Slashdot Mirror
Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Boston case, Capitol v. Alaujan, the defendant is representing herself, without a lawyer. Nevertheless, the Judge denied the RIAA's motion for summary judgment, which the RIAA had based upon the defendant's alleged failure to respond to the RIAA's Request for Admissions. The Court's decision (pdf) held that the RIAA had served its requests for admission prematurely, prior to the conduct of any discovery conference. The Court also noted that the RIAA had upped the ante quite a bit, trying to get a judgment based on 41 song files, even though it had originally been asking for judgment based on 9 song files. This would have increased the size of the judgment from about $7,000 to about $31,000. The Judge scheduled a discovery conference for October 23rd, at 2:30 P.M. and ordered everybody to attend. Such conferences are open to the public."
Highlighting every abuse of judicial power as a good thing because it stymies the RIAA is just the geek version of invoking "the children" to justify similar abuses of the system.
typical of Slashdot to cheer on a criminal getting away with theft because a judge doesn't understand the damage piracy causes and thinks it's just 'copyright infringement' so it isn't that bad. Fucking liberals, get a job and work for a living then maybe you'll have the money to buy the music you want to listen to and have less time to spend on the internet trying to justify why serious felonies like trafficking warez and child porn shouldn't be punished by jail time.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, I hope the RIAA hit her with everything they've got and the judge gets some sense slapped into him and throws the book at her. I hope this bitch rots in prison.
This only shows that the legal system takes notice when a Big Bad Association acts extra evil. Reporting on little wins here and there is fun, but what's needed is more serious legal action against the RIAA for extortionist practices in the first place. Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.
circletimessquare has it right, at least as far as female preference. Women prefer it (though my wife oscillates periodically on this subject), it apparently looks more professional, and the average adult male has enough angular bone structure in his face to make it readily apparent that he isn't 14.
I've noticed that a number of these RIAA cases have some people who are choosing to defend themselves. More than I would have imagined. I don't know the specifics of each individual motivation, but I always felt that representing yourself was somehow risky. Perhaps it's lawyers seeking to defend their business by planting the meme that 'a lawyer who represents themself has a fool for a client' -- that you can't separate your emotions from the case well enough to adequately represent yourself? If a lawyer can't represent themself, what hope does a common person have? I can understand representing yourself in a small-claims case, but against a corporation with actual lawyers?
But if common people are representing themselves in cases against the presumably well-financed and well-lawyered RIAA, it gives me some amount of belief that the justice system is ultimately just, or basically fair, and that someone who can present their case in a basic and simple enough manner might actually win. I don't know, maybe I'm getting the wrong idea from these cases, but it gives me hope that if I'm ever summoned to court against a giant corporation, I might actually stand a chance instead of going broke even if I come out a winner.
Does anyone else sense that a surprising number of these cases are being won by people who are defending themself? Why would it be that people are choosing to do so ( are the RIAA cases that easy to knock down ), and is it more than typical for average cases?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Bumping up the amount in this case is not even
enough to pay the $68K they owe in an earlier case.
Going from 9 to 41 songs is just bad math.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Considering the reply, I would not be surprised that you cant' tell the difference between you making a choice and somepne marking your choices for you, a victim of marketing, obey, buy, believe, obey, buy some more, obey, tell everyone else, buy some more, obey - So sad ;(.
Slashdot by definition and appearance would then seem to be the home of independent thought, perhaps you might feel more at home on the juvenile, lipstick, shaver and high heels forums ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
This is no big deal. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment prematurely, and the motion was denied. The case is still alive, and the parties have to meet and confer on scheduling and discovery issues. The idea is to take care of any issues on which the parties are not in disagreement before the judge has to deal with them. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
He said "generally."
Now that I have fed the troll a bit, time for me to go feed myself something more bodily nutritious then words.
Not only do I see this as promising, I see it as a possible assault to the RIAA style tactics. Most people wouldn't have the money to pay the settlement or the full fine so why not fight it even if you have to learn how to in the process. Worst case scenario, you have lost some time which seems to be a commodity poor people could afford as easily as rich people. If you gave up, your still losing so sweat equity is the best way around. Especially if you have the truth on your side.
Anyways, If RIAA continues picking on people with dirty handed tactics and they keep standing up to them, The costs they cannot recover will mount and maybe even be owed to whoever they are going after. Then maybe they will stop the dirty handed tactics and some rational sense will prevail from the situation.
Let's get real - this looks more like the judge handing the defendent a size 15 cluebat to the effect that she needs to get some legal representation urgently. She either doesn't understand the legal niceties and the rules that she *must* play by, or chose to ignore them - and she just dodged a bullet. If the judge hadn't pulled her irons out of the fire this time by pointing to an apparent failure on the RIAA side to follow the rules as well, she'd already be toast.
Personally, even though I don't feel particularly at risk from an RIAA suit, I find it somewhat comforting to know what they're up to, and how the various suits that they've filed are faring. I continue to hope that our legal system decides not to give in to the RIAA's tactic of sue-first-and-ask-questions later, and that seems to be the case of late. I also appreciate what Ray Beckerman is doing, both with his blog and his submissions to Slashdot. Being informed is a good thing.
Ray: Thank you for your efforts in raising awareness of these issues, you're a credit to your profession. Keep at it!
it's called secondary sexual characteristics. it's a way for mother nature to announce that this person is ready for sex and procreation. women grow breasts, men grow beards. later, the beard grows white, the breasts sag. before puberty, there are no breasts, and there is no beard. this is the way homo sapiens has evolved to tell the other sex that we, as sexually mature pieces of fruit or not are either: not ripe/ too young, ripe/ ready for action, over ripe/ past our prime
these are of course biological communication devices, not overt forms of human-to-human communication. as such, they bypass all of the higher faculties of the brain and communicate at a very primitive level, beyond the person's conscious control. so if one were to consciously manipulate biological sexual cues, they would be manipulating their communication with the opposite sex in a way the opposite sex has no conscious defense against. it's a power play
women wear lipstick and rouge because women (well both men and women) flush in the lips and cheeks when they are sexually aroused. it is a way to manipulate men's interest artificially
likewise, a sexually mature male is threatening to females, because it implies her social interaction with him will be of a sexual agenda, which she doesn't necessarily want. women are more fickle about when they want sex, as they have a more complex reproductive cycle than men, and have more to consider in terms of the implications of sexual activity (ie, having children)
therefore, by shaving your beard, you as a male communicate to a woman's primitive mind that you are nonthreatening sexually. she lets her guard down, and lets you get closer. this is of course a primitive, subconscious manipulation, not an overt verbal one. it's subtle, but it helps, because a woman's first reaction to you upon seeing a beard is automatic sexual aversion if she is sexually uninterested, which with women is usually automatic and most of the time because of her more complex preconditions than men when it comes to sex. unless she is reproductively attached to you, then she might actually prefer a beard, as you are signally your sexual potency to her, which if you are her mate, and she felt comfortable as to her current resources and potential to have children, she would probably desire a beard on you instead
shaving your beard is sort of like a visual castration, neutering and infantilizing yourself in the eyes of women. but that actually works as a psychosexual and social manipulation, because it allows you to get closer to women without them feeling threatened. and since it is only a trick, you are not actually sexually immature, and you buy yourself some time for the woman to get to know you, then you have a leg up on the male competition if the competition doesn't shave
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it