Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's top litigation lawyer, who has been personally leading the RIAA's litigation campaign for the past several years, Richard Gabriel, will be leaving his law practice after getting a job as a state court judge for a 2-year term in Colorado. What this will mean to the RIAA's litigation machine is anyone's guess. Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case, the only RIAA case that has ever gone to trial. He was working directly under the supervision of the RIAA's mysterious 'representative' Matthew Oppenheim."

181 comments

  1. What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    A good start.

  2. New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Adriax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It means they'll file to get every case moved to his courtroom.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    1. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by actionbastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It means they'll file to get every case moved to his courtroom.

      So that every defendant moves to have him recuse himself from the proceeding.

      --
      Sig this!
    2. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That would sort of depend on why he left. If he left due to any acrimony, the RIAA would likely go out of their way to stay well clear of his courtroom (and it would only affect Colorado residents anyway)

      Also, he may have left after sniffing the wind and seeing that other judges are starting to find the RIAA's tactics to be questionable at best... and likely wants to be well clear of the RIAA if/when it finally (okay, hopefully) implodes.

      Finally, even if he did hear any of these cases, he's have two fears constantly on his mind: Appeals, and the possibility that not recusing himself from an case involving his former employer would likely land him in hotter water than by simply recusing himself in the first place.

      Just idle thoughts - standard disclaimers pply, etc. :)

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, he may have been bucking for a seat on the Bench for a long time now, and finally got his chance.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    4. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what? He's a judge now. Unseating a sitting judge takes a lot. The old expression of 4 acts of God & an act of Congress come to mind.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not so sure in his case... he's answerable to the state legislature, not Congress (which means he can find himself on the docket a lot faster, esp. if he makes any local enemies, which his type I'm sure is prone to collecting).

      Also, he was elected for a term, which indicates elections are ahead. While most judges are pretty much re-elected ad-infinitum without so much as a "ho-hum" from the electorate, all it would take is a couple of well-placed commercials and ads touting his prior experiences and current performance (if negative), and he's toast. I don;t think the RIAA would have too much interest in bailing him out, so he'd be pretty much on his own.

      Then again, who knows? :)

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that he left because he always wanted to be a judge and a job finally opened up for him. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that most, if not all, judges start out as lawyers.

    7. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...I was under the impression that most, if not all, judges start out as lawyers.

      Frighteningly enough, so do most politicians...

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you ever watch tv? That won't happen, he'll have to give his former buddies a hard time to show he's not playing any favorites. Then they'll be all like 'Why're you giving us such a hard time?' then he'll be like 'Because I don't want people to think I'm playing favorites. I mean we were practically married before', then they'll be like 'Oh so that's how it is, is it? You know, you left your ipod at our apartment last time you were over. It would be a shame if people found out about your ILLEGAL ABBA MP3's!' then he'll be like 'Yeah you don't scare me, I'll just make file sharing legal!' then they'll be like 'Oh ho ho will you now? What makes you think we'll be filing any cases in your district?' then he'll be like 'What happened to us?' then they'll be like 'You forgot your friends! And you became a complete jerk since you became a judge! We feel like we don't even know you any more!' then he'll be like 'It's true! I've worked so hard to impress the other judges I forgot who my real friends were!'. Then they'll hug and make up.

      So yeah, they'll be filing all their cases in his district.

      --
      I have nothing compelling to say
    9. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about "since the RIAA noticed that judges turn against them, they think it's time that they not only get lawyers but also judges that support their cases"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And therein lies the horrible though that crossed my mind when I read the headline. "Those scumbag riaa bastards have put a guy on the bench."

      He *might* serve five years, then go back to the riaa for giant buckos.

      ---

      Damned weed, three pokes and I figured Iraq might turn into another Vietnam.

    11. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      which he will decline to do. This man has foolishly tainted his entire professional career by arguing for the RIAA, I see no reason why we should trust him to be honest as a judge either.

    12. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
      Judges > Lawyers

      He left to be a judge, period.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    13. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by imamac · · Score: 1

      Mod +1: Scary

    14. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Informative

      No need to worry about this. The summary says he's going to be a state court judge. State courts are not allowed to hear copyright cases. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).

    15. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Trouvist · · Score: 1

      No, Judges == Lawyers with more power.

    16. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why this isn't classed as a conflict of interest. If you belong to a profession that exists because the laws are too complicated for normal people to understand, how can you possibly be expected to act in their interests when creating new laws?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you belong to a profession that exists because [computer software is] too complicated for normal people to understand, how can you possibly be expected to act in their interests when creating new [computer software]?

    18. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You can't, but how many helpdesk workers are programmers?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! This is *Slashdot*, Mister! You are not permitted to interject reasonableness into the unending anti-RIAA circlejerk.

      You might interrupt the flow of rhetoric, and then what would be left? Rational conversation?

    20. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I am suing you on behalf of the Writers Guild.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    21. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Quite so. Also,he worked for them, for money. That doesn't mean he's an idealogue on the topic. Many lawyers will work for just about anyone. Some take up causes, but most are just making a living.

    22. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      If you belong to a profession that exists because [computer software is] too complicated for normal people to understand, how can you possibly be expected to act in their interests when creating new [computer software]?

      That's easy - if the new computer software is too complex? People won't use it, won't buy it, and you'll be stuck with a lot of unused inventory and a bankrupt business - even if you had a monopoly before (see also the current mass defections from Microsoft, to OSX and Linux)

      Government is not a free market. It has no competition... so you're stuck with either actually working with the system to change it (en masse) or fomenting revolt.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    23. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      And then his case will be opened up for easy appeals, as the conflict of interest is very clear.

      Rock, meet Paper.

    24. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and with the limited scope of review available in most appeals, the appellate court will (depending on what court, what level of appeal) have to look purely on whether the judge abused his discretion (which is a very high burden to meet), the case stands affirmed on appeal. Paper meet fire that has a tube feeding it oxygen, and burns so hot it even melts rocks, and evaporates steam on contact, and eats monsters.

    25. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by 222 · · Score: 1

      I've been reading Slashdot for years, and I think this is my favorite post. Ever. Thank you for that.

    26. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by Lijemo · · Score: 1

      Also, he was elected for a term, which indicates elections are ahead. While most judges are pretty much re-elected ad-infinitum without so much as a "ho-hum" from the electorate,all it would take is a couple of well-placed commercials and ads touting his prior experiences and current performance (if negative), and he's toast.

      Appointed for a term. Not elected.

      Judges are not elected, on the theory that [sitting Judge + (Election-year-pandering and/or Campaign-contributions) = really, reallly, bad.]

      The electorate can, however, vote out the politician that appointed him in favor of one that promises not to reappoint him at the end of his term, (though I can't think of a case where that actually happened.)

    27. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by sdnoob · · Score: 1
    28. Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      He would have to recuse himself.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom?

    RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship I hope the sharks are waiting.
    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  4. awesome by Frosty-B-Bad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so a man that thinks the RIAA is honest and right is now a judge in the United States Courts. Somehow the words just can't describe the feelings of failure that have surfaced when I read this post.

    1. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Judges tend to be former lawyers, yeah. Your point?

    2. Re:awesome by Yeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's always the possibility that he never believed in the RIAA's bullshit and just did it all out of greed, but someone with such loose morals isn't the kind of person you'd want behind the bench. It seems to be a lose-lose situation for the people of Colorado.

      --
      I was once a horse.
    3. Re:awesome by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's always the possibility that he never believed in the RIAA's bullshit and just did it all out of greed, but someone with such loose morals isn't the kind of person you'd want behind the bench. My feeling is that his motivations ran like this:

      1. It was primarily for the money, lots and lots of money.

      2. It made him feel important; he was pretending to be a lawyer. (Never mind that most of the cases were "ex parte" cases and "default" cases, in which there was no opponent at all, and that in the remaining ones, most of the people couldn't afford a lawyer. So he was always "litigating" against either no one, or someone who had no lawyer, or in a few cases against an unpaid or underpaid lawyer. See, e.g. the eloquent opinion of Judge Otero in Elektra v. O'Brien in which the Judge, talking specifically about Mr. Gabriel's "cases", decried the fact that "the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants.") I.e., Mr. Gabriel is a man who has been making his living the past 2 1/2 years suing children, the disabled, the homeless, displaced persons, the elderly, people living on Welfare and Social Security, and other defenseless individuals, and taking money from innocent people simply because they couldn't afford the cost of defending a federal lawsuit.

      And after communicating with him on practically a daily basis for the past 2 1/2 years.... I don't think he feels the slightest bit of shame over it.

      I guess that about says it all.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a resident of the litigious state of Colorado, this makes me want to immediately move anywhere else.

    5. Re:awesome by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      He may have never believed in their specific goal, but it's my understanding that if he believed that they had a legal case and he was willing to take up that case, then he was ethically bound to take all legal measures to support his clients while employed by them. It's also possible that he was assigned the case by his superiors at the law firm, which can be difficult to turn down short of a clear conflict of interest.

      A lawyer cannot throw a case just because he doesn't like his client. There are penalties for that, including those handed down from the bar and possible civil remedies.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:awesome by billcopc · · Score: 1

      The thing with lawyers is there's usually two of them. Inevitably, one wins and one loses.

      In most cases, the loser still gets paid. It really doesn't matter whose side you're on, as long as you can afford the lease on that luxury car you never learned to drive.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:awesome by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Well, there is that part about taking up the case in the first place, then doing it repeatedly in subsequent cases...

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. The people who control almost all recorded music in the world can afford higher billable hour rates than the latest 10 year old girl defendant can. I can't imagine anyone defending the RIAA because they believe in the RIAA's cause (i.e. extortion, might makes right, all your base are belong to big labels, etc.).

    9. Re:awesome by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public whereas honest and upright lawyers, like our friend NewYorkCountryLawyer, receive much of the ill will associated with that negative reputation and very little recognition for the good work that they do. I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank NewYorkCountryLawyer for the excellent work that he has done in compiling the various briefs, decisions, along with his own original commentary and arguments, and other related materials on his blog to assist in the defense of the ordinary working folks who are being crushed by the RIAA and their unscrupulous attorneys.

      Some of the defendants may have sinned yes, but was their crime (assuming that they are convicted and that is not a certainty) really so great as to merit the complete destruction of their lives and their utter financial ruin? It is really too bad that the RIAA has chosen to take the lowest of the low roads with their lawsuit campaign, but hopefully with interested people like NewYorkCountryLawyer and Slashdot staying on top of things we can eventually compel the RIAA and their members to quit harassing the public in lieu of actually having a business plan.

    10. Re:awesome by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's always the possibility that he never believed in the RIAA's bullshit and just did it all out of greed, but someone with such loose morals isn't the kind of person you'd want behind the bench. It seems to be a lose-lose situation for the people of Colorado. Or he could just think that, regardless of the RIAA's tactics, downloading copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder is the wrong thing to do....

      For some reason, and it shouldn't amaze me by now (but it still does,) but I still get shocked by the level of groupthink that goes on @ /. regarding the permissibility of piracy.... I'm not saying that I never download anything, but 99% of the content I do download is not for sale in my continent and the company who owns the works has refused to offer the content for foreigners (even for a fee,) so I have rationalized the "No Damages" defense. But downloading the latest 50 Cent CD just because you don't want to pay for it, I just never got that once I left highschool.
    11. Re:awesome by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Now the RIAA has a man on the inside... faaaannntastic.

    12. Re:awesome by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Hearing that from an AC is hilarious.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:awesome by andruk · · Score: 1

      I, too, am a resident in Colorado, anybody know what city he is in (so I can avoid him like the plague/borg)?

    14. Re:awesome by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      as this has been shown in courts for years(aka fair use), just because the copyright owner does not give permission does not mean by any stretch that fair use doesn't apply,fair use is to restrict copyright.

      downloading copyrighted materials is 100% legal in all scenarios. Forget your wrong or right, this is an issue that is going through courts a lot lately.

    15. Re:awesome by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Why, Mr. Gabriel. How nice to see you. Welcome aboard the Slashdot Express ... ticket, please.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:awesome by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      He was working for the RIAA. Enough proof that he's, at best, worth a bullet.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:awesome by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 1

      now a judge in the United States Courts No, he's a Colorado state judge. He is not a judge appointed by President and confirmed by the Senate, therefore he is not a judge in the United States courts.
    18. Re:awesome by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is true, but again, he may have been assigned the cases by his law firm, in which case he may have had little choice other than to resign. This is always an option when presented with a moral dilemma, but he may just not have been torn as much as you or I might have been.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    19. Re:awesome by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why, Mr. Gabriel. How nice to see you. Welcome aboard the Slashdot Express ... ticket, please. I don't think that AC was Mr. Gabriel.

      I think it's some new guy they hired, who doesn't know that I'm 60, that I've met Mr. Gabriel a number of times and communicate with him many times a week, and that I understand Mr. Gabriel's job a lot better than Mr. Gabriel does.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    20. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ray, I love the work you do. Every time I hear you're in a case, I pray that you win, and every time you do, I cheer your victories. Please keep fighting the good fight. But even the scum of the earth deserve a lawyer and a day in court (especially when they've got a legitimate gripe).

      Maybe this guy is a jerk and a greedy SOB -- I don't know, I've never dealt with him. I won't apologize for him. But whatever his reasons, right or wrong, he was upholding the rule of law. He wasn't "pretending" to be a lawyer, he IS a lawyer. Just like you. Please take the high ground and don't attack him for it. Attack his position, yes, but don't attack the man for defending it.

    21. Re:awesome by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been a litigation attorney for almost 30 years. Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    22. Re:awesome by no-body · · Score: 1

      ... maybe even worse - he may have gotten an extra "leaving" bonus and from now an all RIAA cases go through Colorado.

    23. Re:awesome by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

      On the contrary, It's people like NewYorkCountryLawyer who are ruining the perfectly good reputation of lawyers by giving people hope.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    24. Re:awesome by Fishbulb · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's it, I'm printing RAY BECKERMAN '08 bumper stickers.

    25. Re:awesome by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      so a man that thinks the RIAA is honest and right is now a judge in the United States Courts. No. He's a Colorado State judge. That is not a United States court.
    26. Re:awesome by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

      I believe the article referenced says he practiced in Louisville, right outside Boulder. Which is where I am. Which means I need to quit my job and go picket him. I'm certainly sending a letter to Ritter and the Denver Post.

    27. Re:awesome by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Unfortunately, it is people like this RIAA lawyer who give the legal profession such a bad reputation among the general public..."

      I know. It's that 99% of lawyers that give the rest a bad name.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    28. Re:awesome by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Troll? How about humour?

      NYCL is giving people hope by doing a great job. That is why he is respected here on /.

      'perfectly good reputation of lawyers' == sarcasm. I'm surprised at the number of people who don't understand sarcasm.

      Can we have moderators who actually understand what they are reading, please?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    29. Re:awesome by TheLink · · Score: 1

      And now he's a state court judge, where I suppose he'll do the right thing when presented with moral dilemmas.

      --
    30. Re:awesome by srussia · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that I never download anything, but 99% of the content I do download is not for sale in my continent and the company who owns the works has refused to offer the content for foreigners (even for a fee,) so I have rationalized the "No Damages" defense. So what's up with that 1%?
      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    31. Re:awesome by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      You're severely mistaken.

    32. Re:awesome by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      am I now? making available is a current grey area likely to also be legal, and just because people have been settling out of not wanting to go to court doesnt make something illegal. If downloading is so illegal tell that to TIVOs, dvd burners, any device that will take in audio in any form (not just record)....how long have people been recording off the radio again?
      RIAA may be fighting hard against but as example downloading a cd you own is not illegal regardless of permission of copyright holders. Fair Use much?

      Or are you mistaken and calling it theft again, which it is not?

    33. Re:awesome by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Judges are intended to face moral dilemmas between two parties. They also have more latitude to recuse themselves from cases if there is evidence that they may be biased in one way or the other. For example, since he worked on RIAA cases, he may be asked to recuse himself from related cases.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    34. Re:awesome by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      And a lawyer, if he disagrees with his client, can stop taking further cases and providing counsel beyond his current case. I very much doubt the bar would have a problem with that.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    35. Re:awesome by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      am I now? Yes, you are

    36. Re:awesome by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Moderators are slashdotters too. 'nugh said.

    37. Re:awesome by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      So what's up with that 1%? Sampling material (be it music, video, or software) to decide if I should purchase it or clear it off of my computer. If I don't like it, I trash it. If I like it, I'll buy it.
    38. Re:awesome by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      as this has been shown in courts for years(aka fair use), just because the copyright owner does not give permission does not mean by any stretch that fair use doesn't apply,fair use is to restrict copyright.

      downloading copyrighted materials is 100% legal in all scenarios. Forget your wrong or right, this is an issue that is going through courts a lot lately. You're correct in saying that fair use is to restrict copyright. However, the general concensus is that legitimate fair use is when a consumer or anyone who is reproducing the copyrighted material has already come to possess said material by means that the copyright holder has approved of. For personal use, it's to duplicate for personal use and without any means of making money (i.e. selling the copies of the copyrighted material or using the copyrighted material in something which generates an income for you [e.g. as a soundtrack for a film you create or, a very common example always thrown around in schools, plagarism.]) For purposes of commercial entities, "fair use" is to allow discussion of a copyrighted work (e.g. reproducing an excerpt to give a reader an understanding of what you're talking about, modifying a copyrighted work for the purposes of parody, etc.)

      IOW, "Fair Use" has never been, nor ever will be, applicable for acquisition of a copyrighted work, only for what you can do with a copyrighted work after a permissible acquisition.
    39. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, and I have absolutely no formal education regarding this subject; however, at least I am willing to put forth an argument of why I believe what I believe.
      I do not believe that downloading, in any form, is a violation of copyright. Here are the technical details: When something is downloaded, the downloader does not make a copy - because he/she never had the original to copy from. The party that is being downloaded FROM is making a copy. If you want to say that's a "technicality," remember that technicalities are the law being used the way it was intended when it was written.
      An extension of this argument is that the downloader is merely receiving goods - it is of no consequence to him/her where those goods came from. If you want to throw out the "purchasing stolen goods" argument, that is a bad analogy to use because (1) nobody is purchasing anything, and (2) nobody was deprived of anything; therefore the goods were not "stolen".

      If you have any arguments against that more than mere "Yes you are!" "No I'm not!", I would like to hear them.

    40. Re:awesome by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I believe that the RIAA has frequently been shown to persist in suing a person long after it has been clearly demonstrated not only that they had no case, but that they knew they had no case.

      This is clear abuse of process. I believe that it *IS* illegal, even though prosecution for this occurs rarely to never.

      If you think good thoughts about THAT activity, then our ideas of morality do not have a large intersection.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re:awesome by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      I believe that the RIAA has frequently been shown to persist in suing a person long after it has been clearly demonstrated not only that they had no case, but that they knew they had no case. This is clear abuse of process. I believe that it *IS* illegal, even though prosecution for this occurs rarely to never. If you think good thoughts about THAT activity, then our ideas of morality do not have a large intersection. I'm with you.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    42. Re:awesome by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      How about "Yes you are, and I'm a specialist in this field." ?

      "the downloader does not make a copy" {{cn}}

      "technicalities are the law being used the way it was intended when it was written." {{cn}}

      Between the file sitting on a computer somewhere and the file ending up on your computer, there is a reproduction made. That reproduction is in violation of copyright. The reproduction is made intentionally. Who makes the reproduction? Who is responsible for that violation?

      Case law says the recipient. The RIAA would like to say both (thus the "making available" theory). But whether making-available is judicially cognizable theory is impertinent to the point that the recipient is liable as the law stands today. The Supreme Court says so. QEDEOF.

    43. Re:awesome by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      well written and I agree with you.

      I wish things were more straightforward but at the same time fear that "straightforward" doesn't mean accurate.

      The whole for commercial use aspect is entirely acceptable and reasonable. However, how it's treated for personally use lately seems to be way too much of legal technicalities. IANAL and if someone else isn't either, its hard for them to know whether or not obtaining another copy of a CD they bought in the past is legal or not without doing serious research and they won't get a straightforward answer.

  5. THIS JUST IN... by Frightened_Turtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "RIAA announces they'll be filing all future litigation in Colorado!!!"

    --


    Whew! This water sure is cold!
  6. riaa? think bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, slashdot is pondering what the future of the legal standing of riaa is, after such a much maligned lawyer becomes a JUDGE.

    tail, wag dog.

  7. Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently Governor Ritter doesn't realize how corrupt this makes him look. Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted, and now that taint just got on the governor. I hope Colorado voters know this happened.

    1. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He probably doesn't, because it's only to an extremely small minority that it does. Outside of the relatively small number of people reading this website, you'd be amazed at how little awareness there is.

    2. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and now that taint just got on the governor. Ewww. :(
    3. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted [...] I hope Colorado voters know this They don't.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I live in Colorado and read this website. Ritter won't be getting my vote (and I often vote for Democrats, but won't for him).

    5. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one does.

    6. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apparently Governor Ritter doesn't realize how corrupt this makes him look. Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted, and now that taint just got on the governor. I hope Colorado voters know this happened.

      True, Democrat Governor Bill Ritter doesn't realize how corrupt this makes him look. Anyone associated with RIAA is tainted, and now that taint just got on Democrat Governor Bill Ritter.

      I hope Colorado voters know how this happened.

      Meanwhile, Bush is likely to veto the PRO-IP Act endorsed by the MPAA and passed by the Democrat House of Representatives.

      I hope American voters know how this happened.
    7. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do now, thanks to /.

    8. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by janrinok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not an American, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

      I don't agree that the RIAA are tainted. Their tactics certainly are and they should be prevented from repeating them. But they have a job to do. There is illegal sharing of copyrighted material taking place and it is their job to protect their interests. Those who simply advocate the sharing should be made legal have, in my view, placed their heads up their arses.

      Now I don't expect my point of view to receive wide acclaim here on /., but take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. But he does question Gabriel's understanding of his own job. That's fine and is a reasonable attitude to take. Others have explained why Gabriel might have been duty bound to accept the cases in the first place but I, for one, am glad that the legal profession has many such individuals. Otherwise, who would defend the person accused of murder, who would look after the interests of the poor and homeless, and who would defend those accused of illegal file sharing? They all need lawyers.

      The object of your displeasure ought to be the legal system that allows the RIAA to use the tactics that they do (although I think we all sense that this is changing for the better), but not the lawyer who uses the system within the current rules to win his case. I would want any lawyer that I employed to try his hardest to win on my behalf - providing that he did not do something illegal by doing so. If your response is that people cannot afford to fight the big money then that, again, is the system that needs changing, not the fact that some people have more money than others. Change the system so that the poorest can get access to the best legal minds. Make sure that all evidence is collected legally, presented accurately, and judged fairly. That is what NYCL seems to be so good at doing.

      Of course we all feel dismayed when the system is gamed, and the RIAA do seem to have had some success at gaming it over recent years. But change the system - or find a better way of preventing illegal file sharing so that there is no need for the RIAA to have to go to court to try to protect their interests.

      Why do I have the feeling that some will misunderstand what I have written and they are bashing at their keyboards seconds after I have pressed the 'Submit' button.....?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    9. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even have to leave this website to see how little actual awareness there is. On both sides.

    10. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And how many people here are from Colorado and know either people in the press or in the opposing candidate's campaign team at the next election? It just takes one to run the story about how Governor Ritter appointed a judge who made his name persecuting children and single parents for minor offences to swing a close election.

      It's time we started remembering what the I in IT stands for.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by torstenvl · · Score: 3, Informative

      It passed the House 410-10. There aren't 410 Democrats in the house. Give cred^H^H^H^H blame where it's due.

      Since this bill is regarding the legal system directly, it was through the House Judiciary Committee, which is split - like all committees - between Democrats and Republicans. Yes, the Democrats on the committee shouldn't have passed that. But let's see about the other side, hmm?

      First, we see that passing the HJC was unanimous, so both sides passed it.

      We see that the ranking Republican is Lamar Smith, who has sought to expand the DCMA

      The next most influential Republican is none other than Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. For those of you without long-term recall, Rep. Sensenbrenner was the genius who introduced the PATRIOT ACT and authored Real ID

      Another member, Tom Feeney, has been written about in Wired for his attempts at touch screen tampering

      So yeah. It's the Dems behind this bill that are the bad guys.

    12. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      take a look at NYCL's post earlier on. He doesn't 'hate' Gabriel for what he has done, in fact if I read it correctly he respects him as a fellow professional. Sorry friend. You did NOT "read it correctly". I do hate Mr. Gabriel for what he is done and I have ZERO respect for him as a "fellow professional". He is a "fellow professional" in name only. His concept of what a lawyer is, and mine, bear no resemblance. In my view, and that of many other of my "fellow professionals", he has been an embarrassment to our profession.

      I can't imagine what you were reading of mine that could have made you believe I felt otherwise. This what I said about him. What part of that do you think shows "respect"? Then when someone said I shouldn't attack Mr. Gabriel just because he was my adversary, I responded with this, saying that the reason I hate him has nothing to do with his being an adversary or taking positions contrary to mine.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    13. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by janrinok · · Score: 1

      In which case I humbly apologise. I obviously misconstrued the following:

      Some of the best friends I have are people I met as spirited adversaries in contentious, lengthy, hard fought, litigations. If you think I have anything against Mr. Gabriel because he was "upholding the rule of law" or advancing "a legitimate gripe" or because he was on the "wrong" side of legal issues.... you don't know me at all.

      I am wrong and I apologise, and I also appear to have missed your earlier comment when looking at /. from a different computer. All my fault, and no other excuses to offer.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    14. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 1

      No problem.

      Thanks.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    15. Re:Appointed by Gov Ritter by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Hah, well said.

  8. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Bohabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the old days people had a way of dealing with people like the RIAA execs. They grabbed them, stripped them, beat them, coated them in tar and feathers. In other words they made a public example of them to discourage other similar-thinking assholes from doing the same thing. Are we too civilized for that today?

    "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
            - Hunter S. Thompson

  9. State court, not federal court by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's appointed to state court, not federal court. Copyright cases are in federal court.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    1. Re:State court, not federal court by Steve1952 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if working as a State Judge will give him extra immunity from prosecution?

  10. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aw, man, that's animal cruelty.

  11. No mention of the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

    1. Re:No mention of the RIAA by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um... why would they? RIAA is only one client of the law firm. None of his (or other judges listed) clients were mentioned either. This is a typical fluff press release, identical for companies and governments: make the people you just promoted look good. What has this to do with political party?

    2. Re:No mention of the RIAA by Technician · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting how the Republican announcement fails to mention RIAA.

      Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it? Somehow, I don't think the Democrats and the Republicans are much different on the issue. If you want some indication, look at the PAC money from various lobby groups.

      Here is a help with a direct link to the Lobby money from the recording industry.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=C2600

      When you see a Republican in this mess, it makes news. When you see a Democrat, it's buisiness as usual. Be sure to look behind the curtain. Bookmark the homepage.
      http://www.opensecrets.org/
      and the Alphabetical listing;
      http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/alphalist.php

      See how your favorite canidate is doing and who supports them.
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
      Here is the good one. How is the canidates doing in regard to how the movie, TV, and Recording industry is supporting your canidate. It sure looks they don't care for McCain.
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=B02
      With over 3 million each to the Dem canidate and only just over half a million to McCain, you can tell who they want. Follow the money.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    3. Re:No mention of the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      that's just because mccain aint gonna win. why waste the money on him?

    4. Re:No mention of the RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying the Democrats had anything to say about it?

      No, I think he was pretty much coming right out and saying it.

    5. Re:No mention of the RIAA by Technician · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that's just because mccain aint gonna win. why waste the money on him?

      Favors and influence. With no campaign support (little) they will have very little pull.

      "Hey McCain, we need you to not veto bill XXXXX"

      "RIAA, take a flying leap. You gave 6X the money to Democratic competitors in the campaign"

      They are not going to have much pull with this one, unless they dangle re-election money. If they do, they need to start early.

      I'm with you, I think McCain is going to win. There are enough Democrats that either fully hate Clinton or Obama that there is no way they would vote for them in the primary. McCain is going to get all the Republican votes and maybe 1/3 of the Democratic votes from those who can't vote for which ever canidate that wins the Democratic primary. The mud is way too heavy and the lines of who you can't elect are being drawn. Enough know universal health care is simply health care everyone needs to buy regardless of whether they can afford it. (It's paid by higher taxes and is health care and a government administrative overhead reducing effeciency) so many can't vote for Clinton.

      The anti-white and America preacher with the re-opening the race card issues that were settled long ago, and the Hussain name make Obama un-electable as those fearing reverse discrimination, a fear of a president enabling boldness in our terrorist enemies, and such produce another segment of Democrats that will never vote for Obama in the general election.

      For these reasons, I think McCain will win. There are too many Anybody but Clinton and Anbody but McCain democrats to elect either in the general election. I may be wrong, but that's what I see. McCain may get really mud covered in the general election as he enters the spotlight after the primary, so things may change. McCain's weak point is the perception of Bush pollitics as usual and the war so he does have a segment that will never vote for him also.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  12. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Yeef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought the RIAA lawyers were the sharks.

    --
    I was once a horse.
  13. Timing is everything by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative

    As one of my professors used to teach us, it's the smart rat that leaves before the ship sinks.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Timing is everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to burst your bubble, but "judge" is a better job than "lawyer". It pays more, and is likely less difficult.

      It's also a lot harder to get. His "jumping ship" says a lot more about the job just now becoming available than it does about the RIAA imploding.

  14. the real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    how much cash is changing hands as a result of the *appointment* by the governor.. to an *appeals* court no less (aren't those the venues where legal precedences are set?)

    hope it's a lot.. and i hope he ends up having to recuse himself from any copyright-related cases.. so the riaa gets nothing for their "investment"

  15. there are still privacy concerns that come up by reiisi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I'm sitting here thinking how copyright has been part of the tide that helped turn the US Constitution upside down.

    Matters of individual and family welfare were supposed to be handled at the bottom level as much as possible. Somehow, the need to monitor the Kluless Klutz Klan and its ikl from above has been an inroad to stretching the normal lines of control. But people who see chances for personal "advantage" in those long lines of control are naturally going to push to extend them further, so it's only natural that matters of personal privacy end up getting handled under "federal" law now.

    So maybe there aren't any privacy concerns that will come up in state court, and this will be a good place to keep the guy where he can't do further damage.

    Somehow, I'm not optimistic.

    (Yes, I am of the opinion that the primary evil in giving IP a legal existence is that it finishes off the erosion of privacy. RMS's essays on the relationship seemed extreme when he wrote them, but the reality of the threat is becoming quite obvious now.)

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:there are still privacy concerns that come up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really true. Congress has had a lot of power almost since the beginning. See Gibbons v. Ogden. And it's had expansive power for almost a century. See Wickard v. Filburn.

  16. "Jumps Ship" by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

    I KNEW IT!

    I totally knew they were pirates all along!

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  17. Re:sadly, Matthew Oppenheim by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I conclude you have too much time on your hands.

    At least I hope that's time....

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by redcaboodle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sharks never attack lawyers - professional courtesy.

    --
    -- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
  19. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Abreu · · Score: 4, Funny

    What do you call 1 lawyer chained to the bottom of the sea? Pollution!

    What do you call all of the world's lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea? Solution!

    Thank you, Thank you! Try the steak!

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  20. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Raconteur · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.lawyer-jokes.us/ One of my favs: What do you do when you see four lawyers up to the neck in wet cement? Answer: get more cement! The point of this post: searching for 'riaa' at that site produces no results. Slackers!!! Get on it!

  21. who cares? by bball99 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Kill all the lawyers!

    signed,

    Will Shakespeare

    1. Re:who cares? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not all of them. But a sizable portion would certainly solve a lot of humanity's problems.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:who cares? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Except NYCL and the other lawyers that lurk here.

    3. Re:who cares? by lysse · · Score: 1

      I would point out, as so many have before, the context in which this is said... but you know what? Nobody would need to if before quoting the only bit of it you know, you people would just go and read the fucking play.

  22. Oppenheim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Matthew Oppenheim is in fact a lawyer. His previous was work was with the MPAA, and he was a key player in shutting down various torrent sites in the past.

  23. Jumping ship? by ya+really · · Score: 1

    He didn't exactly "jump ship," he was appointed to a better job that he probably knew might happen sometime ago. Normally, you don't say you're "jumping ship" unless the said company is on the verge of collaspe, which in the case of the RIAA, sadly doesn't seem to be happening yet. Besides, who wouldn't take the offer to be a judge over working for the RIAA? I do feel sorry for those who enter his courtroom though.

  24. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Umm... no, they didn't. Because in the old days, the RIAA would be the people with the money and power - ie, the nobility. They don't get beaten.

  25. One of the main problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with lawyers is some of them become judges.

    If he was a snake as a lawyer, what kind of judge do you think he will be?

    State court is just another stepping stone along the way to the Federal courts.

  26. Brave Sir Robin by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mr. Gabriel has personally argued all of the RIAA's main cases, including Elektra v. Barker, Atlantic v. Howell, Atlantic v. Brennan, Capitol v. Foster, Atlantic v. Andersen, UMG v. Lindor, and London-Sire v. Doe 1, and personally tried the Capitol v. Thomas case
    And who personally wet himself at the battle of Badon Hill.
    --
    Stop Global Warming!
    Just say no to irreversible processes!
  27. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

    ie, the nobility. They don't get beaten. Don't tell that to Marie Antoinette :)

    "Let them listen to CAKE!"
    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  28. CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The appointments are for a provisional term of two years, and then until the second Tuesday in January following the next general election. Thereafter, if retained by the voters, the term is for eight years.

    The voters of the state of Colorado will have the opportunity to boot Richard Gabriel from the bench in the 2010 general election. Should they fail to do so, their next shot will be in 2018.

    Colorado citizens now have two years to organize to unseat this particular justice should they find fault with the company he's kept and tactics he's used in his years of loyal service to the RIAA.

    Judicial retention elections are almost always ignored but there's ample time to prepare for this one.

    1. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A sound idea. But do you think the average voter cares? Hardly. People care about unemployment, about crime (the real kind, that affects them), about pollution, about education, about health service, about retirement, about drugs and about plumbing, and THEN, when all this is out of the way and settled, they may consider pondering asking you why this should in any way affect them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by dlim · · Score: 1

      If the average voter doesn't care, are they likely to vote at all one way or another? Usually, I ignore that section because I don't know, don't care, or don't want to take the time to vote on the judges. (Judges don't run big campaigns) Maybe it's irresponsible, but if I have the option between making an uninformed decision and not making one at all, I'll usually choose the latter.

      I live in Colorado. I will be voting to remove him from the bench in 2010. I'll probably also tell everyone I know to do the same. Then, hopefully, the people who are willing to vote to remove him will outnumber those willing to vote to keep him.

    3. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's irresponsible, but if I have the option between making an uninformed decision and not making one at all, I'll usually choose the latter.

      It's not irresponsible at all, in fact, it's the most responsible course of action to take. If you don't have enough information to choose, don't choose!

      This is a huge problem in Australia, where citizens are FORCED to vote (you are fined if you don't). A VERY great number of people are totally apathetic about politics, and so simply pick the name they heard most recently in a positive light. These same people, if they weren't forced to vote, would stay at home on voting day and have a BBQ. Then, everyone who actually understands what the politicians have been saying can go and cast their vote and it will have MEANING and BE HEARD instead of being drowned out by 10 million votes from people who would rather be at home BBQing (and there's nothing wrong with that either, I should say).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    4. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by laptop006 · · Score: 1

      You are not forced to vote in Australia. You're only required to show up (you can walk straight out after being marked off) or giving even a half-assed excuse afterwards. They don't even bother to chase the fine.

      Of course everyone I know was well-informed going in to the last election simply becuase of where the country was being lead.

      --
      /* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
    5. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      That's probably true, but it's not what they tell people immigrating to Australia... they tell you that as an Australian citizen, you MUST vote. (I'm speaking from experience here - for some moronic reason, I decided to become an Australian citizen around 2002 or so. I don't even live there anymore now.)

      As for not chasing fines... well, they chased me pretty doggedly when I completely failed to notice a STATE election going on... I can imagine they'd chase a bit harder for a Federal one.

      Also, the last election was somewhat of a special case I think - historically, you'd have to agree that most Aussies are far too underinformed before they cast their vote (which, I believe, nearly everyone does, despite the option you mentioned)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    6. Re:CO Voters: Reject Richard Gabriel in Nov. 2010! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think its still better here in Australia than in the US where smaller groups with extreme political agendas have more say on an election outcome than they should.. and thus it does not truly represent the wishes of the majority of the population, just the groups that can mobilize more voters. (eg religious groups, Unions etc..)

      But of course, as with everything there is positives and negatives to both approaches... But I'd suggest that more people are just lazy rather than entirely apathetic about politics and when pressed will have some (variably informed) preference for their government and when pressed will vote for those they think will suit them best providing a more balanced outcome...

  29. Well Ray by Psychotria · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ray, this is what I propose: I will assume the role of an alcoholic homeless person living in a carboard box. During my spare time I will build a computer out of coconuts and driftwood. I will then use this computer to post on slashdot and download illegal files. When the RIAA summons me to court I will make a suit out of seaweed and defend myself. Cunningly I will have counsel (you). I will then throw away my disguise and expose my underpants that I wear outside my stockings, proclaim I am superman, and hit them wear it hurts. What are your thoughts?

    1. Re:Well Ray by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Well, frankly, if you claim to be superman you'll be immediately sued by both the publishing industry representing DC comics and the MPAA for copyright infringement and something to do with trademarks. And maybe they'll try to arrest you for identity theft too.

      But frankly you would do quite well with just "Ray, this is what I propose: I will assume the role of an alcoholic" because that's my plan as well.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  30. Re:sadly, Matthew Oppenheim by Taleron · · Score: 1

    I like "Methane Me With Pop" and "Enema Pep With Moth" personally...

  31. why not just call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just call this place www.grabbingatstraws.com
     
    anytime anything happens good/bad to a group that the goosesteppers like/don't like we have a blurb about how it can rock an issue to it's foundation but, as usual, nothing ever happens because of it.
     
    are you people so desperate that you have to cheer on anything in the hopes that you're fighting the good fight? pathetic and sick.

  32. Payback time by unity100 · · Score: 1

    thats how the machine works. spread filth for the machine, and get a crappy position somewhere. then be happy with the small position they saw fit for you in return for the irreparable damage you did to justice and human civilization.

  33. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    I guess most jokes still work if you just replace "lawyer" with "RIAA lawyer"

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  34. What it MAY mean by eck011219 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is that the RIAA now has an ally on the bench in Colorado.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  35. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    What is a "lucky break"?
    A bus full of lawyers goes off a cliff.

    What is a "crying shame"?
    There was an empty seat.

  36. Re:Colorado, here comes the RIAA by calebt3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    GP is the third or fourth post that says that.

  37. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    now theyre judges. yay.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  38. Thank you for telling me by overshoot · · Score: 1

    I hate to burst your bubble, but "judge" is a better job than "lawyer". It pays more, and is likely less difficult.
    I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't told me. Well, you or the fact that my best friend since primary school was a State appellate judge.
    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  39. Leading title? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

    It suggests that he is fleeing a sinking ship, when really he's using the RIAA's crusade against rationality to catapult himself into judicial office. Woo.

  40. Umm... can't you... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I mean, here, if you consider a judge to be for some reason biased in your case, you can file a complaint and, if your complaint has merit (and being an ex-lawyer of the RIAA should be enough merit in a case involving copyright) you can request the judge to be replaced.

    Not possible in the US?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  41. I guess that he is friends with Ritter by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I have been so on ritter, but have lost all respect for this bastard. If he is putting this guy in as a judge, well, that speaks of ritter's character.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  42. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call all of the world's lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea? Solution! I didn't know lawyers dissolve in sea water. Cool! I am gonna patent a sea water spray to fend off lawyers.
  43. RIAA Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you cannot win cases on there merits then get your lawyers to become the judges. That way they can judge in your favor regardless of merits.

    Everyone doing litigation for the RIAA has shown lack of ethics and shady practices. Having that type of background doesn't sound like a good resume to be a judge.

  44. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Funny

    The converse, of course, is not true. ;)

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  45. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    On the topic of favorite lawyer jokes, mine is the classic about the jogging lawyers and the bear. But my lady favors this one (or is it a joke?) "It is possible to get pregnant from anal sex - but you'll have a lawyer."

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by sconeu · · Score: 1

    How do you save a drowning lawyer?
    Throw him a rock.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  47. I fear a long term plan by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    1. State Judge 2. Low level Federal Judge 3. High level Federal Judge 4. Supreme Court Judge Tim S

  48. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by splorp! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Judges who must recuse themselves from any case involving the RIAA? Sounds good to me.

    --
    Please don't humanize the morons around me. It makes me very uncomfortable.
  49. OT: Sig reply by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    "Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900

    I got him, not you! God! what a karma whore!

    Grim Reaper

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  50. hi twitter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny mods (not that they would apply to this) don't increase your karma, so they don't make any difference in trying to bring your troll sockpuppet accounts back from the dead. you can stop trying now.

  51. Institutional psychopat by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    This sort of people always finds a good job to land into. Psychopats are extremely charismatic as well as capable of selling the most incredible lie as truth - take Christopher Rocancourt for example. These people leave a trail of destruction in the lives of the people they touch. In this case, the hundreds (thousands?) of people sued by this psychopat, who probably enjoyed in their misery.

    As a judge, he'll be able to cause even more misery. Be afraid.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  52. can't stop myself... must type lawyer joke by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Q: You're locked in a room with Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and a lawyer. You have a gun but only two bullets. What do you do? (yes, assume for the sake of the joke that the dictators are still alive).

    A: Shoot the lawyer twice.

  53. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Jurily · · Score: 1

    On another payroll, yes.

  54. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by torstenvl · · Score: 0, Troll

    Mod parent -1, Troll

  55. Judge?! by DeanFox · · Score: 1


    This man of dubious character and questionable ethics is being promoted to Judge?! I'd rather he stay with the RIAA where there's still a possibility of sanctions. He'll do far more damage to hapless victims as Judge than any private litigator.

    Who is he friends with that got him this promotion? The Governor himself or was he recommended? And shouldn't we attempt to bring this mans ethics, judgment and morals to public light and try and stop this? This would be like promoting Jeffery Dalmer to head a high school lunch program. Judges are part of the checks and balances in the judicial system and we need better than sitting on the bench. And they say the health system is broken.

    -[d]-

  56. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the bus had an empty seat then by definition it wasn't full.

  57. Misleading Headline by db32 · · Score: 1

    I was really hoping this was a more literal headline. Can we please get some better quality on the headline thing? Total letdown on my weekend.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  58. Wait... this guy does incompetent law work - and by Kpau · · Score: 1

    and then morons in a state county make him a *JUDGE*???????? Wow, he either had no opponent (common for judge elections) or his opponent in the race should gut and roast their research team.

  59. I live in colorado... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I am upset that this asshole is going to be a judge here. He has already shown that he is selfish, greedy, and doesn't mind destroying people's lives (with the pettiest of justifications) to further his own ends.

    And now he is one of my judges. Great. Just great.

  60. Oh god RIAA will win all their cases in colorado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see this as Jumping ship. Please. I see this as RIAA planting their top lawyer as a judge(I think he must have trained a successor). Now I can see RIAA winning all their court cases in Colorado. Even if RIAA is not planting him. This guy will be so conditions to defending RIAA that his judgment will definitely favor them. I am sure there is something fishy about this. You guys have to dig down deep(Colorado citizens and Americans)

  61. That you *really* should take your medicine.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    Sorry, you set yourself up for that one, it had to be said.

    Ray is *not* defending the indefensible. Ray is defending against the abuse of the system which affects all of us. If there is a genuine claim to be made, so be it. But the skunks who continue process after they find out the defendant is an octogenarian, a little child or even dead need indeed slowing down.

    From what I've read so far, this newly minted judge falls rather deeply into the skunk category. If you're willing to ignore that sort of past you might as well get the guy back who sued his dry cleaners for millions because they lost his pants. Morally they appear to be in the same league.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  62. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey faggot moderator, go suck dick you shiteating whorepussy cumbubble. Grandparent was insulting and a jackass. I don't care if you DO agree with him, you're still scum, the both of you.

  63. Re:What do you call 1 lawyer at the ocean's bottom by Bryan+K.+Feir · · Score: 1

    You know, there's a comic out there called Supernatural Law (previously known as “Wolff & Byrd, Counselors of the Macabre”); the main characters are two laywers, Alanna Wolff and Jeff Byrd, who specialize in being lawyers for movie monsters, witches, and the like.

    One year as part of the Amazing Heroes Swimsuit Special, Batton Lash did a picture of Wolff and Byrd walking down toward a gigantic sea monster at the beach, while the narrator was going, “Who are these two lawyers? Why are they unafraid? Could it be...” followed by an off-panel scream. The punchline in the last panel had Alanna Wolff glaring at the rest of the crowd on the beach, the monster looking a little confused, and Jeff Byrd leanint in to say to the monster, “Sorry about my partner there, but she always swore she'd scream of anybody dragged out that chestnut about ‘Professional Courtesy’ again.”

  64. fine should be equal to CD MRP or download cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    penalty / fine = cost of CD/download or maybe double.
    makes sense. anything else is nonsense.

    1. Re:fine should be equal to CD MRP or download cost by janrinok · · Score: 1

      It's the court that imposes the fine, not any other organisation. True the RIAA or MAFIAA might 'claim' that their loss is $xxxx but it is the court's fault for accepting the claim as a fact and then imposing a fine to match.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  65. He doesn't have a "district" by BarryBham · · Score: 1

    For those of you who didn't RTFA, Gabriel has been appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, a position of not inconsiderable power. As such he will be one of 19 judges who have statewide jurisdiction to hear appeals from various trial courts, and can only be overturned by the state Supreme Court, or a Federal court should there be an issue that would give U.S. jurisdiction. Brochure "Colorado Courts at a Glance"

    State appeals courts and Supreme courts, incidentally, are high enough in profile to gain the attention of a President who may want to fill a U.S. District Court vacancy. That's where things would get really scary.