Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."
It is most gratifying to see a Judge deny an ex parte application like that. I.e., only the RIAA was in court. No one else -- not the students, not even the university -- knew about it or had a chance to say anything.
This is an example of a good judge doing his homework and actually reading the statutes, and not being impressed by pounds of paper and doubletalk.
I am very happy to see judges like Judge Kelley and Judge Garcia taking a close look, and saying to the RIAA thugs : "Wait a minute, this is still a court of law, not a schoolyard where bullies can just do whatever they want to defenseless people. We have a rule of law, here, buddy."
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"ex parte motion"
Quick show of hands. How many know what the above is without Googling?
The thought just occurred to me the RIAA would like the IP address and every school attendee simply to selectively enforce it. The last thing the RIAA wants to do is go after someone from a family of rich lawyers.... they want the ones that can't afford to fight. Or perhaps daddy might pass a law...
RIAA paracites.
UW had to give in so easily why now...?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Well, I think its pretty obvious you have to interpret the law to apply it. If you don't know what it means, its somewhat difficult to apply it, isn't it?
That's a tough call. Judges don't make laws, lawmakers do that ... and frequently they do it badly. Giving the judiciary some wiggle-room can prevent abuse as much as permit it. Yeah, it's a double-edged sword.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The whole thing is a protection racket (and EVERYBODY needs protection from these guys [if I was Judge Garcia, I would look in my bed for horse's heads.])
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"They find it inconvenient if someone else shows up to tell the judges the truth."
Like who?
Stung by criticism that it was utilizing unlicensed private investigators in order to track down alleged online copyright violators, the RIAA has admitted to "improperly obtaining" user data, and in an unusual near-apology, vowed to clean up its act. "It is time to face the music. We must stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do," said Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. Bainwole went on to say, "We have important work to do -- real pirated CDs to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face. I now ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past eighteen months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of upcoming American entertainment that will be brought to you by RIAA members.
On the same day, the RIAA also announced new software it would make available as a free download called riaaBuddy.
riaaBuddy is an on-screen "intelligent software agent" created by the RIAA, and based upon Microsoft Agent [wikipedia.org] technology. The goal of the program is to help users enrich their online musical experience as they discover digital music together with the included "riaaBuddy," which is an animated, purple Sheryl Crow. Users can interact with Sheryl by asking her questions, get recommendations on new music released by RIAA artist, as well as be politely informed when unapproved websites are loaded.
Other features include, an integrated download tracker, music-related themes, desktops, screen savers, and cute, animated emoticons, bearing a resemblance to top-selling RIAA artists. Also included is a desktop search utility that indexes a hard drive's contents in order to allow the user to easily perform searches.
While initial response to the program has been positive, a few early users complain that the program is buggy. The purple Sheryl Crow is said to only be able to sing the song Daisy Bell. "The program keeps changing my home page to a crappy RIAA home page," said one teenager who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of a RIAA-sponsored lawsuit. There have also been complaints of an increase in pop-up advertising.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
INMSFBHO?
Judges also have to decide whether a law is, in itself, legal, whether it plays nicely with previous laws and the constitutions (state and national). In addition, judges have to decide what a law actually says, not what the lawmakers meant. While we don't have a system like the UK's where the courts have almost legislative power, the constitution does give judges the responsibility to judge and interpret the laws. In other words, while I agree with what Screwmaster said, I do believe the constitution itself gives that wiggle room.
Juries apply the law, based on evidence presented by the two parties and instructions from the presiding judge. Judges exist to decide how the law applies to the matter at hand, and provide clarification for the jury composed of laypersons. This in and of itself requires interpretation, as very frequently law is not black and white, or two laws may conflict, or there is a question of whose rights supersede the rights of others.
Law isn't math or physics. There very frequently is no "right" or "wrong", just a matter of perspective. Judges are there to provide that perspective. This almost always requires interpretation, right or wrong.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The problem with many judges, AND many lawmakers is that they're both morally , and intellectually lazy.
I really do get tired of hearing people in comfortable circumstances belittle others who's circumstances are not so comfortable for being lazy. That is to say for being physically lazy. While physical laziness is no virtue, intellectual, and moral laziness are very much more serious shortcomings when the ones being so are in positions of advantage, and more to the point positions of responsibility.
The reason that younger generations look to the WWII/Depression generation as being the 'Greatest Generation' is precisely because the WWII/Depression generation did not have a lazy bone in its collective body. They were neither physically, morally, nor intellectually lazy.
PS
I now ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past eighteen months,
No! You have taken actions that caused great harm. You MUST be punished for them, and pay restitution for them. I see no reason whatsoever why I should simply forget the illegal and harmful things you have been doing, and then continue to abide your harmful antics.
You do not deserve to escape justice.
Will they ever get in trouble for all this ex parte crap? I fear that they'll keep pulling the same tricks until they get punished for it, and no one thus far has taken any note of that Texas ruling ordering them not to join all these unrelated cases together.
There is a hideous irony between your post and your sig...
:(
As someone once put it, "A jury consists of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
That the truth is not perceptible or discernible does not by itself imply that the truth does not exist. I think it a large leap from 'laws require interpretations because there are apparent ambiguities in how to apply them' to 'there is no one correct way to interpret a law'. That the calculus of competing interests, rights, and persons is too subtle for human beings to divine a definitive understanding of how it ought to be applied is simply a measure of human limitations, and not necessarily evidence of relativity in fact.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
A judge's interpretation of the law becomes precident and is (generally) applied to cases that follow... (called case law I believe). So over time their rulings don't make law, but change how it is interpreted and applied.
-- I'll be back before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism...
If only the University of Washington would step up and stop being such pussies. Bastards.
So today we're FOR the law? I guess only when it's convenient. That's the Slashdot way.
The judge's ruling seemed to suggest that the RIAA's blatantly misleading filing borders on perpetrating a fraud on the court. It almost seems lucky the weren't cited for contempt.
The first time I was summoned to jury duty, I though 'hey, way to get paid for doing nothing!', and I was right. Three days sitting, reading a book, waiting to be called. Cool.
Second time, I got put on a case. To say I 'quickly became dis-enamored with the legal system' would be like saying 'upon exposure to heat, the gasoline rapidly oxidized'. True, but a major understatement.
It was a civil case, 6 jurors. A woman driving a mini-van backed into a pedestrian, knocking him down, breaking his collarbone. I could go on for hours describing the details, but the relevant facts are:
1) the man admited to leaving the crosswalk and walking diagonally down the road
2) the man's statements contradicted themselves, to the point he comitted perjury
3) In my opinion, the woman acted reasonably. She checked her side mirror, rear miror, and them turned her upper body and head so she could look out the rear window of the mini-van as she reversed. The fact that the man was in the middle of the block, in the middle of the street, in her blind spot, was not her fault.
4) the man was asking for over a half-million dollars, just for 'pain and suffering'.
Long story short, it was my opinion that, since the woman acted reasonably, and the man was the one who left the crosswalk (and later lied under oath), she owed him nothing. Unfortunately, the other 5 jurors did not see it that way. This was New York, a city where there are more pedestrians than drivers. I could practically see the $-signs in people eyes. I actually had one juror say 'If you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want to get compensated?' I replied 'I wouldn't expect money if I was the one at fault."
Since a civil case does not need a unanimous verdict, in the end we found for the plaintiff. Now the matter of how much came into play. The "ammount to adaquately compensate him for his losses" was determined (by the other 5) to be around $130,000. They knocked off 35% because they magnanamously agreed it was 'partly his fault' that he jay-walked behind a moving vehicle. That brought the award to abotu $100,000. Then one particularly bright juror piped up with thas shocked: "...but his lawyer will take 1/3, wo we have to give him more", like it's our job to pay the mans lawyer!! We didn't know the man's legal fees. Heck, the laywer could have been a friend doing it for free, for all we knew.
And then something happened that... put it all in perspective. Soemthing that made me realize why the jury system in this country, while it was no doubt a good idea when it was created, is no longer wise.
They decided to give him $133,000.
Now, dear reader, please take a moment to do the math. The jurors wanted to award the men 'X', such that when 1/3X was removed, the man ended up with $100,000.
100,000 = X - 1/3X
100,000 = 2/3X
3/2 * 100,000 = X
150,000 = x
I was doing this in 5th grade, but these MORONS couldn't even get this SIMPLE math right. I tried to correct tham. Twice. Then I shut up, since their error lowered the award I thought should be $0 anyway.
.
Don't even get me started on my 3rd jury duty. Undercover Cop had audio and video of the defendant selling him drugs on 6 out of 7 occasions (the first time they weren't recording as the UC was just supposed to meet the guy, but the guy was so eager to sell, he sold to the UC that time too.) They have video of him walking away counting the money, smiling. The defense ADMITTED the defendant handed over drugs for money on each occasion. Their only defense? 'AGENCY'- the man wasn't 'selling' drugs to the UC, he was 'purchasing drugs FOR the UC', as his 'agent'. Of course, the defendant seem to already have the drugs the UC wanted on hand, and the video of him counting the money, smiling, implies he was making a profit (making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent'). Oh- and he'd been to jail 2 time before for... you guessed it, dealing drugs.
There was one minor marijuana charge w
While everyone can agree that it's wrong for the RIAA to prosecute people who do not have the means to commit copyright infringement, let's not forget that it's still against the law when it happens, and it does happen, especially in university network settings. Slashdot is, in general, a technical and smart crowd, let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. It just makes us look foolish.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
"W&M has a tendency to cave in, such as to the NCAA regarding the use of Indian logos and the recent temporary removal (until deep-pocket alumni demanded its return) of a cross from the on-campus [emphasis mine]"
And yet strangely most of slashdot remains silent.
>
The judge does that, it's his area.
The jury takes care of the "who's telling the truth" bit.
The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes. They do nothing good and have major negative effects. Being able to fuck over a law that is unjust as a juror can be a good thing. And in this case it was.
I don't see them stopping over small matters of money. Unless it's a sanction they'll have to list on every pro hac vice application from here on out, I just don't see any of the lawyers standing up and saying, "I don't think this is such a good idea."
The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes.
Funny. That wasn't a reason the two hold-outs gave. If they DID give that reason, I could understand it, and make a counter-argument.
Actually, the whole reason the UnderCover cop ('UC') was sent to that neighborhood to find and bust drug dealers was CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. You see, drug dealers (and drug users) tend to break other laws as well. They hang out on the street corners, bothering passers-by, playing loud music, annoying the neighbors.
Perhaps, if drug laws were repealed, and drug dealing was 'legitimized' and took place in stores (like alcohol and cigarettes, or prescription drugs), then the situation would be different. 'Business' would happen in retail areas, not on street corners. Drug-gang related shootings would be zero. (When was the last time the 'CVS Pharm crew' shot up a Rite-Aid?) Drug prices would no longer be astromonical (they are high because selling is illegal and risky. Higher prices compensate for the higher risk.)
But all this is fantasy. Drugs (you know what I mean. Illegal Drugs) are NOT legal. Drugs are illegal. And so, their sale and use causes problems. Society has a Right, no- a Duty- to try to eliminate these problems.
Being able to fuck over a law that is unjust
It is "unjust" to want to not be harrassed? It is "unjust" to not want criminals hanging around your neighborhood? It is "unjust" to want criminals to be dealt with??
I'll tell you what I wish I had told the hold-outs: "I hope you have a problem with drug dealers in your neightborhood. I hope you call the cops. I hope the dealer(s) gets arrested, put on trial, found Not Guilty, and put right back out on the streets by a juror just like you .
And when that dealer busts in your door looking for 'who done ratted me out', maybe, just maybe, then you'll understand.
...the other two juros insisted on saying 'Not Guilty' for ALL counts. They outright REFUSED to discuss why they 'beleived' he was not guilty.
Could have been a case of nullification. I will do the same thing in drug and adult prostitution cases, and over copyright violations. I will never send somebody to jail over what I consider bad and unjust law. Never.
What?
That's a good point and I hope you get modded up. There's more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another. Lots of people think those two policies are unjust, perhaps unconstitutional. Why should a juror refrain from deconstructing the system a bit if the system is broken? This is one way that the judiciary gets to check-and-balance the other branches of government. To play by the book or not is a choice that is in the juror's hand; the juror has power. It's up to the juror to wield that power justly. I think that it's okay to wield that power, and that nullification is not a dirty word: just like presidents and governors have the power to pardon anyone, a jury has a comparable power to convict or acquit for one case. Of course the system frowns on nullification, and says it is wrong: but their voice is not the only one to listen to.
Likewise the GP's philosophy of carefully interpreting and applying the law, and playing within the system, is also defensible. That way enhances stability, protects the status quo, helps make the legal process predictable -- those all can be very, very good things. A totally unpredictable, unstable legal system does lots of harm. Playing by the book should be the norm. But when laws are unjust and the police are shady, it is naive to close your eyes and convict or acquit, saying, ``I was just playing by the rules.'' Whatever you choose to do, your choice is a political choice. Pretending that it isn't strengthens the status quo, which isn't automatically a good thing.
Melville churned through all this in Billy Budd, the popular novella.
$META_SIG_JOKE
Given the resources they have at their disposal, and given their ostensible reasons for existing, we'd all like to imagine that colleges/universities will stand and fight for truth and justice. The truth is, college and university administration officials generally have no interest in RIAA tactics. They only thing they really care about is money and covering their ass. I know this directly. If you hold your breath waiting for a college or university to buck up and fight the RIAA you'll die.
Could have been a case of nullification.
No.
Like I said, when questioned on WHY they were saying 'not guilty', they did not answer, but became very defensive. "I can say Not Guilty, it's my right, and you can't make me change". Once that was said, we went back to the judge with a notification of a hung jury. He refused to accept that and sent us back for several more days of deliberation. During those days, as we discussed and re-discussed, and re-re-discussed the evidence, the other statements I mentioned in my original post came out. They were shot down, one by one:
'He was set up'
Um, how? He's handing drugs to a cop, and accepting money. How can you 'set up' a situation like that?? besides, the Defense ADMITTED he handed over drugs for money.
'It's his Third Strike, and I don't want to be responsible for sending him to prison for life'
Um, sentencing is not our call. We just determine Guilt.
'I don't beleive the UncerCover cop'
Um, what of the HOURS of video and audio tape? Don't beleive that, too? What of the defense, again, ADMITTING the facts of the case??
'I beleive the defense- it was Agency'
This we fought hard about. To be a legal 'agent', the person CANNOT profit from the situation. If they gain anything (make money) from the dealer, they are working for the dealer, and are guilty of being a dealer. If they gain anything (make money) off the buyer, they are working for the buyer, and are guilty of BUYING drugs AND selling them for profit: ie, being a dealer. Only if they do not profit can they be an 'Agent'.
There was videotape of the defendant walking away from the deal(s) counting his money, smiling. He didn't go to the corner and hand over the money to 'the real dealer' he went to 'as a favor' to the UC. He walked away with the money. He profited. He was not an agent. Period. But the two hold-outs would not admit this. They would admit to each of the facts, but not put them together.
Never once was the point 'I don't agree with the law' brought up. It was a blatant case of racism.
I will never send somebody to jail over what I consider bad and unjust law. Never.
Please tell us where you live. Then we can send all the streeet-corner hookers and drug dealers to hang out outside YOUR house. Or tell us what Intellectual Property you have created, so we can all make free copies of it, denying you any profit.
I have a feeling you might change your mind....
These days overrated seems to be used more for "I disagree with what you are saying but don't want to get metamoderated". Also you've become something of a celebrity on Slashdot, you don't have a whole lot to worry about getting modded down unless you go and flame someone out right or something like that.
What the jury does is determine if the law, as it is defined for them by the judge, is applicable. The judge interprets the law for them, through instructions. and directs them to determine if it applies. The jury determines if the evidence presented supports applying the law.
Neither the judge nor jury applies the law, the executive branch does through its enforcement agents (police and corrections).
IANAL, I just paid attention in civics class and have read the constitution.
The potato it is uninformed.
Please tell us where you live. Then we can send all the streeet-corner hookers and drug dealers to hang out outside YOUR house. Or tell us what Intellectual Property you have created, so we can all make free copies of it, denying you any profit.
If they have a better product than the ones that are already here, they are more than welcome. Otherwise they'll be broke and move on. Free market at its best. Survival if the fittest and all that. The law made them into criminals, not their business. If it was legal they would be regular taxpayers like the rest of us. As for the IP, I have already been paid and have moved on. You will have to deal with the people who claim exclusivity over it. Any attempts at plagiarism will be frustrated by my possession and display of the originals. IP creators should have no special privileges that other lines of work don't enjoy. I have already discussed these points ad-nauseum. I guess you weren't there.
Like I said, I won't convict over these matters, period. I can only hope that more people will stand up for their rights and get these laws off the books.
What?
If they have a better product than the ones that are already here, they are more than welcome. Otherwise they'll be broke and move on. Free market at its best.
Be sure to tell your neighbors who object to your little crack house that it's 'free market at its best'. That'll make them feel better about the lower property values, increased crime, and finding drugged out hos passed out on their front lawns.
The law made them into criminals, not their business.
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
I agree, IF they were operating like retail establishments, there would be less opposition to them. But they are not. They are breaking the Law. In fact, usually more than one law. This makes them a danger to Society, and Society is right to remove the offenders.
If it was legal they would be regular taxpayers like the rest of us.
Actually, no. If selling [illegal] drugs was legal, I'm sure there would be plenty of rules and regulations concerning the quality and quantiy of drugs sold. For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol (to drink- you can apply to make booze "for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only"). A more... mundane example is the list of rules and regulation regarding a food service business- standards of cleanliness, inspections, etc.
Anyway, these rules and regulations would drive out most of the 'casual' drug producers. And big corporations (who already meet guidelines, because they already produce prescription drugs) would undercut any who remained. The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
As for the IP, I have already been paid...
No, you haven't been- everyone copied your idea without paying you, remember?? The very fact you have been paid means others have NOT been copying your ideas for free.
You will have to deal with the people who claim exclusivity over it.
Hard to get paid for something unless it is at least a little bit exclusive.
We're not for the law. We're more in favor of the opposition to the RIAssA's tactics of shotgun extortion. Their lawyers fire blasts in the general direction of IP Addresses and hit children, grand parents, and other innocents. The Recording Industry Ass. of America is right there in the same neighborhood as 419 scammers and pill spammers. They no longer serve purpose other than to flaunt their Monopoly.
I'm not an expert of law, I'm just taking a business law class at the moment.
One of the first things we learned is the majority of laws actually come from judges in the form of common law where judges establish a precedent from a case (only in UK, US, and a few ex-British colonies, other nations have a civil legal system). In the future, judges may interpret case circumstances and subtlety alter precedent to match current standards but rarely overturn it.
They are breaking the Law.
So were runaway slaves and the people who sheltered them. If we can't remove unjust laws from the books, then we must make them physically unenforcible. If that means war, then so be it. It was the lawbreakers that brought you the USA. It was the lawbreakers that made the politicians realize the folly of alcohol prohibition, a drug that has proven to be more harmful than many presently "controlled substances". And hopefully they will help bring an end to present day prohibitions against consensual behavior. Most of them are economically, politically, and/or racially motivated, with no moral basis whatsoever.
The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
Well, I would have to say that is definitely "unique" reasoning there. Nice scare tactic.
No, you haven't been...
I most certainly have...unless all those checks were forgeries. In which case copyright infringement would be the least of my worries. Once an idea is released (through my own use or by contract), it's there for everybody. Either way I do derive profit from it, even if not monetary. I grant no exclusivity and I expect none for myself. If you use my idea in your product, then I will claim my right to use, modify, distribute, staple, fold, spindle, and mutilate said product as I see fit. Tom Jefferson spelled it out quite clearly to the effect that once an idea is divulged, it belongs to everybody. I agree with that sentiment. If the duration of IP rights had remained at 14 years, I doubt the subject would have ever come up. But since it has become completely unmanageable and simply used as a tool to stifle innovation by preventing one from building upon the works of others and as a means of censorship, it must be abolished. And don't confuse this with plagiarism where one tries to claim the works of others as their own. The rights of "authorship" are quite natural and non-transferable for what should be obvious reasons. Use and distribution rights are neither.
What?
Hey, your point of view is fine, and I'm not trying to take it away from you. Sure, it certainly could be racism. I wasn't there and I'll never know. All I'm saying is that there are always multiple ways to read the signs, and based on the story the way you told it, I can read that as possible jury nullification. I'm just reading your words and interpreting, which is all I can do anyway. And as I'm in a verbal mood, let me tell you why I think so.
Have you ever seen Rashomon ? What you saw in the courtroom differs from what your fellow jurors saw. Each one's view is refracted by the lenses of our upbringing, social context, desires, and so on. This distorts our perceptions of reality; it affects our observations and opinions. So it's easy for me to imagine hypothetical fellow jurors wearing lenses such that they would literally see the trial differently, say the words you quoted, and argue for acquittal, yet without being too motivated by racism -- even if they could not spell ``nullification.''
For one, a lot of people know that the war on drugs is a hypocritical monstrosity. Why does the CIA get to deal cocaine in Los Angeles, and produce opium in Central Asia, but that right is not extended to the citizens themselves? And seriously, how does the Commerce Clause apply to homegrown, home-smoked pot? Common sense revolts. If you ask me, the war on drugs is a perverse load of vile unconstitutional bunkum. No, I do not want to live near a crackhouse, but also I won't complicitly abet this absurd ``war.'' I don't have to accept one or the other: I want constitutional justice and social justice. I don't believe I have to give up one to get the other.
I could write a screed about the three-strikes rule also, but I'm less passionate about that one (I agree with SCOTUS, it's within states' rights). I think it's unjust too. If I had friends and relatives locked up for decades under three-strikes I would probably be hot under the collar about it as well.
There are a lot of people, even among the poorly educated and underclass, who are aware of the injustices of the present system. The idea of nullification is very simple: give the verdict that you think is right, regardless. When you report that one juror said, ``This is his third strike and I don't want to put him away for a long time,'' then nullification is one way to explain that statement (and so is racism). A juror doesn't have to know the term ``nullification'' to do it.
Agreed, illegal things are not legal. But who makes the laws? As a slashdot reader I'm sure you are aware that not everyone gets equal representation in legislatures. Why does minor-league crack possession get you an average sentence of 10.5 years, whereas after $400M of fraud, Dennis Kozlowski might be free after less than 9 years of prison? There's a gap between what's lawful and what's right. How big is the gap? Depends on your lenses.
I agree crack and heroin cause problems. I even think those drugs should be illegal. But everyone is gaming the system, and the people with power game the system the most. Disney extends the copyright term. The RIAA games the judicial system.* Enron and Worldcom cooked their books, till finally they went too far. The FBI abuses USAPATRIOT. Libby gets pardoned, and Rove doesn't even get charged. The President games Article II and the Attorney General denies the existen
$META_SIG_JOKE
But anyone who only ever deals drugs isn't a criminal in my book and that's the goddamn point.
No- the 'goddamn point' is that it NOT "your book" that determines what is illegal. It is Society's 'book'. And Society has determined that the manufacture and sale of certain substances is illegal. Why? Because it causes other problems, attracts the criminal element who end up committing other crimes. This is NOT a Human Rights issue like Slavery. It is a safety issue. A Quality of Life issue.
If they behave illegally in other ways then the drug charge is superfluous.
So, do you think drunk drivers should be let go, too? After all, if they kill someone, then they should be charged with a crime...?
I am unlikely to rat someone out.
They point is, they aren't the smartest people in the world, or they wouldn't be breaking the law to begin with.
It might happen if it was a case of battery or destruction of prooperty. But then the problem wouldn't be the drugs now would it?.
That's like saying a person died from lack of oxygenated blood flowing to the brain... the bullet holes in their body weren't the problem. Hello!- one caused the other!
Drugs do not cause problems in and of themselves. Remember the prohibition? Remember that it's not there anymore? Care to take a guess as to why?Whether to allow drunk driving is up to the operator of the road. I wouldn't want to use roads that allow drunk driving. Kind of like Carl Sagan and many other fairly smart persons that break the drug laws? (I'm not saying all drug users or dealers are smart) Most of the negative effects are due to the legal status of the drugs not the drugs themselves. If you could get legal heroin for a few dollars a pop you wouldn't need to boost cars.
If you drink alcohol and fall down a flight of stairs is it the alcohols fault? If you don't fall down a flight of stairs when drunk is that also due to alcohol or something different? You would have to be mentally challenged to think that pot or heroin has a causal effect on murder or destruction of property.
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
But I've seen lots of alcoholics who behave the same way. Why are they different? The truth is they aren't(by any scientic measure) and many drug dealer and users don't act this way (really, the vast majority are indistinguishable from normal citizens. Remember to compare those on the street to homeless alcoholics, not everyone who drinks or employed alcoholics.) Charge them with the real crimes that bother you (and for some reason carry much lower sentences.) But from this you are an effect of the law, not a letter of the law type person.
For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol.
You are a letter of the law type person then. My grandfather would distill his homemade wines when the taste came out poorly. He considered it a violation of his personal freedom that the government would try interfere with this activity. A juror other than you may decide a WWII vet who worked and paid taxes his whole life is not harmful to society or likely to be 'rehabilitated' by jail time even though he is technically guilty. Although they don't tell you this, this is the very important reason why juries are not made up of lawyers and judges. They want ordinary citizens to use common sense.
The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
You may really want to check out what happened before, during and after Prohibition of alcohol if you believe this.
Perhaps the 'racist' jurors understood instinctively that market forces dictate that sending those men to prison will not significantly effect any of the detrimental effects on society you worry about, it will merely raise the street price of drugs until the position is once again filled by the most desperate/undesirable members of society.
Drug laws are also a classic example of racist laws. Cocaine is converted to crack at near 100% efficiency by simple processes like mixing cocaine with baking soda. Drug laws place a major drug offense at the possession of 500g of cocaine and 5g of crack. This allows a major distributor to possess say 250g of powder cocaine and receive only minor penalties but distribute it to 50 crack dealers who will receive major offense charges. Take a guess how racial/economic split of usage and selling goes for power and crack cocaine.
I am really sickened by your stories. I cannot believe the injustice that goes on in the jury system. I hope your anecdotes do not reflect our court system at large. Maybe it's a big city thing? Up=down. Black=white. Crap on the sidewalk and somebody will clean it up.
I'm amazed that when some people get called for jury duty, they think that means they can appoint themselves Supreme Court Justice.
(making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent')
I wish somebody had told me this before I paid my real estate agent 6%.
I wouldn't want to use roads that allow drunk driving.
ANd most people (everyone but you, as far as I can tell) don't want to 'use' (read: 'live in') neighborhoods that allow drug dealers.
If you could get legal heroin for a few dollars a pop you wouldn't need to boost cars.
1) If I could get heroin legally, it would be from a drug store. A retail establishment. NOT a street corner dealer. (Do you get asprin, cigarettes, or booze from a guy hanging out on the corner??) Therefore, the 'corner dealer' would be out of business. You seem to assume that he would then magically become gainfully employed, rather than continuing his life of crime.
2) Even if I could get drugs legally, crime would not stop. The numbe rof crimes comitted to GET money to buy drugs might go down. But the cheap price and social acceptance would cause drug USE to go up, and therefore more crimes would be committed by people USING drugs.
3) During the trial, it was mentioned that the street price for heroin was $10 per dose. That's not far off from from the "few dollars a pop" you seem to think will cause all drug crime to disappear. Yet, drug crimes happen all the time.
You're welcome to call it what you want, but if I have the power to rescue someone from a grave injustice, damned if I won't use it. I consider it an obligation.
What?
From following Groklaw, it seems that judges & lawyers like to layer their coverage. In this case the judge seems to be saying "This is dead. The statute you used to try to pull it doesn't allow it. Furthermore, the only statute I can find where you could do this, doesn't allow you to in this situation." If the RIAA wants to challenge this in the appeals court, they now not only have to show why this judge made a 'gross error of interpretation' in their statute, they also have to justify why his interpretation of the DMCA is wrong.
Perhaps worse, they can't come back & refile under the DMCA because he's just told them it won't work either.
Oh wait, no it isn't. Care to explain?
Also, your assertion that use would go up if drugs were decriminalized/legalized is specious at best, and real-world examples (Spain, the Netherlands) have indicated that usage does not rise long-term as a result of legal status. Legal or illegal, if someone wants street drugs, they can find them.
As for social acceptance, you prove the opposite of your assertion. What's likely is that your stubborn attitude of "drugs = bad" in the face of any evidence of the opposite will be a very common one, and street drugs will remain socially unacceptable for some time to come.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The subpoena is illegal for more than just its ex parte and citing the wrong law aspects. It's also an illegal joinder of otherwise unrelated Doe defendants that a Texas judge ruled against and told them not to do any longer. The RIAA has blithely ignored that ruling since, and because it has all been ex parte, no one else has been able to point this out to future judges at this point in the proceedings.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Considering how quickly word passes among college students, how long before students at every college and university know that these subpoenas can be fought at the ex parte Doe stage, and how long before they demand that their universities do exactly that?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yeah, that loads right next to the RIAA Genuine Advantage program in my memory map.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The ruling by the Texas judges is another subject matter. In that, the judges ruled the RIAA cannot sue multiple John Doe defendants in one lawsuit when the actions of the defendants were not related to each other. They had to sue each one individually. In this motion, the RIAA is asking the court to order the College or University to give the identities of the John Does without giving the College or University an opportunity to be heard.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yes, because as we all know, the primary effect of any illegal drug is to cause an uncontrollable desire to commit a felony.
Oh wait, no it isn't. Care to explain?
Are you arguing that people who are under the influence of drugs are _more_ law-abiding than those who are not under the influence?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Then you admit that people who are on drugs either EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks, or that the are LES law abiding. Considering that Drugs affect how you feel, and how you feel affects how you act, I seriously doubt druggies are EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks. Therefore, they are LESS.
Then the neighborhoods can try to remove them.
They DO try to remove them... by making drugs illegal, and getting the dealers arrested!
Drug use will probably go up. Drug abuse is not indicated to go up. There is no strong correlation between legality and use/abuse.
But there is a correlation between the absolute numbers. If you have twice as many users, you'll have twice as many abusers. The PERCENTAGE of abusers will be the same, but the number will be twice as much.
The United States have a lot more pot users than Holland even though in holland pot is decriminalized.
The USA has 25 times the population of the Netherlands.
I'm talking about a days worth of heroin not a dose.
You said 'legal heroin for a few dollars a pop'. A 'pop' is slang for a usage. Whatever.
Why would you steal if your addiction can be fed easily with panhandling or even (shock horror)working?
WHo wants to work long hours (or even short ones)? That just takes you away from your precious High. Better to spend 10 minutes mugging someone for pocket change to get high, than spending 10 hours sober working for money to get high. Remember- you don't have to be sober to mug, but you employer probably wants a sober employee.
To recap- people who want to get high will do what it takes to get high and stay high. They will still commit crimes to get the money (although, admittedly, fewer crimes, because they need less money).
It's not impossible for them to be MORE law abiding. If you've got an ounce of weed in the car, you're less likely (if you have any brains) to speed or commit other moving violations that would cause you to be pulled over.
Your logic is specious and based solely on your own opinion on the matter. (As is mine, but I'm not drawing any conclusions.)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
by BVis (267028) on Friday July 20, @09:30AM (#19925975)
It's not impossible for them to be MORE law abiding.
1. "People who use drugs are always more law abiding";
2. "People who use drugs are always less law abiding";
3. "People who use drugs are as law abiding as the general population".
As with most social issues, there is no black or white here, just shades of grey.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Nope. Just quoting you. First you said you were NOT going to argue that druggies are MORE law abiding. Later you said it was possible they WERE more law abiding. Make up your mind- are your going to use that argument or not??
All three states are possible
But each person must fall into one of those three states. You said you weren't going to argue they were More law abiding, leaving only 'equally abiding' and 'less abiding'. Of those, 'equally abiding' is unlikely, because (as I pointed out) drugs change how you act. So, the only thing left is 'less abiding'. Then, once I pointed this out, you reversed you decision to not argue they could be 'more abiding'.
I'm saying that none of these statements are true:
How about these?
1. "People who use drugs are generally more law abiding";
2. "People who use drugs are generally less law abiding";
3. "People who use drugs are as law abiding as the general population".
You're so convinced there's a cause-and-effect relationship between drug use and criminal behavior. IT. IS. NOT. THAT. SIMPLE. The given user's conscience, psychological makeup, living environment, and the legal status of the drug in question all play into how law abiding they are. You cannot put all drug users in one lump, as much as it looks like you'd like to.
Drug abuse is a complicated issue, involving legality, morality, and financial impact. You're trying to over-simplify things.
One other thing: Your assumption that since I'm not on the "Drugs are bad, mmkay" bandwagon, I must be a drug user. Again, not that simple. It IS possible to be against current drug policy in this country and take a contrary viewpoint to your own without being a drug user.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You pointed this out when, exactly?
...
on Friday July 20, @02:12AM (#19923749)
You haven't eliminated "more abiding" or "equally abiding" with any sort of facts or other evidence. All three remain possible.
YOU said you were not going to argue they were "more abiding". I practically eliminated 'equally' with my argument (see the above mentioned post), so that only leaves 'Less abiding'.
what you're meaning to say is that people who do drugs, IN YOUR OPINION, are less law abiding.
I can't be bothered to look up the statistics.
Oh, what the hell. I googled 'drug use USA' and 'drug use crime', and came up with some stats.
"Rates of current use of illicit drugs were higher for young adults aged 18 to 25 (20.1 percent) than for youths aged 12 to 17 and adults aged 26 or older,"
"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. "
SO, the highest drug use rate is about 20%, and the rate of criminals who use drugs is 26% - 32%
Sounds like people who use drugs are LESS law-abiding.
I'm sure you'll continue to nit-pick those numbers, etc. Correlation =/= causation. Whatever. I'm done.
Your dismissal of the concept of correlation not equaling causation means that all your arguments are meaningless. You're dismissing logic in favor of spinning the facts to suit your world view, and can't stand a rational argument. No wonder you're tired, all that spinning is hard work.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.