Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA, unhappy with the Court's decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict over $23.76 worth of song files, and throwing out the legal theory on which it was based, has made a motion for permission to file an appeal from the Judge's order, in Capitol v. Thomas. Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."

59 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. It's not about the money by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's NEVER been about the money. It's not about compensating the artists. (Ha!)

    This is 100% about trying to keep control of an entire industry in the hands of a very rich, very corrupt few.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:It's not about the money by jskora · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has been proven over and over so many times, eventually someone in the courts should notice. SCO finally fell, unfortunately the RIAA has bigger war chests.

    2. Re:It's not about the money by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, why is everyone always trying to be keeping a group of old, rich, litigious men down? They're just trying to make a few more hundred million dollars by screwing over the entire country, give them a break! I bet when YOU manage to get a monopoly stealing artist's rights, YOU'RE going to want to prosecute every teen who doesn't pay you a 200% markup!

    3. Re:It's not about the money by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whichever tool marked the above post "flamebait" needs to have their sarcasm detector checked. Someone mod this clearly funny post "underrated" and give him his points back. Besides, it's always amusing when a post reaches "+5, Flamebait"

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:It's not about the money by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Informative

      FWIW, Jack Thompson actually went as far as violating restraining orders. I'm not sure this is up there yet.

      But, IANAL.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:It's not about the money by SL+Baur · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure this is up there yet.

      They are definitely working on it. Read the deposition NYCL gave their "Expert" witness. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html

      It's long, but it's awesome. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but after reading that deposition and all the stuff about "MediaDefender" I wonder why the RIAA has gotten as far as it has. If I were a judge my reaction to an RIAA lawsuit landing in my court would be more along the lines of uncontrolled laughter than anything else. I suppose that's why I'm a programmer, not a lawyer.

      Their methods are unsound and sooner or later those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

    6. Re:It's not about the money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      FWIW, Jack Thompson actually went as far as violating restraining orders. I'm not sure this is up there yet.

      Give them time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:It's not about the money by Samah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

      Best.
      Verb.
      Ever.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    8. Re:It's not about the money by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This has been proven over and over so many times, eventually someone in the courts should notice. SCO finally fell, unfortunately the RIAA has bigger war chests.

      The entire legal system is set up on the assumption that everyone (with the possible exception of the defendant) is by and large fairly straight up.

    9. Re:It's not about the money by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SCO had a huge warchest too. What killed them is that their targets were also rich, organized and motivated. RIAA targets almost always lack at least two of these qualities.

    10. Re:It's not about the money by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are definitely working on it. Read the deposition NYCL gave their "Expert" witness. http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html It's long, but it's awesome. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, but after reading that deposition and all the stuff about "MediaDefender" I wonder why the RIAA has gotten as far as it has. If I were a judge my reaction to an RIAA lawsuit landing in my court would be more along the lines of uncontrolled laughter than anything else. I suppose that's why I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. Their methods are unsound and sooner or later those RIAA lawyers are going to get Jack Thompsoned.

      Glad to see you reading that deposition. It's incredible to me, too, that they've gotten as far as they have. If I were a judge they'd be bounced from my courtroom so fast it would make your head spin.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. Why is this news... by Darundal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...they only filed a motion, and one that probably won't get far. When it gets far, then this should be front page material.

    1. Re:Why is this news... by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still news because they have the gall to even apply for it. The judges are clearly not on their side, even if the government is.

    2. Re:Why is this news... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Why is this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not so much. You should see the sorts of motions that are filed on a daily basis. If their attorneys did not file for such appeal, its not only bad strategy but missing such opportunities is the foundation of malpractice. That being said, the appellate courts have a rule (FRAP 37) that grants the courts power to sanction attorneys for frivolous appeals. Up to the point of FRAP 37 sanctions, it is normal to file as many motions as one has time to in major cases.

      Further - exhaustive motion practice is a legitimate strategy where Repeat Players (RIAA is regularly involved in litigation, and needs to be careful to "control" precedent) are up against One-Shot players (individuals who will only be involved in this sort of litigation once). The Repeat Player has extra incentive to invest in the litigation, and may overwhelm the incentive the One-Shot player has. It is for this reason that sanctions exist - courts may order attorney's fees awarded to a winning party where the losing party's conduct was vexatious or in bad faith.

      by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

    4. Re:Why is this news... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're lawyers. They'd have the gall to shoot your mother, have sexual intercourse with her corpse, chop off her ears and send them to you along with an invoice for services rendered.

      Well, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise. But yeah ... the RIAA's brand of law is pretty much in the gutter.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Why is this news... by Shikaku · · Score: 5, Funny

      HEY!

      My dad's a lawyer and my mom's dead..... Oh.

    6. Re:Why is this news... by Pervaricator+General · · Score: 5, Funny

      That explains why "Umbrella Corporation" is on your birth certificate...

    7. Re:Why is this news... by david.emery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... Not all lawyers want to have sex with your mother, alive or otherwise.

      I'm not convinced. I believe the current approach in legal training and education is that -anything- in support of the client's position is permissable. And frankly that approach is equally applicable in politics these days (not a surprise when the majority of politicians are lawyers.)

      On both sides of the case I've been involved with, I've seen the lawyers say outrageous things, because there's NO CONSEQUENCES for doing so.

      dave

      p.s. tell your mother I'm sorry :-)

    8. Re:Why is this news... by maglor_83 · · Score: 2, Informative

      $222K for the murder, $222K for the necrophilia, $222K for the dismemberment, $222K for the invoice, and $222K for postage and handling.

      So $1,110,000.00

    9. Re:Why is this news... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because NYCL submitted it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Why is this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So how much was the bill?

    11. Re:Why is this news... by danomac · · Score: 3, Informative

      by the way - why on /. can i not post in firefox? seriously

      Some plugins (like noscript) will prevent you from running scripts unless explicitly allowed. Allow slashdot.org and post away!

    12. Re:Why is this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With all due respect, what is your experience with "the current approach?" How many lawyers do you personally know?

      I ask because I'm a lawyer and while I do represent my client as zealously as I can, I am bound by ethical and personal standards that I cannot, and will not breach. And I feel 99% of the people I work with are the same.

      What actual experience do you have with "legal training and education" that prompted your theory?

    13. Re:Why is this news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow thats over 100 MP3s

    14. Re:Why is this news... by snoggeramus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, lawyers are barred from having sex with their clients. It's regarded as double-billing.

    15. Re:Why is this news... by david.emery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, I know it's poor form to respond to yourself, but this is the best way to answer the questions/challenges from the subordinate comments.

      IANAL.

      But what I've seen is each side in the litigation I've observed, selectively pick facts that fit their position. The key word here is -selectively-. Just like political attack ads tell -part of the story-, the positions held by the bunches of lawyers pick-and-choose facts towards their position. Even the lawyer on 'my side' (not my lawyer, I'm not a direct party in the action but a proposed intervenor...) has told -part of the story-. The underlying expectation is that the other side or judge/jury will assemble the full story.

      But if an attorney says "X" (but fails to say "and also Y", where Y is similarly relevant to the overall facts of the mater), does this constitute a breach of ethics? My empirical observation from both a small exposure to the law and larger exposure to politics is that there is presumably some point where, for example, the prosecution must disclose evidence that might help the defense. But must the prosecutor fully qualify his presentation by citing all parts of the facts? That's not my observation from the litigation that I've observed (and I've very carefully read the 1k pages of pleadings, evidence, statements, etc, and can specifically see where stuff was quoted out of context, etc, etc.)

      And with respect to ethics, all I can think of is Al Gore's "No controlling legal authority..." quote, which I am sure is an accurate statement of legal ethics.

      dave

  3. Let the punishment fit the crime. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What lawyer, where, thinks its a good idea to sue some lady for $222,000 for $23 worth of illegal filesharing? Its bad enough the RIAA tried it in the first place, but the court shot them down, and they're still at it? You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    1. Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. by Godji · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about the money. It's about the precedent and the fear.

    2. Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd think anybody with half a conscience would move on at this point.

      See, you just answered your own question.

      This particular batch of attorneys only came preloaded with a fifth of one standard conscience at the factory (50% is the normal setting.) Basically, if you're buying them in quantity, they come a lot cheaper that way: consciences are expensive items, after all. In practice, it's been found that if you install more conscience than that, they start exhibiting undesirable characteristics such as "honesty" and "business ethic". Not a good thing, if you're a soulless, money-grubbing oligopoly. If you don't buy any conscience at all ... well, really really bad things happen.

      Most people don't know this, but some time ago a group of attorneys was ordered for special-purpose use in Congressional and major banking applications. Unfortunately, while the order specified a 75% conscience load, they were accidentally shipped without any. Company personnel colloquially refer to these jobs as the "Manson line" because they have all the personality traits of a typical advanced sociopath. Corporate hatchetmen are frequently M-series, for example.

      If anyone was wondering what caused the recent worldwide financial crisis ... well, now you know. It was a simple clerical error, really.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Let the punishment fit the crime. by dirk · · Score: 2, Informative

      I will repeat this again, for the slow among you. The cost to purchase the files has no bearing on the case. The people are not being sued for downloading the files. They are being sued for distributing them (or trying to, or nothing at all if the attempt to distribute doesn't stand up). What this means is that the cost is not what it would cost to purchase the files for your private use, but what they would charge someone if they wanted to distribute the songs. If I called the RIAA and said "I want to give away a free CD on the street and include new hit song X on it, what will it cost me to license the song for distribution from you, it will likely be a large amount of money. These people are distributing the songs without paying the licensing fee, which is what the penalty is based on (and should be based on, since they are assuming the rights to distribute the songs that they don't have).

      Whether you agree with the RIAA tactics, or think they should win the cases is another matter entirely. But saying "the songs only cost X dollars to buy" is a pointless argument, since that isn't what the lawsuit is about. The people are not taking the copy of the song they download, they are taking the right to distribute music that they don't have, and that is what the penalty should be based on (assuming the RIAA does win the case).

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  4. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think this is a true story, but it's very creative.

  5. I love this excerpt: by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The parties agree that the only evidence of actual dissemination of
    copyrighted works was that Plaintiffs' agent, MediaSentry, copied songs.
    Plaintiffs argue that even if distribution requires an actual transfer, the trial
    evidence established transfers of copyrighted works to MediaSentry. Thomas
    retorts that dissemination to an investigator acting as an agent for the copyright
    owner cannot constitute infringement.

    "It is well–established that the lawful owner of a copyright cannot infringe
    its own copyright."

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    1. Re:I love this excerpt: by compro01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Intent to infringe copyright" is not a crime nor is it civilly actionable, thus they cannot sue over it. Drug procession and procession with intent to distribute are both crimes.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  6. Hail Mary by overshoot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings.

    Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them.

    Boggle.

    And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Hail Mary by TechForensics · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    2. Re:Hail Mary by overshoot · · Score: 2, Informative

      If plaintiffs were to succeed in an appeal after the termination of the first trial, unlikely as that may be, a new trial could have to happen. To prevent that possibility an Appeals Court might agree to rule now.

      Except that the current trial is scheduled for a jury, at which point it can all go to appeal together. Since the first jury trial (that the RIAA wants to stand) is already done, all that the appellate court would have to do after both are done is choose :-) It's called judicial efficiency, and in practice it means "don't make multiple passes through the system if you can avoid it."

      Perhaps more to the point, the Appeals Court doesn't get a vote in the matter -- the permission for an interlocutory appeal has to come from the District Court.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    3. Re:Hail Mary by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interlocutory appeals are indeed rarely granted; IIRC it's usually when the rest of the case hinges on a point of law and there will be a boatload of work down the drain if the case goes down the wrong track. In this case, the Plaintiffs are going to try to convince the Court that it made an error of discretion in deciding that they (plaintiffs) had played fast and loose with their pleadings. Run that by again: they're going to persuade the Court that the Court was not only wrong, but waaaay wrong (abuse of discretion) when the Court decided it had made an error by trusting them. Boggle. And what's at stake? A retrial, with most of the motion practice and pretrial preparation already complete. Somehow I don't see the Court agreeing that this is so profound and urgent that it can't wait for the trial to be decided on its merits and a final judgment rendered.

      . We have a word for it where I come from.

      Chutzpah.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  7. Don't see much wrong by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree that it would be unusual for the appeal to be granted. But, it does make some sense -- if, on retrial, Thomas wins with the new instruction, then the RIAA will appeal to the 8th circuit on the jury instruction. And, if the 8th circuit agrees with the "Making Available" theory, then the case would go back to the district court where a new jury would have to, again, decide if she made the works available. (Once the second trial has started, I don't think you can go back to the outcome of the first.)

    How many juries do we need?

    1. Re:Don't see much wrong by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many juries do we need?

      If you can afford them, keep running through juries till you get one that gives you the answer you want.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  8. Fear by arizwebfoot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They ( the RIAA ) are afraid if they lose here, the downward spiral will continue with no way of stopping it.

    --
    Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
  9. The real reason they're doing this by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.

    A successful motion response to a similarly silly motion (at least in the State of New Hampshire), was the following letter:
    Honorable Justice ____:

    Plaintiff has got to be kidding.

    Respectfully submitted,
    ________ ________, Esq

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:The real reason they're doing this by againjj · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:The real reason they're doing this by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with expecting to win, and everything to do with attempting to run up the defendant's legal bills.

      Yes. That is the one consistent theme in their strategy.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  10. Well the jerk store called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They want them back.

  11. Technically, they are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The RIAA's claim that it's all about compensating the artists is indeed true.

    What they aren't saying is that it's all about compensating the con-artists. :)

  12. A little OT, but I have to say it by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thompson seemed to enjoy throwing around frivolous lawsuits as well.

    It hadn't really hit me until I saw this sentence with the word 'seem' in the past tense.

    Damn but that just looks beautiful. Thompson...seemed.

    It just hadn't hit me until right now that he's history. Jeez, but I hope I live long enough to say the same about the RIAA. "The RIAA seemed to like to file frivolous lawsuits."

    Ah, that's going to be great. Can't wait.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  13. Why they're worried by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the monopolists let this stuff continue, they begin to lose their monopoly, too. A loss for the RIAA here will push music and other media (likely movies) back into the hands of the competitive market. Then you'd see the industry start to equalize, with less-common artists making more money, and famous artists making less. Mostly, though, the monopolists wouldn't make as much money anymore, and that's what counts.

    1. Re:Why they're worried by SirCowMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This weeks 'Economist' has a little tidbit saying that they may have recognized they won't be able to sell music to consumers anymore; instead, the recording industry is planning on bundling unlimited music "free" with thirdparty products, for say a year. The cost will thus be built into consumer electronics. The foundation may be crumbling, but we're not looking at the monopoly state failing yet, desperate as they seem.

      --
      !Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
  14. Worried about Precedents on Punishments? by arthurh3535 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the only thing that I can see them really being worried about. Of course, if word got out that they would only charge you 2X or 4X the "real" worth of the purloined materials for non-business transgressions, their whole new business model probably implodes.

    But they would have to admit that they are using corporate-punishments on non-corporate people.

    Somehow, I think that is their worst fear.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
  15. Why WOULD the artists get this money? by HomerJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, I need an explanation. The artists signed a contract to the label to produce a record. The label holds the copyright to the material and the artist is paid for this. Then the record is promoted, and either sells or it doesn't.

    If there's a suit for copyright infringement and there's money awarded, why WOULD the artist get any of it? It's the label's copyright that's been infringed. Any damages SHOULD go to them. If I'm hired to write some program for Adobe, it's pirated, and Adobe sues someone--why would I see any money? It's not my program. I wrote it, but it belongs to Adobe. Any lost income is theirs not mine.

    It can be argued that these record contracts are pretty lopsided and go against the artist. But they are the ones that signed it. Just because they are in a bad contract doesn't mean they should get money from these suits which are for copyrights they aren't the holders to.

    1. Re:Why WOULD the artists get this money? by FSWKU · · Score: 5, Informative

      That would be because the RIAA have been shouting from the mountaintops since the dawn of time that it's all about the artist. They want to stop filesharing because, according to them, it directly takes money away from the artists in the form of lost sales. Every single anti-P2P campaign you see from them is preaching the same thing. "Please don't hurt the poor artists."

      But in reality, they're just trying to line their own coffers. When someone settles for some outrageous fee, not a damned cent of that goes to "making the artist whole" or making up for their lost sales. Nope, it goes directly into either the lawyer's wallets or the legal war-chest. The artist continues to get screwed to the tune of pennies per album sold, and tough shit about those lost sales killing your already paltry (unless you're Metallica or some other hyper-famous act) royalty payments.

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    2. Re:Why WOULD the artists get this money? by notamisfit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, the artist usually keeps the copyrights, or transfers them to a publishing company (generally wholly owned by the artist/artists, after what happened with Lennon/McCartney and the whole Northern Songs clusterfuck).

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
  16. How many Courics? by Maestro485 · · Score: 2, Funny

    How can you go on a rant about a piece of shit without telling us how many Courics it was? Was it bigger than Bono? Had Obama recently been to P.F. Changs?

    You'd think people who post on a tech site would at least mention technical details. Sheesh.

  17. You're doing it wrong by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Funny

    The joke goes: "The RIAA called. They want their $222,000 verdict back."

  18. This is the end, beautiful friend? by LandruBek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Their methods are unsound . . .

    RAY BECKERMAN: Everything I saw told me that the RIAA has gone insane. The place was full of bodies: Napster, Limewire, young children, innocent grandmothers. If I was still alive, it was because they wanted me that way.

    RIAA: Where are you from, Beckerman?

    RB: New York, sir.

    RIAA: I worked in New York back in the old days; we pressed vinyl there. It was like heaven on earth then. Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedoms - from the opinions of others, even the opinions of your 'clients'? You say why..., Beckerman, why you wanted to terminate my control of the music industry? What did they tell you?

    RB: They told me that you had gone totally insane and that your methods were unsound.

    RIAA: Are my methods unsound?

    RB: I don't see any method at all, sir.

    RIAA: I never expected anyone like you. Are you a pirate?

    RB: I'm a lawyer.

    RIAA: You're neither. You're a monkey wrench, wrecking the beautiful engine of my protection racket.

    (brief court recess)

    RIAA: We are the hollow men / We are the stuffed men
    Leaning together / Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
    Our dried voices, when / We whisper together
    Are quiet and meaningless
    As wind in dry grass / Or rats' feet over broken glass
    In our dry cellar / Shape without form, shade without colour,
    Paralysed force, gesture without motion

    I've seen horrors . . . extortion that you've seen. But you have no right to call me musical. You have a right to depose me. You have a right to do that . . . But you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for music to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what extortion means. Extortion. Extortion has a face . . . And you must make a friend of extortion. Extortion and financial terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies.

    RB: They were going to make me a Digg Hero for this and I wasn't subscribed to their fucking RSS feed any more. Everybody wanted me to do it, everybody except those on the take of course. I felt like they were sitting there, dreading for me to take the gravy train away. They just apparently wanted to go out like douchebags, like poor, wasted, rag-assed dinosaurs. Even the musicians wanted them dead, not that they really took their orders from musicians anyway.

    (The gavel falls.)

    RIAA: The Extortion! The Extortion!

    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
  19. What we need is... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... a standard sarcasm-calibration post. That way people can check their sarcasm detector is correctly aligned before moderating or commenting.

    1. Re:What we need is... by EMeta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that'll work.

    2. Re:What we need is... by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 5, Funny

      Somebody mod parent down. It obviously wouldn't work.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497