Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA

An anonymous reader writes "Ray Beckerman, known for questioning the RIAAs legal tactics (also for frequent Slashdot contributions), was sued by the RIAA over his blog Recording Industry vs. People. In question is the 'vexatious' claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a 'sham.' Beckerman is quoted as saying that the litigation against him is 'frivolous and irresponsible.'"

Comments

RIAA = Scientology

[unity100]

they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[BronsCon]

industry - the organized action of making of goods and services for sale

When money is "made" for "sale", all similarly backed money loses value. To be considered an industry, the finance "industry" must create money, thereby devaluing its own product. My aversion is to calling it an industry, when it is strictly commerce; the buying and selling of existing money.

The Federal Reserve Bank is the closest thing there is to financial "industry". Even The Fed, however, can not change the simple truth that printing more money devalues that same money. Its an industry that, simply by its existence, is self destructive.

Financial Commerce is a much more accurate term.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[garett_spencley]

Do you also produce your own clothes ? How do you get around ? If you ride a bicycle to avoid paying for gas and a vehicle do you produce it yourself ?

What DO you live in ? You said you can't get a mortgage so I assume you rent. Your landlord still needs to pay for the maintenance to the property and his costs get passed on to your rent.

You grow your own food, great. So do I. I'm a hobby-chef and my retirement dream is to live on a farm where I can raise my own livestock. Now consider animal feed, soil to grow vegetables in (if you're fortunate enough to live on land with great soil and smart enough to have a compost to produce your own fertilizer then great, I need to buy good soil though because my house sits on mostly clay). How about all of the tools that you need to tend to your garden ?

Thanks for baring with me and yes I am getting to a point. When the US economy collapses the US dollar goes to shit. The price of imports increases and thus the cost of every day goods goes way up. It is nearly impossible to be 100% self-sufficient. It is a worthy goal to strive for but it almost can't be done. There are micro-societies that have experts that grow all of their trees and livestock and produce all of their own basic items for every day survival but a single family just can't do it. They can get close but you'll always need to buy SOMETHING for day to day living. And so you're absolutely wrong if you think that the greater economy does not affect you.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Maudib]

Did you see what happened to the stock prices of Sallie, Fannie and AIG?

Yes the government is making sure that these companies remain able full-fill their insurance and debt obligations, but the investors have been wiped out. This isn't a bail out where the owners get rich and everyone else pays. Share holders have lost all (or nearly all in the case of AIG) of their investments.

The bailout does very little for the owners of these companies. It is punishing in fact. The bailout prevents the rest of the world from feeling the massive and devastating consequences of one of these giants falling. It would destroy economies around the world, not just the U.S.

By destroy I don't mean that people who can afford to invest suffer. I mean most of us loose our jobs, then our houses. No student loans. No mortgages. No insurance payouts for houses flattened by hurricanes. End of times depression everybody suffers consequences.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[psychodelicacy]

My comment about arrogance related to the fact that English speakers often don't bother to pick up the native language of countries they visit, they just expect everyone they meet to speak English. And yet when they're in their own country, they expect foreigners to have a perfect grasp of English.

My Favourite Part

[whisper_jeff]

This is probably my favourite part of the situation - "Readers should note the cover sheet (.pdf) of the court filing lists Richard Gabriel as the RIAA's lead counsel. Gabriel was named a Colorado judge in May and no longer works on behalf of the RIAA." Yeah. Ok. Good work there guys.

NYCL Posts?

[unfasten]

Is this going to stop Ray Beckerman from posting articles and making comments about other ongoing cases on slashdot now? I really hope not because his posts are usually the best way to keep informed about their cases.
From TFA

has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs

This also makes it sound like that's exactly what they're trying to stop, him actually informing people (us) about their baseless cases. I wonder if they're going to seek a gag order?

Re:Dumbasses

[Anonymous Coward]

> Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.

Hm.. that actually might be why they did it. If they can relate all of his other cases to this one, such that he can't comment on them, either, as they're involved in the pending one, then he can't cheerlead on here in topics related to his cases.

Re:Vexatious

[Just Some Guy]

So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Saxerman]

Er... yes. Special classes of people do have special rights and responsibilities. I don't think that has anything to do with how such people were created, or if any equality might have been used in their creation.

We empower agents of the public trust more than the common man. I don't think that makes them better people. But with great power... should come great oversight. The greater responsibilities should come at the price of some privacy. I'm not saying we should place cameras in anyone's home, but I wouldn't necessarily be against cameras in their public workplaces.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[D-Cypell]

Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers?

Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

It could probably be argued that internet based file trading actually reduces the income of these gangs. The profit is all about being the middle-man. Whether that is illegal gangs selling pirate DVDs, groups like the RIAA or torrent websites funded by advertising dollars. Since the widespread adoption of broadband internet, and the development of easy to use filesharing tools, many of the people that would have used the gang funding guy who comes to the city's commercial districts selling DVDs will now opt to use online fire sharing. Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[PainKilleR-CE]

The appointment of judges is different depending on where they are being appointed. In most areas they are not voted in or out, especially in general elections. At the federal level (especially the supreme court) they are supposed to be a check against the elected officials, and not have to answer to the voters, but instead to the law and how well their judgment holds over time.

As for holding people to different standards, I tend to believe that there should be laws that increase punishment for any law broken by a politician or someone trusted to enforce and uphold the law. If someone breaks the law while acting as a law-enforcement officer, they should not only be given the normal punishment for the offense, but an additional punishment for the damage they caused to the public opinion of their fellow officers. Instead it seems that the law holds them in higher regard and doesn't believe that they commit offenses in the first place, so rather than being punished more harshly than the general populace, they are given more lenience.

Lawyers usually know where their boundaries are, though they like to dance on the line a lot. If the court told him to keep his mouth shut and he kept posting to his blog, he'll deserve the according punishment. If he had every right to believe he was not out of line in posting to the blog, it's very likely that he'll come out ahead on this one. It seems very likely that this is just another example of exactly the behavior he was commenting on in the first place, but it's really up to the court in this case.

Google 'SLAPP'

[sgauss]

"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP Good luck, Ray, I hope you own these bastards!

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Dragoon412]

I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals.

Lawyers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than "mere mortals." Although it is ultimately decided by each state's bar association, you can find the ABA's model rules of professional conduct here. Virtually every accredited law school teaches those in Professional Responsibility.

These rules are, incidentally, a large part of the reason that slimeball lawyers tend to have a short shelf life. They create something of an ethical minefield for attorneys, and govern everything from what an attorney is allowed to say to the media during trial, to what his duties to non-clients are, to what sort of information he can disclose about a case.

Without having a copy of the actual complain handy, I can't say exactly what the RIAA is accusing Beckerman of, but the quotes from the Wired article make it sound like a meritorious claims and contentions issue; in effect, they're saying Beckerman violated his ethical duty to only make meritorious arguments by dragging out the trial with motions, claims, etc. that he knew were not valid.

For what it's worth, I've followed Beckerman's blog somewhat closely. And if my speculation about the actual claims being levied at Beckerman are true, I'd be inclined to say that this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black in some general "the RIAA is bad!" kind of sense. It seems to me that, in that case, they'd be violating the exact same rule they're accusing Beckerman of violating by filing this complaint.

But, I'm just a law student playing armchair lawyer here. Take the above with a grain of salt.

Re:Defending file-sharers

[Mr. Underbridge]

As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).

Problem with that is he's already decided that his mission in life is taking on the RIAA. Indeed, in defending himself, he has every right to publically make the case that what he's saying on his site is true, which would get him off the hook for what they're suing. Worse, the RIAA is giving the guy a forum to say these things! In that way, the trial is really about the RIAA - they say it's illegal to say mean things about them (why it would be, I have no idea), he gets to prove that the things he says are totally legit, and he also has the opportunity to try to expose the flaws in their litigation. He'll certainly claim that, ironically, the very suit against him proves his case.

I'd agree with you on the "send a message" aspect if they went after someone who didn't want a piece of them, but since they're taking on a guy who's been hitting away already, all they're doing is handing him the club that he'll use to beat them.

Note I'm not a lawyer, and I have only the best of feelings toward the RIAA...

Re:hmmm

[just_another_sean]

Right now Ray's blog is #9 on a simple google search for RIAA. Hopefully all the publicity this is guaranteed to garner will shoot him up to the top. :-)

I kinda doubt it

[Moraelin]

Well, I kinda doubt that even the RIAA can be _that_ stupid. (Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)

Let's face it, today's lawyers are tomorrow's judges. I'm also going to take a wild guess that even today's judges, no matter how much they enjoy making lawyers work to earn their play, will not take it very lightly when faced with an attempt to bully the legal profession as a whole.

_Especially_ in civil cases, where really the whole standard of evidence is along the lines of "who's better at persuading the judge", you don't want to start from the position of the known bully abusing the legal system and work your way up from there. So the judges are one group they'd be smart to not annoy.

Also let's not forget that lawyers do have very large and powerful professional associations. They don't exist just to provide some exams for their members. And they tend to know the laws, precedents and available avenues. Even _if_ you could somehow bully one or two of them into submission, I think any attempt to basically carpet-bomb their profession as a whole into no longer being able to do its job (on some cases), might find some rather stiff resistance there. Sooner or later you'd find yourself not just against one or two lawyers, but against an entity bigger than yourself and more adept at working the system than you are.

As I was saying, I don't think that even the RIAA is _that_ stupid.

Anyone can Sue Anyone for Anything

[CodeBuster]

A lawsuit in and of itself really doesn't mean anything when anyone in the United States who fills out the forms and pays the filing fees can be scheduled to be heard in court. It doesn't matter what you write in the reason part of the form, the court will be happy to take your money and file the papers. I think that this is a foolish move on the part of the RIAA. Mr. Beckerman already has superior knowledge of the relevant issues and extensive research products and documentation to buttress his defense against RIAA allegations of "vexatious" claims. Indeed, the RIAA themselves are more obviously guilty of being vexatious litigants themselves, especially in light of their targeting of Beckerman to silence legitimate criticism(s) of their (the RIAA's) abuses. I hope that Mr. Beckerman makes them pay for their error in this case and gets maximum legal fees and damages out of the RIAA for their shameful attempts to silence his legitimate criticism. Perhaps a SLAPP counter-suit on behalf of Mr. Beckerman against the RIAA is in order here? IANAL, but perhaps someone who knows more could comment (Mr. Beckerman himself will probably want to avoid making comments about pending litigation involving himself or a client, as is usual for any attorney, so I will understand if he doesn't reply to this thread).

Re:hmmm

[kimvette]

Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links.

Read the truth about the RIAA here.

no, you get a clue

[unity100]

first, get a clue that anyone who talks about a topic is not necessarily an american, an alien wanting to be an american or any other shit.

im a turk living in a tourism resort in mediterranean coast. my english far exceeds what should i know. therefore im in no way obliged to fulfill your linguistic expectations in regard to english.

another advice - learn to value content over presentation.

Re:no, you get a clue

[nog_lorp]

Here here. I was going to say, "Have you been to the interweb lately? People from places besides the USA can use it too!"

I've traveled significantly more than most people, and I for one can say, any argument to the effect of "Do you think people in XXX would put up with..." is bullshit. People around the world are more than gracious and will go to great lengths to help you if you don't speak the language. I've been to France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Mexico, Holland, Almost all of South America. And I've never known more then 10 words of another language (till recently). I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Kjella]

Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.

And that whole sentence is an example of confusion 101. Any of commercial piracy or drug trade or pimping hookers or modern slave trade or collecting protection money or illegal gambling or sell kiddie porn or whatever the fuck else organized crime do, it makes money. The reason they do commercial piracy and drug trade and pimping hookers and modern slave trade and collecting protection money and illegal gambling and sell kiddie porn is to make the grand total as big as possible, and how much you pirate makes no difference at all on anything else. The only thing that could have a hint of truth is possibly terrorism since it's an expense, but I figure that's probably well funded through legal income diverted to it. There's certainly no reason to believe drug kingpins are more willing to give away their earnings than anyone else. But hey, I guess the FUD is working.

Re:Sigh...

[radarsat1]

Personally I do believe in intellectual property "rights", in an abstract sense, but I do NOT believe that such rights are actually physically enforcable. I don't condone copyright theft ("theft"), and I don't download music unless the artist or label posts it online for download. *However* I tend to think that DRM ("digital locks") and other technical methods of enforcing intellectual property rights are effectively useless, and thus whether or not these rights exist is, I feel, a moot point--- property is worthless if you can't defend it. So while I don't want to break copyrights myself, I really can't be bothered to tell other people off for doing it; they're merely taking the path of least resistance between themselves and the media they want to consume. The most it gets out of me is a shrug. If a company wants to invest millions of dollars into a medium that has no tangible existance, and therefore practically zero security in terms of profit, I figure that's their problem, not mine. I don't have to partake, but I don't really give a damn if they get ripped off, because it's a hole they dug themselves into.

(For full disclosure, I do download tv shows quite often, but most of these are viewable on their respective websites anyways.. that's a bit of a grey area for me, but it's a vice, perhaps a bit of a hypocritical one. Again.. *shrug*. Do as I say not as I do, and all that.)

What I want to know is....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

why is this story, about a totally ridiculous and doomed motion, getting so much attention, when the story I submitted about the landmark Atlantic v. Brennan case languishing in the Firehose? Mr. Brennan doesn't even have a lawyer to defend him.