'trial lawyers' are the big corporations' PR departments. They want the 'common folk' to think ill of lawyers, because the law -- as imperfect as it is -- is the only equalizer left. And it's being eroded rapidly. And people dissing lawyers all the time helps that process.

6) allofmp3
(Score:5, Interesting)
by giafly

What's the position of Americans who buy from legal offshore music sites, such as allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]?. Is this safer than downloading "free"?

Beckerman:

I don't know what you're talking about. The litigation wave is worldwide. The RIAA isn't American. 3 of the 4 members of the cartel are "offshore corporations". There are different versions of the RIAA everywhere. In France, and certain other places, they bring CRIMINAL cases, not civil ones.

7) Gray Area Questions
(Score:5, Interesting)
by Four_One_Nine

Over the years I have attempted to educate some of the 'younger' generation about the do-s and don't-s of music copying and sharing. The following questions have come up out of real experiences and I have never had anyone provide a reasonable (justifiable) answer.

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?

. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

. b. Can I re-burn a CD from the .mp3s and is that legal?

. c. Does me having a backup copy of the files on my computer mean I can't make an insurance claim?

. d. What if it is destroyed (for example by a fire) rather than stolen?

2. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently scratched or broken to the point where it is not playable, can I legally download the songs from that CD from a file-sharing network?

3. If I purchase the DVD for a movie, could I legally download songs from the soundtrack for that movie from a file-sharing network?

4. If I purchase a CD that our entire family listens to, and then my daughter leaves for College, can she legally take a copy of an .mp3 ripped from that CD with her on her computer? or - similarly - could she take the disc and could I keep the .mp3 on my computer?

Beckerman:

Isn't this kind of a multiple question?

You shouldn't be trying to educate the younger generation about this stuff. The law is unsettled. Even lawyers don't know how it's all going to play out. Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

a. I don't know what MP3 files you are talking about, how do you know you were entitled to make those copies legally?

b. See b above

c. Ask your insurance co.

d. Same answers.

2. I doubt it.

3. I doubt it.

4. I don't know.

8) Why aren't you going on the offensive?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by Civil_Disobedient

Instead of playing Whack-a-Mole by defending clients that are being extorted by these thugs in Gabardine, why aren't you doing anything about stopping it in the first place? Why haven't you petitioned the Attorney General to bring RICO charges against the members of the RIAA?

Beckerman:

I'm an ordinary lawyer doing the best I can. How do you know who I've gone to or spoken to? As far as going to the Attorney General, haven't you been reading? The US Attorney General is on the RIAA's side. See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.

9) Evidence?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by eldavojohn

I hear a lot that the RIAA has the weakest evidence ever in these cases. Such as screen shots of dynamic IP addresses - http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13747 - taken from Kazaa. How the hell do judges across this country uphold these cases with such lack of concrete evidence? I mean, give me five minutes in photoshop and I'll make you a "screenshot" of Kazaa with www.whitehouse.gov's IP address listed over and over on it. Can't an expert witness cause this evidence to be thrown out quickly?

Beckerman:

I've tried, eldavojohn, I've tried. Look at our court papers in Motown v. Does 1-149. The judge didn't want to hear a word I was saying. You are absolutely correct that the entire underpinning of each case is a joke. An astute judge would laugh them out of court, as the Netherlands and Canadian courts have done.

10) Other drive content and RIAA fishing expeditions
(Score:5, Insightful)
by BenEnglishAtHome

When I heard that the RIAA wanted to physically take possession of the equipment belonging to people they sued for discovery purposes, I was less than happy with that prospect. I use a hardware-encrypted hard drive that requires a bootup password. Without my cooperation, no one will every see what's on my drive. Given that the revelation of other content on my drive would place me in far greater jeopardy than anything having to do with pirated music (Assume the worst if you wish; you wouldn't be correct), I would never cooperate with such discovery.

Is there any mechanism by which the court can compel my cooperation and are there any penalties for steadfastly refusing to provide it?

Beckerman:

There will probably be a lot of litigation over privacy issues in the hard drive inspection thing. But if you just want to play hardball, the judge would probably just strike your answer and give the RIAA a money judgment by default.

Comments

US Attorney General

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Hi folks. Sorry but I meant to put this link at the end of my answer to question 8, rather than at the very end of the interview:

See Statement of Interest of U. S. Dept. of Justice in Elektra v. Barker.

Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Also avoid Atlantic, Capitol, BMG, Fonovisa, Virgin, & Universal.

Re:Fair Use?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The law is unsettled. In order to get the US Supreme Court not to be frightened of its aggressiveness the RIAA represented at oral argument in MGM v. Grokster that making personal copies like that was ok. Now they've been saying it's not.

If they think they can win on it, I wouldn't put it past them to argue that personal copies are an infringement.

The Boycott List

[neonprimetime]

Sorry, just karma whoring: RIAA Boycott List

I don't think that [phrase] means what you think..

[benhocking]

I don't think that [phrase] means what you think it does. In US copyright law Fair Use refers partly to how much of a given work you can use. Here's a quote:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

And another:

• Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account.

The point is, that "Fair Use" has a lot to do with how much of a copyrighted work you can copy and for what purposes. It does not give you carte blanche to copy an entire work if it's only for your benefit. Russia, I believe, does have such rules, but not the U.S.

Re:Am I the Only One

[theckhd]

I don't think you need to give misinformation, but i can see where his frustration comes from. The question might have been slightly ambiguous, but the implication was pretty clearly that he ripped his legally purchased CD to mp3, and wants to know about the legality of the mp3s if the CD is stolen.

If the answer was "The law doesn't make any provisions for you having an mp3 of the CD in the first place," then you could have said as much. Pretending you don't know where the mp3's came from comes off as very rude, at least to my eyes.

Re:It's being eroded rapidly?

[hey!]

Remember this was spoken by "Dick the Butcher", an evil henchman to John Cade, an illegitimate pretender to the throne.

JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

In other words, Cade is going to set up what we would call, in modern terms, a totalitarian state. Dick, who agrees heartily, with uncommon perspicacity sees that killing all the lawyers would be a good first step. After all, it is law that constrains the powerful in their actions against the weak.

Next we get Cade's response:

JACK CADE.
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who's there?

In other words, he was "robbed" by lawyers, who use parchment (lambskin) and sealing wax (the product of bees) to bind a man to his word, after which is is never truly free to do as he wishes -- a sting worse than that of the bee.

So, we see those fond of wistfully citing the "kill all the lawyers" quote are pining for a system in which might alone makes right. Under such a system, only one person among the multitudes can be truly free.

Question #3, no brainer

[scharkalvin]

With all the outcrys against the RIAA and "downloading music", the answer
to question #3 is to the point. The only activity that will get you
in trouble with the RIAA is to make copyrighted items available for download
over the internet. If you downloaded gigabytes of music and did not make
any of your file system visible over the internet they wouldn't catch you
now would they?

File sharing networks are usefull for various legal purposes, but setting
one up on your home network involves some prudence. You need to make sure
that you don't expose files to the world that 1: you wouldn't want others
to see (such as your bank records or your p0rn collection) 2: you have
no rights to share (music or video files ripped from DVD's or CD's for your
own use under fair use).

I would suspect that if the creators of file sharing software don't provide
the proper setup defaults and protection to prevent unintended sharing of
parts of filesystems they might be liable for the users damages in a law
suit by third parties (such as the RIAA).

Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Excellent idea. Here's a few:

Association of Music Podcasting (AMP) BoycottRIAA.com "Non-RIAA" List

Creative Commons

Defective by Design's List of DRM-Free Music Sites

dmusic

Electronic Frontier Foundation List of "Artists Online"

emusic.com

Fading Ways Records

FreeCulture.org

harveydanger.com

Janis Ian.com

last.fm

Lime Light Radio

live365.com free downloads

MagnaTune

myspace.com

Nettwerk Download Store

R.evolution I.n P.rogress

RIAARadar.com

uncoolcentral.com

Vision Metal Records

I keep a list on my blog and welcome more suggestions.

Re:I guess there's no Gray Area

[hey!]

Beckerman: 1. There's no such thing as a listening right, I don't know where you get that from.

Probably because the law doesn't bother weighing in on behavior that is (a) inevitable and (b) self-evident. It does govern things copyrights and contracts, which makes the institution of the license, which is used to create contractual rights for the copyright holder where there are no legal ones established by statute or precedent.

Now it is self evident that people who buy recordings buy them to listen to them, and has been self evident up until now it has been inevitable that once in the custody of consumers, they play them often as they wish in any way they wish. So it is not longer the case that an unlimited ability to listen is inevitable and self evident.

One thing about legal rights is that in a practical sense they don't exist until the feasible means of infringing them exists.

There was no "Right to Privacy" recognized in the law, until in the late 19th century Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote a seminal article called "The Right To Privacy" for the Harvard Law Review. They were responding to several developments, notably the development of the modern newspaper, and the development of high speed photographic emulsions.

The way a new right is created is when techological or societal progress changes something we do that was previously taken for granted, but which justifies protection under established legal principles. These princiles are broader, less specific, but logically. In the case of privacy, Brandeis and Warren discerned a generalized "right to be left alone" underpinning various legal precedents that, should it exist, implies a right to privacy in an age of mass publication.

Likewise, there may in fact be a "right to listen", which is to say a right to use something you have purchased in any way you see fit, subject to the copy rights of the owner. Certainly this accords with most people's intuitive idea of their rights.
If such a right exists, it hasn't been recognized up to this point because there has never been reason to, without the availability of technological protection measures. TPMs can potentially it practical for copyright holders to constrain the way you use their works, far beyond mere copying.

On the other hand, I doubt there is any such "right to listen". It's hard to imagine this existing without arbitrarily constraining the rights of copyright sellers to develop and create products and services. For example record companies could make it so you can only play their music on usic players provided by their business partners.

Re:Still Depressing

[Buran]

It's not a conspiracy theory if it's the truth. Crying "conspiracy" is just an attempt to dodge the truth that you don't like. How can you claim that it's all a theory when the story is right there (on the front page of this same site no less) that it's actually happening?

The problem is, and you don't seem to be acknowledging this, is that there is no guarantee that only criminals are having their phones tapped. And the tapping that is going on is going on in violation of the laws against warrantless wiretapping, the laws that require the use of a specific procedure to ensure that rights are safeguarded.

Doesn't seem like you're really trying to safeguard your rights, not here. You say "I care about my rights" but then you go on to say "I don't care if someone taps my phone." The government has to have a reason and a warrant to tap a phone, end of story, and telcos cannot just hand over information to the government without a warrant, end of story.

You think it's OK for the government to do this, or so it appears. So I guess you really aren't supporting privacy protection after all, huh?

Which is it? "It's OK to tap my phone and by extension yours because I support what they're doing" (which means "It's OK to violate the law and the privacy rules that protect me and everyone else") or "No it's not OK, the government should act in everyone's best interest, but as is required by law, so the government needs to obey privacy rules"(which means "Yes, I do care about privacy, and I'm not being a hypocrite who wants their cake and wants to eat it too")?

Re:um...

[gleffler]

Here is 17 USC 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
        use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
        copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
        section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
        teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
        scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
        determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case
        is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
                (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
            such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
            educational purposes;
                (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
                (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
            relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
                (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
            value of the copyrighted work.

        The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
        of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
        above factors."

To emphasize: "including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Since "Making copies for my convience and/or time shifting" is not criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, it does NOT fall under Fair Use and the /. "FAIR USE FAIR USE WHAT OF MY RIGHTS" crowd really needs to stop using this argument.

Re:Interesting

[TubeSteak]

but the US must be thankful that they are not criminal cases just yet and remain civil (criminal=prison, civil=fines).

The difference between civil and criminal infringement is one of willful:
A. Intention (commercial advantage or private financial gain)
or
B. Scale (reproduction or distribution of at least 10
copies during any 180 days of copyrighted works worth more than $2,500.)

You can read the US DOJ's "How To" guide for prosecuting copyright crimes.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/ 03ipma.htm

AFAIK, criminal prosecutions have been reserved for people the FBI has gone after. Who knows, maybe the RIAA will convince some prosecutor to zap one of the smaller fish.

Re:Question 6 not understood - or lacking

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

When I said "I don't know what you're talking about" I meant why he would think that it taking place in another country would be a defense, or would make him less subject to persecution or even prosecution. This is an international wave of litigation.

Also the present wave isn't presently about downloading primarily. It's primarily about the RIAA's allegations of 'distribution'. If you bought and paid for every single RIAA song file in your shared files folder it wouldn't mean a thing to them. They will still sue you, and will insist on every penny, because it is your 'sharing' of those songs that they know about, and that they are after.

Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIAA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In response to that much more clear question, the answer is that the RIAA is going to come after you no matter where you got the files from. They're not suing people because they have evidence of downloading. They're suing them because they have evidence of the files residing in a shared files folder.

If you had a shared files folder with 500 RIAA songs in it, and you paid 99 cents to iTunes or whomever for each and every one of them, the RIAA would come after you and demand a settlement in the exact same amount as if every one of the song files had been pirated.

Re:Copyright Purpose and Private Use

[captainjaroslav]

A lot of slashdotters refer to the "fair use laws" in their posts. IANAL, I'm a librarian in fact, but I'm pretty sure there are no such things. "Fair Use" is a defense, it's not really a law or a set of laws. There are a set of loose guidelines that are used to determine whether a particular use of copyrighted material is "fair", but there are no hard and fast rules. Different judges will frequently reach different outcomes given the same case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

RIAA radar

[Mateo_LeFou]

Hasn't been mentioned yet. You tell it about big-label artists you like, and it points you to non-RIAA artists that are similar.

http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/

Topic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You are correct. The RIAA is only going after people who are sharing files.

Re:What rights exactly do I have?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sure you can listen to it.

The questioner was assuming that there is some "listening right" which follows you even after you no longer have the cd anymore. I.e., he is suggesting that you can go rip a copy of the song from somewhere, without reference to the copyright laws, because your past ownership of a cd with the song on it gave you a perpetual "listening right". That is total fiction.

Re:Wow...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I know what an MP3 is. Just didn't know what MP3's he was talking about. He didn't say how he got the MP3's. Can't assume that RIAA are just agreeing that everybody can make all the copies they want for personal use. See what EFF has reported.

Personal copy "fair use"?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If you think it's safe to rely on that assumption see what EFF has to say.

Re:Uploaders only? (And the "open Wi-Fi" defense")

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No reputable lawyer is going to tell you how to evade the law.

Re:Legality of downloading not relevant to the RIA

[EVil Lawyer]

No no. It's not about setting up a "shared folder" per se, it's about setting up a sharing scheme so that others have access to the files. When NYCountryLawyer says "shared files folder," he is talking about a folder that has been linked to a file-sharing program -- such that others can download or open the files.

Re:The RIAA only goes after uploaders.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The issue about copies for personal use is an area in which the RIAA has flip flopped. See EFF Article "RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use"

Re:You're losing the thread.

[crabpeople]

I think its you whoes loosing the thread.

You said:

Plus you seem to have a general misunderstanding about the basic principles of copyright law. When you buy a copy of something you have rights in the copy, that's it. No metaphysical rights to listen, reproduce additional copies, etc. I don't know what gives you this idea.

He said:

It seems strange to me that a copyright lawyer hasn't heard of the fair use rights granted by US copyright law (Title 17, section 107).

Now I was under the impression that you DO have the right to make backup copies of things for personal use (i dont know how to look up laws but i will assume that thats what the cited law states). Now you are saying that this is not the case?

Re:You're losing the thread.

[Bob(TM)]

Cornell Law

  107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified
by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
        is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is
made upon consideration of all the above factors.


From my reading, an aspect of fair use is codified. However, it doesn't help much in justifying a backup
or rip.

Re:Anti-depressant to the rescue

[ssuppe]

Here's a plug:

http://www.meganslankard.com/

http://www.themundaze.com/

Enjoy!

Re:Dear Sir

[drakaan]

Not all of them were stupid and useless.

One that I particularly wish was less tersely answered (or where I wish some speculation as to meaning had occurred) was this one:

1. If I purchase a CD and it is subsequently stolen (along with my 5 disc changer *@$#!!) do I retain any rights to listen to that music?

. a. Are the .mp3 files of that CD on my computer legal or do they now belong to the thief too?

I understand that there is no "listening right" per-se, but the question seems to stem from a typical understanding of the concept of fair-use.

If I have a right to make archival copies of copyrighted material that I have purchased a copy of on CD, and I use MP3 files on my computer as that archival copy, am I allowed to listen to the MP3 files themselves if the original CD is stolen, or has the right to do so passed on to the theif?

Assuming that's a reasonable paraphrasing of the original question, (or even if it isn't), are there answers to thaose questions, or has the issue yet to come before a judge?

I understand the reason for the answer to the original question, I think (I suspect it has something to do with being a legal professional and giving a public answer to a legal question), but I am also curious as to what the answer to it (rephrased) might be.

Re:Question about Getting trial by jury

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

When you first put in your Answer you say "Defendant Demands a Trial by Jury" in your Answer. Then you're entitled to a jury trial. If you neglect to do it, you may be deemed to have waived your right to a jury trial.

Re:A bad day on Slashdot

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you spirittraveller. It was questions 6 and 7 that really got to me, because they both seemed to be looking for ways to skirt the law.

Default judgments

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The default judgments are usually in the $4000 to $7000 range. You can tell what it will be by looking at the number of songs in 'exhibit A' and multiplying by $750. They are looking for, and apparently getting, $750 per song. Typically exibit A has from 6 to 10 songs.

If a person has no money or assets with which to satisfy a judgment, whether a judgment is $4000 or $10,000 is pretty irrelevant. I don't recommend that people default. I would rather people went in and fought the case. The RIAA makes money on the settlements, loses money on the default judgments, and loses a lot of money on cases that are contested. So I hope everybody contests the cases. But some people don't have it in them to go in to court, handle a litigation, go to court conferences, talk to the judge, wade through paperwork, go to depositions, submit to a hard drive inspection, etc.

Re:Where's the beef?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I am not aware of any statutory or judicial authority, one way or the other, on the subject of legality of making MP3 files from CDs. What do you want me to do, pretend I have? Or pretend that I know what the judges will do?