Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boston Judge Denies RIAA Motion for Judgment

Posted by samzenpus on from the make-it-slow-and-painful dept.

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."

109 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, judges do not enforce, police and prosecutors do the enforcing. But that would be criminal law, and this is civil.

      The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.

      I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty. If all they did was interpret laws, every case would be essentially a summary judgment.

      --
      (IANAL)
    3. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by E++99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.

    4. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Informative
      Wrong Wrong Wrong.

      the judicial system's very purpose is to interperate the law, and to test it in court. You have ZERO understanding of how the legal systems works if you think all judges do is rubberstamp the law.

      open your damn ears, haven't you ever heard of laws being thrown out on account of them failing to hold up in court on a consitutional challenge?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by E++99 · · Score: 1

      The judges job is to interpret the law, as it is written, and based on past case histories.

      I do agree with your sentiment though, too many judges are trying to go against precedent and legislate from the bench.

      If a judge's job were to interpret the law "based on past case histories," he would be doing nothing but turning past judgments into legislation! And power being what it is, many are happy to do so.

      A judge's job is to apply the law, as written, to the case. Insofar as it's possible within that mandate, judgments should be as consistent with prior rulings as possible.
    6. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by ari_j · · Score: 5, Informative

      There were other swings and misses in both that comment and elsewhere in this thread. I haven't read any other comment threads attached to this story but I rest assured they are mostly as bad.

      What law are judges presiding over the RIAA cases supposedly making? What precedents are they ignoring or going against? Can anyone articulate these things or are we just jumping on a "judicial activism is bad and every judge is a judicial activist" bandwagon lately?

      As to summary judgment and interpreting the laws - these are orthogonal concepts. Summary judgment is simply the judge deciding that the case must come down a certain way according to the law, because there is no material fact in good-faith dispute. A material fact is one that actually matters to the case. For instance, if I have to prove that you sold me a car in order to win, it is immaterial whether the car was made in Japan.

      The idea that judges "interpret" the laws is mostly a creature of high school civics classes. Judges apply the laws to disputes between parties. The judge may do some interpreting in the process, but that is neither the judge's whole job or is it solely the judge's job.

      The criminal vs. civil issue will be dealt with in 30 other comments to this story. I'm not overly concerned about covering it here, as a result.

      The judge vs. jury divide is worth discussing. Juries decide issues of fact. That's their only real job. When a judge denies a motion for summary judgment, he is essentially saying that there is enough of a factual dispute to send the case to a jury. It won't go to a jury immediately, of course, but it hasn't lost that possibility in the future. That's what happened here.

    7. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice summary. It is worth pointing out that judges can also perform the fact finding function juries do. This would happen when no party demands a jury. If however, one party demands a jury, then the facts will be decided by jury.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by ari_j · · Score: 1

      That's also true. It depends a lot on your jurisdiction and the nature of your case. Cases at equity are not entitled to juries at all, for instance. Thanks for adding this clarification. :)

    9. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by stox · · Score: 1

      Yes, raping is the key function of a prosecutor these days.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    10. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      Judges should not ENFORCE the law. That's the job of the police. Judges should not MAKE the law. That's the job of the government. Judges should INTERPRET the law.

      That's how the system works. Government makes laws. They decide what is legal and illegal, what procedures are to be followed and how the other two powers are to behave in the context of the law. Under perfect circumstances, those laws are created with a balance in mind that aims at upholding the order and create a fair and balanced playing field for everyone.

      Police (or the executive in general) enforces the law. They are granted rights and privileges above those of a normal person who they are to employ within the borders of legality to enforce the laws created by the government, to enforce order and to hunt down and arrest people who break the law.

      The courts, finally, have a rather heavy load to bear. They are on one hand a safeguard for the other powers, especially the executive (so they don't overstep their rights), on the other hand it's on the court to make sure that procedures are followed and the orderly flow of the system is observed. And finally it's the court's position to decide in ambigious cases which side should be "winning". Guilty or not.

      They're not making law. They are using the laws present to interpret them in such a way that the fairness and balance created through the legislative are observed and upheld.

      At least that's the theory. That reality often doesn't match it is a given. But generally, those are the reasons those three parts exist. No single power should have all the power in its hands.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      "interperate"

      Do you mean interpret?

    12. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      And let's not forget the courts' all-important function of deciding whether a defendant is guilty.
      And another swing and miss. Juries, not judges, decide if defendants are guilty, and that is again criminal law, not civil law.
      I said courts, not judges.
      --
      (IANAL)
    13. Re:Judges should ENFORCE the law, not MAKE it. by billtouch · · Score: 1

      A summary judgment is a judgment made without a defense being offered. In fact, it is asked for when there is no response to any filing. That doen't represent 'every case'. Usually cases are decided by both sides presenting evidence and either a jury or (if agreed upon by both parties) the judge rendering a verdict. Following the verdict, comes the judgement. Confusion in the process comes when the verdict is decided by a judge then the judgement comes from the same judge.

      Bill

  2. it's open to the public by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    some tips for the slashdot crowd:

    welcome the outdoors! yes the bright thing up there is called the sun. no you can't turn it off. the other people you see around you you can't just point and click on to communicate with, nor should you strafe them

    1. bathe. it is customary for members of the public to bathe, at least more than once a month
    2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants
    3. shave, if you are male. not a requirement, but a good idea if you don't have groomed facial hair. and if you are reading this and you aren't male... well, who are we kidding

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it's open to the public by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Shaving, I never did get why it is so necessary to look like a pre-pubescent child, perhaps the mass media 'in' crowd could explain that one too me, I would have thought it was indicative of some seriously disturbed shared sexual preferences, but then the hollywood and MTV crowd will sell anything.

      Are you, or are you not, part of the Slashdot crowd (you read, you post, you are), as such I really don't see the need for you to share your obviously disturbed grooming and dress habits ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:it's open to the public by E++99 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm with you. For an adult male to shave is essentially to dress in drag. Hey, men have done worse things through history as societal norms than removing their facial hair to look like women. But the way that masculinity is feared by most modern Western men and women alike is disturbing.

    3. Re:it's open to the public by adamclarke77 · · Score: 1

      2. wear pants. underwear is ok for life in the basement, but the general public tends to wear pants Translation required for us Brits please
    4. Re:it's open to the public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wot's all this then? Wear trousers, y'bloody wanker. Knickers are okay for a life in the cellar, but the general public tends to wear trousers, gov'nah.

    5. Re:it's open to the public by loganrapp · · Score: 1
      Men like women who like fast cars. So men like fast cars.

      Apply to other areas of male life as you will.

    6. Re:it's open to the public by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I shave regularely, what are you ... oh, you mean the face, right?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:it's open to the public by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Yes, it'd be nice if people showed up & expressed support, even the smelly kind. It might help her emotionally if nothing else.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    8. Re:it's open to the public by AkumaReloaded · · Score: 1

      Being Santa Claus I generally consider shaving to be pointless for 2 reasons.

      1. The kids love me with my fuzzy beard, without it I am nothing to them, nothing!!!
      2. When I shave my beard it grows back within minutes, as depicted in the awesome succesful funny christmas film Santa Claus featured with Tim Alles as me.

      However I do tend to shave my lower regions cause misses santa claus likes it that way.

    9. Re:it's open to the public by Kineticabstract · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nah, men like fast cars, period. Men also like women who like men with fast cars, but if there were no women who liked men with fast cars, men would still like fast cars.

      I concede that much of what we do centers around whether women like it, but not everything. I present as my proof the following word:

      "Golf"

    10. Re:it's open to the public by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Are you sayin' you're bloody football team is better than mine, you fuckin' tosser!?!?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:it's open to the public by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I concede that much of what we do centers around whether women like it, but not everything. I present as my proof the following word:

      "Golf"

      A game where the object is to deposit a white object into holes using thursts from a long stick 18 times in a row ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. yay boston by ystar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:yay boston by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Sadly there doesn't seem to be enough of a reward to motivate anyone to do so yet.

      NYCountryLawyer and his firm are gaining lots of good publicity and notoriety for mounting successful defenses of ordinary people against a widely reviled group of corporate big money plaintiffs and their trade organization. You cannot buy this type of good will and press publicity at any price. This David and Goliath (think Erin Brockovich) kind of thing is what lawyers, particularly smaller independent firms, live for because it increases their chances of landing newer and bigger clients who will ultimately bring the firm even more money. They can also, if they are savvy, parley that goodwill into a political career or a term in elected office.

  4. Re:Newsworthy by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

    No, everything that also indicates even a sliver of success is newsworthy of slashdot too. What else do you think we do when there's nothing new about Vista to insult? Bash Microsoft? Hah, we still need an anti-Vista article to be able to post our hate.

  5. Re:Yeah yeah yeah by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

    I hope you rot in prison. I mean come on? 9 songs? 41 songs? What the hell is it? Have you paid the RIAA for whistling a tune while walking down the street? No? Oh well you should be locked away for copyright infringement.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  6. shaving is for female interest by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

    again, considering the forum, i am not surprised you don't know this

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:shaving is for female interest by andphi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:shaving is for female interest by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmm, are they born this way, or is this sexual perversion just driven by mass media, it would seem rather illogical that men and women naturally evolved this way over hundreds of thousands of years, I mean why do you consider the natural appearance of men and women so disgusting, is there something you see in the mirror that so disturbs you in the mornings.

      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
    3. Re:shaving is for female interest by deftcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Your an idiot"
      Haha, I love it.
      --
      Peace sells, but who's buying?
    4. Re:shaving is for female interest by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So stop trying to be an ass and claim you speak for every woman on the planet.

      He said "generally."

    5. Re:shaving is for female interest by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels for male interest, men shave for female interest

      My fiance' LOVES my beard. It's long enough to be soft to tickle her in all the right spots.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    6. Re:shaving is for female interest by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It used to be common for a man to shave in order to continue to look young to attract a mate. After they got their mate, they signified it by growing a beard. Some Amish still practice this. It was sort of a off the market thing.

      Of course some people cannot grow a decent beard and not everyone does this for other reasons like looks. Some people lacking facial feature like strong chins and stuff grow beards to hide their percieved imperfections. A lot of things (like jobs) require people to be clean shaved too. Anyone who needs to wear a SCBA needs to shave, most medical people need to shave, food service employees need to shave, runners and swimmers do it for the drag factor and so on. There are ways around some of the need to shave things I mentioned like hair nets and stuff. In todays age, I just think it is more of a personal preference then anything unless your in a profession that would need it.

      I do believe the primary attraction comes from the youthful days where it is natural to find a mate who doesn't have a beard. Society has increased the natural age for mating for obvious reasons and all, but I think it is natural or genetics or something to be sexually attractive at young ages and learned attraction isn't easy to give up.

    7. Re:shaving is for female interest by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      i understand the point of your post, are you trying to be a spelling nazi and pick on the "your" or that the nick "timmarhy" isn't an acurate enough representation of the timmy character from south park (since after all that's what the nick is a tribute to)

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    8. Re:shaving is for female interest by Splab · · Score: 1

      Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts.

    9. Re:shaving is for female interest by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Agreed...getting out of a hot shower and then taking a fresh sharp razor to 3 day old stubble covered in soft foam is one of the simple pleasures in life.

    10. Re:shaving is for female interest by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      How long did you let it grow out for? It is definitely irritating for the first 6 weeks, not so bad after that. Did you use conditioner every day?

    11. Re:shaving is for female interest by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Lady, just because *you* have to shave at 10 AM to avoid 5 o'clock shadow, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

    12. Re:shaving is for female interest by digitig · · Score: 1

      Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts. Also they can tickle, which I have found quite positive for the female interest.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:shaving is for female interest by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      you kinda left out legs, armpits and crotches, hmm. Still as a supposedly intelligent species attempting to look like a sexually immature version of the species has to be psychologically questionable and in today's age, with regard to the threats to children in society, that attempt and the desirability of those features surely sets questionable moral precedence and provides very poor subconscious life lessons for children growing up in that environment.

      Of course I'm slack and idle, I don't grow a beard so much as I couldn't be bothered paying for Mr Gillette and co's next mansion and to be blunt I am vain about not being vain.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:shaving is for female interest by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's almost as funny as people who think spelling/grammar makes a person smart.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    15. Re:shaving is for female interest by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      It's almost as funny as people who think spelling/grammar makes a person smart.
      It does help indicate that a person is an intellectual.

      In my opinion, people with bad spelling and grammar do not tend to be intellectuals.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    16. Re:shaving is for female interest by Wite_Noiz · · Score: 1

      unless your in a profession that would need it

      Bluegrass band?
    17. Re:shaving is for female interest by deftcoder · · Score: 1

      There is a correlation.

      Rampant misspellings and grammatical inconsistencies usually imply a lack of education or attentiveness.

      --
      Peace sells, but who's buying?
    18. Re:shaving is for female interest by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I shave as denial of my shameful ape ancestry.

    19. Re:shaving is for female interest by Sancho · · Score: 1

      A good straight razor will last you a lifetime and give you a better shave than those crappy Gilettes. And it's something you can pass on to your children.

      As for your nature argument, it's bollucks. There are great biological reasons to choose a younger mate. Young men are more likely to be able to kill and protect the tribe than old men. Young women will produce healthier children, and will live longer to produce more children so that the species has a higher chance of survival.

    20. Re:shaving is for female interest by gharris · · Score: 1

      And this thread is why I love slashdot. Where else can you start reading about RIAA lawsuits and end up with a full-on discussion about shaving? Good stuff.

      --Glenn

    21. Re:shaving is for female interest by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Sociologist.

    22. Re:shaving is for female interest by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It does help indicate that a person is an intellectual.
      Agreed, but those who think that some typo makes you less intelligent, let's just say their "spelling/grammar" isn't so crash hot, if you know what I mean.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    23. Re:shaving is for female interest by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      I fail to see where you know any more about what women want than he does. You're both male. I much prefer clean-shaven in general. Quite frankly, the vast majority of men either can't grow a decent beard or don't take care of it properly. Stubble is sexy, but it's unprofessional and certainly shouldn't appear in a courtroom. And as I recall, the purpose of high heels is to tighten the calf, accentuating the shape of the leg to attract men of all heights. PS. Fuck you very much for calling me a lesbian. My boyfriend would be quite surprised to hear it. I'm gonna guess the reason you didn't get laid for three years is actually the fact that you're a dick.

    24. Re:shaving is for female interest by IdolizingStewie · · Score: 1

      God damn HTML formatting. There's supposed to be a paragraph break before the PS.

    25. Re:shaving is for female interest by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Evolutionary speaking, bullocks boy, if that were true, then men would not grow beards, and women would not get hairy legs, evolution takes tens of thousands of years it does not happen overnight. You have even confused social with biological evolution.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    26. Re:shaving is for female interest by Sancho · · Score: 1

      I haven't confused social with biological evolution. I've suggested that they're somewhat entwined.

      Someone earlier in the thread asked why we would shave, making ourselves appear younger. I posit that we do so because on an unconscious level, we seek younger mates because evolutionarily, they were healthier and more capable. I don't suggest that this was the reason that someone initially took a razor to his face--rather, I suggest that it's the reason that this tradition has stuck around. People who shaved were more successful because of the unconscious attraction, and so shaving became the norm.

      Now, I'm no scientist, nor anthropologist. I'm pretty much just throwing stuff out there for the sake of discussion. But I don't think that your statements are really appropriate to the post.

    27. Re:shaving is for female interest by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      women, in general, like men without facial hair. women wear lipstick and high heels
      Clearly you don't live around Seattle.

  7. Re:Yeah yeah yeah by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have you paid the RIAA for whistling a tune while walking down the street? No? Oh well you should be locked away for copyright infringement.

    Actually, people in that situation would be locked away for failing to pay off ASCAP, not the RIAA.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Self-defense? by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Self-defense? by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes people will get screwed if they represent themselves. No the system isn't fair, especially in the USA where lawyers cost a fortune. Thats the reason why people defend themselves. They basically have no choice because they have no money.

    2. Re:Self-defense? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      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.

      The trail has been blazed now, and mounting a defense is getting easier and easier thanks to NYCountryLawyer and others. I'd still want to hire a lawyer, but I think in this case not doing so is less risky than usual.

    3. Re:Self-defense? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is risky, but they may feel it is worth it. Can't afford to pay the extortion money, can't afford a lawyer so go for broke. Also if the lose the judgement there is the possibility that the court will consider their financial means and set up a payment plan.

      Also the RIAA isn't what I'd call "well lawyered". They may have a lot, but the guys in these cases seem like rookies. They do some DUMB shit. Maybe the first time in the courtroom for some of them. In that case, a smart respondent might not be at such a disadvantage, especially if the judge feels sympathy for them and helps them out a bit in legal matters.

      Finally, the RIAA has really, really weak cases here. I know it's civil court and reasonable doubt isn't the standard, but even still. Their evidence is extremely shaky and their declarations full of holes. Still not a great idea to defend yourself, but you aren't up against solid evidence.

    4. Re:Self-defense? by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      What's important to remember is that the legal system is a political system, not a technical one. When push comes to shove, all the laws, case decisions, and procedures of law boil down to establishing agreement between members of a political body. (EG: a state or jurisdiction)

      When people represent themselves, a powerful force comes to play, depending on the judge - that of sympathy.

      The judge knows that people who represent themselves are disadvantaged. They are often (usually?) poor or at least, of insufficient means for their current circumstances. They are usually rather ignorant of the nuances of law and established procedure. (which, maddeningly enough, is subtly different for each jurisdiction, even within the same state)

      So, you'll typically get one of two reactions from your judge:

      1) They either pay no attention to the "pro per" status of the party, typically with a bit of annoyance that "you didn't file form 10-W at least 10 days in advance of the hearing".

      2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.

      In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. And, from a position of power, why not feel like the "good guy" when it costs you nothing?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    5. Re:Self-defense? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the idea was "He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Self-defense? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      He's defending themselves, so let the rookies take the helm, no need to waste our star lawyer on this one

      Interesting. I didn't know that multiple-personality disorder was an advantage in the courtroom.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Self-defense? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "I call my 20 witnesses, who sits over there"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Self-defense? by NRISecretAgent · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, the RIAA has always favored college students. Occasionally they go for someone a little different, like an 8 year old, but for the most part they are going after people who, whether they put the effort into it or not, are probably intelligent enough to put up a fight in law school. They might not be bar material but these tend to be relatively intelligent people, most of them with a high degree of computer literacy who are probably more than capable of finding the pertinent laws somewhere and reading up on them.

      They are also at a very social stage of life and probably are rather skilled at public speaking, especially if they are going for some type of business degree. Not only that but they just finished their teenage stint in dating where they tend to spend a decent amount of time around the other's parents are most certainly capable of being respectable to judge.

      And lastly... no money tends to motivate people not to lose more quite well =).

      As for the rest of the population. The people most likely to download large quantities of music are the people who spend the most time in front of computer, and those people tend to be intelligent and knowledgeable in their own right... Though in some cases they could greatly benefit from the hygiene recommendations that started this thread =).

    9. Re:Self-defense? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, here in Butte County, CA USA, where the judges are elected, I've seen a much stronger tendency towards #2 than #1. Not surprising, as in neighboring Pea County there is a much stronger tendency towards #1.
    10. Re:Self-defense? by grayshockley · · Score: 1

      Part of the RIAA (nicknamed - by some - RIAA/RICO) is just the simple fact that RIAA/RICO is seen as a bully. RIAA/RICO comes across as the "Karl Rove Business Model" and most folks seem rather repulsed by them. RIAA's victims (notice the flip in who are the victims) seem to be single mothers and children. If you want to put a face on RIAA, Richard "Les" Cheney's seems to be quite fitting.Perhaps and per chance, someone might have a bit of fun digging into /exactly/ what RIAA has been doing and how have they done it. Think of the single mothers and the children; RIAA appears to do so. "It's for the children." RIAA appears to be dealing in a "Richard Nixon Instant Karma" situation. From RIAA's behavior model, it might not take much digging to uncover more dirt than RIAA's "look alike" Robert Murray, has brought out of his Tunnel of Death.

    11. Re:Self-defense? by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

      >> 2) They bend over backwards to be "fair" as an act of sympathy.
      Whoa, whoa! We talking about the same animal here? After all a judge ain't nothing but a lawywer with political connections. Seems to me a judge bucking the RIAA lawyers in a bit like a family feud...

  9. Bottom line by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since the defendant is Pro Se, the judge forbid the plaintiff from rolling over the defendant on a technicality, and sited another technicality to make sure. This sounds like a great judge, who believes in the spirit and not just the word of the law. I wish we had more like her.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Bottom line by stox · · Score: 1

      No, but if I have my brain removed, I might qualify.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:Bottom line by Threni · · Score: 1

      > "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? All the rest of you, just rattle your jewelry." - John Lennon

      "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? All the rest of us can just rattle our jewelry." - John "working class hero" Lennon

      Fixed it.

  10. RIAA is desperate for cash, and bad at math by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. No big. by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  12. Oscillates? by cheros · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any particular frequency? (sorry, couldn't resist :-).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Oscillates? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Yep, it looks like it coincides with my pay check.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:Oscillates? by andphi · · Score: 1

      Once every six months, approximately.

  13. Re:Newsworthy by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Apparently the RIAA tried to cheat a poor man who couldn't even afford to hire a defense.
    Why is this news?
    Probably to warn other victims.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  14. Re:Newsworthy by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    Is everything that has something to do with the RIAA getting shot down newsworthy on slashdot these days?

    Think of it as comic relief in a humor-starved environment.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  15. Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and 500 posts within 4 hours
    Obviously then it is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to them. Not going to go into details here or look up links to use, just suffice it to say that the RIAA's efforts in both courts and trying to get laws past to fight "music piracy" has a much greater far reaching effect on the internet and technology people then just whether or not the RIAA gets to grab money from "pirates" or not. Furthermore Ray and other lawyers have gained advice and assistance from these articles as well as Ray's legal blog, so in many ways each victory over the RIAA is a victory for many Slashdotters as they have chosen sides on this as well as participated in helping to achieve a portion of those victories as Ray has acknowledged here in the past. ATM, Ray and Slashdot together are about as close to a Groklaw for the RIAA fight as there is.

    Now that I have fed the troll a bit, time for me to go feed myself something more bodily nutritious then words.
  16. Re:Newsworthy by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this news?
    I think it is better served a an example that even the poor are getting a fair shot when defending themselves from huge corporations with tons of money backing their case.

    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.
  17. When is class action lawsuit against RIAA coming ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    huh ? there has piled up enough cases to clearly indicate that they are exploiting justice for personal profit.

    --
    Read radical news here
  18. OUTCH by crashelite · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i heard the RIAA was hurting for $$ but over 9 songs? damn i wonder what they would do about the 13k my friend has

    --
    (yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
    1. Re:OUTCH by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      ...or the thousands of songs that EVERYBODY has. The only result of all these lawsuits is more pissed off customers. Its like a dying action movie moment... the hero (or villian in this case) is going down taking shots left and right, but is still managing to fire his gun in all directions as a last resort to take down as many enemies/customers as he possibly can.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    2. Re:OUTCH by crashelite · · Score: 1

      not to mention innocent bystanders at the same time :)

      --
      (yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
  19. Re:Yeah yeah yeah by digitig · · Score: 1

    So you already know the person is guilty before the trial, do you? Do you know the defendant personally or do you just have astonishing psychic powers?

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  20. This isn't the RIAA losing anything by FreddDredd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This isn't the RIAA losing anything by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 2, Informative

      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. Yes, and she needs to hire a full time driver, too. Because she shouldn't be behind the wheel because someone may think she's always doing something illegal while doing her daily driving.

      Maybe the judge is well aware of RIAA tactics and initiated the PUBLICLY PRESENTABLE discovery conference. It's one thing he can do to expose the RIAA to some degree without jeopardizing any impartiality.

  21. Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obviously then it is "news for nerds, stuff that matters" to them. Not going to go into details here or look up links to use, just suffice it to say that the RIAA's efforts in both courts and trying to get laws past to fight "music piracy" has a much greater far reaching effect on the internet and technology people then just whether or not the RIAA gets to grab money from "pirates" or not. Furthermore Ray and other lawyers have gained advice and assistance from these articles as well as Ray's legal blog, so in many ways each victory over the RIAA is a victory for many Slashdotters as they have chosen sides on this as well as participated in helping to achieve a portion of those victories as Ray has acknowledged here in the past. ATM, Ray and Slashdot together are about as close to a Groklaw for the RIAA fight as there is. Thanks.

    Point II of the Warner v. Cassin reply brief (at pages 9-10) briefly discusses the impact the RIAA's theories could have on the internet if they were to be accepted by the courts.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  22. Re:Newsworthy by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is this news? I think it is better served a an example that even the poor are getting a fair shot when defending themselves from huge corporations with tons of money backing their case. 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. Think of it as a form of grassroots organizing over the internet. It drives the RIAA crazy knowing that defendants and defendants' lawyers all across the country are starting to have almost as much information as they do about what's going on in these cases. It's harder for them to lie about it.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  23. someone should go and take pictures by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone should go and take pictures of the RIAA people.
    That way we could find out more about them.
    Maybe make note of some of their personal habits.
    Pick up any papers they discard.
    Follow them to the parking garage and make note of make,model and tag number.
    Fein interest and start a conversation to see what personal info they give up.
    Then share it with Slashdot so we can get to know them on a too personal level.
    That way we can call or go over some sleepless night and let the RIAA share the publics lack of privacy.Or get sex.Or valuables.Or......

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  24. Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

    Its always great to see pro se defendents actually doing good, so thanks for the article. It does help restore some faith in the legal system in a cynical society.

    --
    Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
  25. Re:Newsworthy by KURAAKU+Deibiddo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  26. not cultural at all, it's completely biological by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:not cultural at all, it's completely biological by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Oh Crap. In the 1920 Mr Gillette wanted to get really really rich selling razors, and initiated a marketing campaign to achieve that goal. To imply that human evolution has been driven by what has occurred in the last century is stupid, behaviour driven by mass marketing and obeying the marketing fed to you since birth either directly or indirectly via your parents or peers who are just parroting the marketing B$ they have been fed, points to the gullibility and stupidity of the human race. Fortunately that does not seem to be a barrier to the continued survival of the species, but then again we are only short haired, crested, rock throwing monkeys.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  27. Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot? by Barny · · Score: 1

    Blah, bad AC, didn't notice that, got mod points and you would have gotten one if you made the post properly :P

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  28. Re:Newsworthy by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

    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! Thank you very much, KURAAKU.

    These bullies are trying to (a) distort copyright law, (b) monopolize digital music, and (c) abuse the judicial process. People need to know about it. And the more people that know about it, the more we can do to fight back.

    By the way, p2pnet.net came out with an article on this Boston event which gives a little more information about Judge Gertner.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  29. Re:When did NewYorkCountryLawer buy Slashdot? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

    Its always great to see pro se defendents actually doing good, so thanks for the article. It does help restore some faith in the legal system in a cynical society. Yes, speaker, it was gratifying to see, especially the Judge's realization that the RIAA was trying to pull a fast one by going for 41, rather than 9, songs.

    We need to see more rulings like this, where the judge looks out for the interests of the mostly defenseless people that are being dragged into this nightmare.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  30. Shaving is for WARRIORS by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    It has nothing to do directly with sex appeal.

    Warriors shave their beard and cut their hair short so that, in hand-to-hand combat, it is hard for opponents to grab their hair.

    (Of course, many chicks go for warriors... or the warrior "look.")

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  31. Nothing you can't spell will ever work-Will Rogers by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

    "i understand the point of your post, are you trying to be a spelling nazi and pick on the "your" or that the nick "timmarhy" isn't an acurate enough representation of the timmy character from south park (since after all that's what the nick is a tribute to)"

    Wow.. So on top of it all, your attempt at a rebuttal also lacks proper capitalization, misspells "accurate", and exhibits an almost complete lack of punctuation marks (making it a really long "run-on" sentence). That, plus the original spelling thing, would tend to indicate a complete disregard for grammar and spelling norms. That doesn't mean that you are stupid, but it does indicate a lack of "attention to detail".

    Is it possible that you're trying to make a point with all of this?

  32. you're wrong by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=270997&cid=202 48025

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. Re:Yeah yeah yeah by thc69 · · Score: 1

    Actually, people in that situation would be locked away for failing to pay off ASCAP
    People in either situation need an ASS CAP to cover their ass so they won't be raped.

    Maybe we should ask Sean Connery to resume working on the Anal Bum Cover.
    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  34. Open to the public? by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1
    I'll reply to you, Ray, since you're working in this field.

    These kinds of conferences are open to the public so if you're in or around Boston on that date, there's nothing to stop you showing up at what's guaranteed to be an extremely interesting hearing. October 23 at 2:30 pm?

    How many people does usually show up at these hearings? How many people do you need to make the judge and lawyers raise an eyebrow? How many to get on the news?

    Seems like plenty of time to get the word out and make people come. Maybe make a few posts around, add it to your calendar and ask slashdot if they have time to come and watch when it draws closer? (Or nobody will remember by the time October arrives)

    There are a lot of people reading slashdot, and a lot of people that can get the word out to others. Maybe not as many of the take-to-the-streets-and-demonstrate-types, but I really think that online communities ought to get more involved outside of the net. Every single person attending to show some support for the defendant would be helping.

    I live in Europe, so Boston souonds a bit far. But if anything was happening close to here, I'd take some time off and join in to support a good case.
    --
    I lost my sig.
  35. Chewbacca defense by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 1
    I recommend that she get Jonnie Cochran and bust out the "Chewbacca defense" on their ass:

    "But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

  36. people have been shaving by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    since 3000 BC at least, and in all cultures

    your ignorance is deafening

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:people have been shaving by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      On Deaf and dumb one. Actually look at history and prevalent cultures. Actually look at the 18th century outside of the rich and greedy un-noble nobility. Here is why did the un-noble pursued the pre-pubusecent look, veneral deasease, and an absence of morals (want to be sure thaey don't have venereal disease, then take them young). You watchy TV old stuff, only see rich not poor, the majority driver evolution, as for breeding, all pursue the strongest, those that actually have matured, that's why the pubescent hair growth so you can actually tell, fool, moron idiot.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  37. Men shave for female interest? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Not where I'm from. A short bit of facial hair is actually quite nice at concealing small blemishes, adjusting age, or in general filling out ones face or appearing more rugged.

    My girlfriend actually likes the way I look with some facial hair, though more of the under-the-nose variety as opposed to the full-face beard. I prefer shaving because beards, and goatees etc, just tend to be itchy, sweaty, and harder to maintain properly. At the moment I'm holding on to some of the fuzz, but we have an agreement that I can shave it in a month or two, which saves me the itchiness and saves her getting facial scratches from coarse face-fur.