Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tells RIAA To Stop 'Bankrupting' Litigants
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Boston judge who has consolidated all of the RIAA's Massachusetts cases into a single case over which she has been presiding for the past 5 years delivered something of a rebuke to the RIAA's lawyers, we have learned. At a conference this past June, the transcript of which (PDF) has just been released, Judge Nancy Gertner said to them that they 'have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers ... to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it ...' She also acknowledged that 'there is a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources,' while it is futile for self-represented defendants to resist. The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,' and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies,' even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
Having sent a letter will accomplish what?
needs enemies?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Too bad that our legislators aren't as honest and bright as this judge. Too bad that the mainstream media always sides with the MAFIAA; but it's not surprising, considering the same people who own the newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations also own the major record labels and movie studios.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all. I'm thinking of the movie Brazil and the old TV show Dinasaurs with its "WeSaySo Corporation".
I'm still trying to figure out how to tell if a file I want to download is one its creator wants me to have, or one that may get me sued and bankrupted. Ray, maybe you could use this angle in a court case?
Free Martian Whores!
She should just summarily rule for the plaintiffs, treble damages of the going rate for a downloaded song (on itunes for example).
technological advances are running so far ahead of society's ability to adjust to and digest the implications of new technology, that as the advances get too far ahead, you get these absurdities which amount to nothing more than entrenched interests fighting progress
the riaa is as if the monk scribe's union rose up and sued operators of printing presses. incredibly stupid, but also impossible since the introduction of new technology back then proceeded at a slower clip
as society advances, its rate of progress seems to be retarded in a number of ways. a sort of trailing edge of reactionism, militant mediocrity, and end of the world believers
if progress is to continue in this world, the trailing edge can no longer be relied upon to simply slide into obscurity unnoticed and powerless. a sort of organized backlash arms itself against progress and undermines it
we must actively fight the trailing edge of progress. whether on legal issues, or in the relam of social morals. social conservatives and reactionary business practices must be waged war on. simply because they are already waging war on progress
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option — heal thyself, and consider awarding legal expenses to the winners, whoever they are, by default (rather than by special request, as happens now).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The record companies need to make money to, so please think of the money grabbing executives who can't count on their subpar talent pool to provide them their golden parachutes.
it's terribly critical that you stop it
Leaving aside the incompetence of the statement, does a (mere) judge think that what he/she says will make any difference to the RIAA. After all, they're engaged in a *war* against all these heinous criminals. (ok, irony mode OFF)
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
THE COURT: They're not asking you for this, this is your son needs to pay $4,600 to the record companies, who are in desperate need of this money, unless your son can show that he has no way of paying it.
Yes, those record execs desperately need that money more than someone who just graduated from a tech institute! There were $600 in claimed damages! I know enough about law and punitive damages to know it's not set up to support billion-dollar corporations! It's to punish those who violated the law. Suing for punitive damages should not, legally, be considered a source of income.
Apparently justice is blind AND stupid in Boston.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
I've heard of Robinson and Cole, but none of the firms are Vault top 100 (Vault does a guide partly based on the prestige of law firms), the RIAA could do better if they wanted.
...this will end badly....
(sometime in the future)
The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance', and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies', even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
I'm going to need a little bit more explanation that isn't in TFA. The judge has been presiding over a trial for 5 years in which only one side is allowed to speak? Is this the result of some RIAA-lobbyist induced law that says the other side doesn't get a say, or for some reason did the judge declare the other side didn't get to talk in this case? Are the next five years of the court case going to be "Now the RIAA doesn't get to talk, defendants only."?
"The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance'"
What are you talking about? No, because she didn't create the imbalance. The legislators and litigants created it. The legislators by creating the relevant laws, the RIAA created it by suing people, and the people being sued provoked the RIAA by allegedly sharing the files in question. Copyright law exists to stipulate who is within their rights and who isn't, and the judge is there to PRESIDE over the case and the decision, the procedure for which is also constrained by law.
The imbalance exists because the RIAA has loads of money and the people they've decided to sue don't. Did the judge establish that situation? No. To imply that she's at fault for even hearing the case is silly (it's her job), unless you think the case shouldn't be heard simply because one litigant has loads of money and the other doesn't. It would be an interesting precedent.
Summary author doesn't understand the role that judges in her position play. One of their jobs is to enforce the law, as it stands. She cannot reinterpret the law or rule along the notion of "what's fair" and expect to keep her job. Especially with the entertainment conglomerates so capable of funding another, more entertainment friendly replacement in the next judicial appointment cycle.
This kind of summary just burns bridges where they are needed most, as in, deep inside the legal system.
Please rewrite the summary praising the judge for committing, to paper, sound social and legal commentary that will make her next election/appointment cycle very, very tough.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
That's the only time they seem to care what people think about the cases they hear and decide.
Bankrupt people can not pay their fees to the record companies, and neither can they (or will, probably) buy new music. It has been said before, but it seems like the record companies are shooting themselves in both their feet.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
the RIAA's "broken record"... constantly in play...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I wonder how good the artists royalties return would be if we took all the money the RIAA and MPAA "invested" in legal procedures and lawyers in the past years.
Maybe someone should do the math and tell the artists... I bet they could be surprised to see where the money they should receive actually goes.
It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know.
No, it isn't, unless you claim you are a lawyer.
Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.
A lawyer who has 1) grown up on welfare, 2) has shown at least some interest in returning balance to income inequality which threatens our entire culture, and 3) will replace the Bush Administration with a cabinet full of something besides the Bush Administration.
If the ABA were under government oversight, you could pressure your congressperson to change the way it runs, or cut their funding. Since it has no governmental oversight, all you can do is bitch. That's the "freedom" of unregulated but necessary industry - they're free to extort money, you're free to waste your breath complaining about it.
Why should someone accused of copyright infringement have it any easier (cheaper), than someone accused of running a red light, or breaking a contract, or committing a felony (tort, civil, and criminal examples mixed here deliberately)?
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option — heal thyself, and consider awarding legal expenses to the winners, whoever they are, by default (rather than by special request, as happens now).
It's all fine and dandy to take that position, unless you realize that innocent people actually become bankrupted as well. I am 100% certain that if you, or your children (provided you're not too much of a douche to find a live woman) ever were unjustly targeted by the RIAA you would be the first one on /. crying about it like a little girl.
There is nothing just about what the RIAA is doing, and to suggest otherwise is insane.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
needs personal pronouns?
He's prolly just a /b/ tard getting above himself.
I hate my flatmate
Too bad that's OT, bbecause otherwise that deserves a +5, Insightful.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Since when does /. allow posting from jail. Get these fucking racists off of here.
Racism isn't illegal, and, as Nancy Gertner is not black, he's probably just a random jerk trying to disrupt communication.
Free speech, look it up. Not illegal.
Judges can only rule on the actual laws. They do NOT make laws. It's not up to the judge to make it balance. It's the legislative bodies work.
Until you rip the RIAA's financial guts through sanctions out you aren't going to stop them. A stern talking to just isn't the same thing.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And probably not needing to reboot either, except each time you upgraded your hardware to a new box.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That is fucking hillarious. Lawyers, cops, judges, and politicians don't have ethics. They don't even know the meaning of the word.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Those terms as you stated, were created before P2P existed, and are no longer accurate, and should be changed to include new technologies and methodologies.
It's doubtful that using the old "This is what they terms have always meant." will fly in a court of law. I am convinced that most ISP's will agree, that P2P users are absolultely "uploading". All networking equipment I have managed calls it that.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
Big whoop.
The way American campaigns are financed it's a wonder we have any freedom at all.
John McCain asked Barack Obama to take a pledge to take public funds, which would limit private contributions. Obama agreed, then broke the pledge once he realized how much more money he could raise from lobbyists.
And guess which lobbyists really, really like Obama?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
to end all of this, is for one, just one, defendant to either win their case or to get it dismissed, and win on appeal, so that other defendants in these actions can apply the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. NewYorkCountryLawyer may be able to affirm or enlighten us as to the viability of this as a defense.
Oh, and once again, "Damn their oily hides!"
Sig this!
That's a careful, nuanced analysis, which is definitely a big credit to you, but I'm afraid you're treating the meanings of these words as being more fixed than they actually are. The way I read you, you're analyzing and classifying file transfers not only in terms of the sender and the receiver, but also in terms of protocol type (client/server vs. peer-to-peer), protocol role of each party (client, server or peer), and request role (initiator vs. responder). This seems to give us the 6 following possibilities:
Now, I agree with you that the terms "uploading" and "downloading" seem to fit cases (1) and (2) best. But I would seriously entertain the hypothesis that this is merely because, historically, those two were the original file transfer scenarios, and thus, are the prototypical cases.
Now, you seem to be proposing that the terms can or should only ever mean cases (1) and (2). This is just not how language works, however. Basically, faced with cases (3)-(6), with a vocabulary of words that prototypically refer to cases (1) and (2), it will be very common for people to generalize the meaning of the words to cover those new cases. Now, there are several ways the meaning can be generalized, but the one that seems to be at stake here is to drop out the client/server distinction, and making the "uploader" be a responder that sends a file to an initiator that requests said file.
This is quite a natural semantic extension, linguistically speaking. Basically, the original usage examples for "upload" all describe case (2), but nothing about the examples can possibly tell what's essential to the meaning of the word, and what's just accidental to the examples. In simpler words, if you were a computer trying to infer the meaning of the word "upload" from examples that only showed type (2), you'd have no way of knowing whether the client/server distinction was essential and exceptionless, or whether you just happened to get a data set that didn't have any examples of the word being used in another sense. And you can't expect the way people infer word meanings from usage to be any better than that.
So really, I don't think there is any absolute, authoritative answer to give in this case. The best you can do is point out (correctly, I think) that senses (1) and (2) are the "best" in some statistical or prototypical sense. The key thing to keep in mind, however, is that the extension of the meaning of the word to closely related cases is quite unsurprising, and usually follows some sort of rule.
Are you adequate?
No it doesn't. The parent committed the fallacy of the broken window in quite an egregious way.
My sides hurt from laughing so hard at this one line. You must be new here.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Quit bankrupting your own customers, as they add further legal strain on our already strained legal and welfare systems.
We can't keep bailing you AND The People out.
Either learn from this, or get ready to start facing armed revolution from unhappy Americans.
I'm one of those with a gun and living right next door to you - so think about that. I may rent out "Watching space" on those buildings.
yea yea, ITG. I got the criminal record. I'm not scared to kill someone to save a bunch of people from being fucked in life. Welcome to the world of fair play, even if I get nailed, YOU'RE DEAD, YOU CAN'T DO SHIT WHEN YOU ARE DEAD.
Remember that, RIAA/MPAA assholes. No satisfaction beyond the grave, even if you DO believe in reincarnation or a second life or afterlife. DEAD IN THIS WORLD MEANS YOU ARE USELESS.
In fact the NBC and Fox News offices are within sniper shot of my own balcony.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
On the other hand, looking at the lawsuits not as extortion of cash (hardly a good long-term business model when you tick off enough people that your "legit" business completely collapses) consider the lawsuits as a serious beating.
Sure perhaps the RIAA should have started with lighter lawsuits and gotten more heavy-handed over time, but from the point of view of "really screw over a few to scare the rest into playing by the rules" you've got to expect that someone in one of the big companies is saying "Good grief, we're suing 10s or 100s of people at once and have media attention EVERYWHERE! We're making sure we stay in the news, everyone knows it could be them next and they KEEP DOING IT! What do we have to do to make them stop?!"
Will the answer be lower prices? Of course not. That would be seen as giving in. It's the criminals that are supposed to fold. While the RIAA has not stayed on the right side of the law (illegal investigations, knowingly suing the wrong people) the issue is polarizing, and they AREN'T going to suddenly and magically see it from any point of view besides their own.
That said, if you're sharing files, what are your plans to avoid getting caught, and to survive court if you are? Are you banking on odds that you won't be one of the ones chosen, or figuring with all the false positives the lawsuit is 50/50 likely to happen anyway, no sense getting the blame w/o the gain? What can motivate someone to put themselves at such financial risk for such a minor benefit?
Probably the same thing that cause wild weaving in traffic to get 2-3 spaces ahead, an in-born addiction to gambling. It doesn't have to be logical, it just has to have a "chance" of "win" to look appealing.
If I buy from a vending machine, the machine sold it to me. People understand this. When a machine breaks and doesn't dispense people say "Oh, the machine stole the money from me". Common usage, and accurate. So your analogy has a hole in the hull and is sunk.
Now onto your novel definition of uploading and downloading.... they're wrong. You can use it within your own home, but if you want other people to understand what you're talking about, pay attention:
The machine receiving the data is downloading it. The machine sending the data is uploading it.
P2P has two components, uploading and downloading. Most P2P clients do it simultaneously. If I am running P2P software, the part sending it to other machines is uploading, the part getting data from other machines is downloading.
Here's what I suggest you do. Print this article out (you would be uploading it to your printer) and tape it to the side of your computer to help you remember.
You're welcome.
You seem to imply the economy (and the world in general, for that matter) functions in a manner consistent with logic. Significant historical evidence implies that this is not the case in the short term, and the short term lasts plenty long enough to start a war.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The people being sued are being charged with a crime "copyright infringement" with a statutory penalty that has nothing whatsoever to do with damages, but is punative in nature.
This doesn't mean that all civil cases need to be treated as criminal ones, or that punative damages in and of themselves are wrong(though often times they are excessive), merely that if you're going to ruin someone's life for a minimum of 7 years(the length of time after a bankruptcy before you can get credit again), for what is essentially a criminal statute, then they ought to have the same chance at a defense that your average drug dealer gets, and the same burden of proof.
These cases aren't about breach of contract, or negligence and they're not about recovering damages. They're about punishing, and should be treated as such, meaning government funded defense, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the same treatment you'd get for theft, and that's what the record companies are always claiming that you're doing.
can't people just stop pirating?
if you can't afford it, don't steal it.
if you don't want to pay for it, then don't steal it.
simple?
No, read it again: he accused others of putting broken window economic policies into practice. There's a vast difference between pointing it out and proposing it.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
plox
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Who knows ? 'Nancy' might even be a woman ! But then, this is the internet.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
That is legalize for you. The governement set the law with the maximum multiplicatior fine in case of copyright infrigement, then get a card out on setting something that bad by saying it don't prosecute or profit from it. The fact is, without the gorvernement decision to allow such high fine, there would not be such a "cruel" punishement as ruining somebody life for a bit of imaginary propriety.
The summary is spot on: if the judge had been smart and honest as you say, they would have owned up to not helping.
The Judge can dismiss easily: ask the RIAA to prove losses before they can proceed.
I wonder what would happen if you changed the law so that if the defendant was representing themselves, then the plaintiff could not employ council to represent them. This would force RIAA to send their top level executive to courts all over the US... might slow things down a bit if nothing else. Or, if you take the viewpoint of the RIAA representing the recording artists then the artists themselves would have to show up in court... either all of them that RIAA represents (that would be a big courtroom) or force the RIAA to indicate exactly which artist(s) had been violated by each particular defendant.
"Computer Scientists can count to 1024 on their fingers" (non-mutant, non-mutilatated, human computer scientists)
Coding isn't an essential aspect of everybody's life. Being out of prision and defending against some extorcionist that wants all your money is.
Rethinking email
Who has a million dollars in chips against your ten dollars... and he calls in for a thousand in EVERY hand.
This is what regular people are up against when they go to court. They face an invincible army of lawyers who know the law forward and backward, know hundreds of precendents, landmarks and loopholes and can make the law sing and dance to their fiddle. And if it looks like YOU might win anyway? They have so much money that they can just stretch the proceedings until they bleed your measley bankroll into the red and can't make your rent anymore. They win, NO MATTER WHAT.
This isn't justice. It's the kangaroo court of the Righteous Inquisition Army of America.
abcdf
The RIAA should not be trying to bankrupt their customers, that's the bank's job!
The most dangerous drug
I don't think that is entirely correct.
You're correct that many people that download music on p2p are not customers. Heck, I'm not a Customer, and all I do is listen to internet radio, if ever. However, there are also many people who are huge music fans, buy CDs, and yet also grab things off of p2p networks (and this are also infringing copyright). While my father, for example, buys lots of CDs, if he knew about p2p he's also be using that to find even MORE music.
As an anecdote, I have a pretty small music collection. (I prefer to read or play video games. ;)) With the exceptions of Metallica, classical music, and the Phantom soundtrack, nearly every other CD I own was purchased after I'd downloaded the album (or substantial portions thereof). (Thank goodness for having done that before p2p was on the radar, hehe.) My general algorithm at the time was:
- discover band, or a single song.
- listen to a friend's copy, OR
- download as many of the band's songs as I could, since if I liked one song I might like the others.
- if I like the music, I buy the CD, and perhaps rip a higher quality version to listen to.
- If I don't like the music, I don't listen to it.
This is all a result of having bought a CD about a decade ago, where I really liked the artist's single ... and then discovered that I absolutely detested the rest of the album. I will never again buy an album without having listened to it first.
If the music industry makes it risky enough to p2p music (and I feel it has) that I don't want to risk getting bankrupted, then I will (and have) simply stop downloading music. Unfortunately, since this means that I won't be able to listen to things easily anymore, I will thus not be buying more music either. Moreover, my time is valuable enough to me that I will not go to the local music store and sit at their "listening station". If I can't try music on my own time, whether via the internet or a friend's copy, I won't bother. Music is not a necessity to me, but a luxury... and one I rarely get to indulge. Thus, I feel nearly no loss by not buying it (just as I feel little loss by not buying DVDs of everything). I can live without buying the RIAA's wares, and their actions have alienated me as a customer.
So, the RIAA suing "downloaders" (who for that song transaction are not behaving as a customer) has effectively eliminated customers like me. Ex-customers like me, that is.
Oh, wow, a real rebuke! That'll learn 'em a lesson.
How about awarding costs to the victims instead?
People complain about the overburdened legal system, but it seems to me that the courts like frivolous and harassing lawsuits because they mean more work for lawyers and judges.
If the courts really wanted to do something about the clogging of the legal system, they'd award costs to innocent defendants.
The judge did not seem to acknowledge any responsibility on her part, however, for having created the 'imbalance,' and also stated that the law is 'overwhelmingly on the side of the record companies,' even though she seems to recognize that for the past 5 years she has been hearing only one side of the legal story."
This has gotten completely out of hand. The law is not "overwhelmingly" on the side of the RIAA/MPAA, from my perspective. In some cases, probably, and in other cases, definitely not.
What "loss of revenue"? Document the loss of revenue, or throw out the cases. Granted, copyright is violated with not-for-profit file sharing, but without proven [the standard of guilt according to the supreme laws of the land, remember] loss of revenue, the only equitable punishment, meaning fitting the crime, is to confiscate the copies, and nothing more. Because, in cases that the copies are shared without payment, no loss of revenue is apparent, and can only be ascertained by speculation -- of various levels of sophistication, but ultimately it can be no more than speculation -- and that is traditionally not admissible as evidence. Is it admissible as argument? Reasonable suspicion? If so, then also and equally, as reasonable doubt.
Disclaimer: I'm not very interested in this subject and thus not especially well-read in it, but occasionally I feel motivated to donate my $0.02 to a discussion, for basically the same reason people watch Jerry Springer I guess, just the absurd, "real" spectacle of it.
I most often see [notice] the question of lost revenue in file sharing cases discussed as mitigating the criminals' intent, as in something for the judge to consider in assigning a lighter sentence, but not factored into the determination of guilt or innocence. But I think the absence of exchange of money absolves the mischief-makers of any financially quantifiable crime, not because of their inferred "good intentions" or absence of malice, but simply and amorally, because the assumption of lost revenue is totally invalid.
No, a downloaded file is not as good as the original. Some mp3s are "as good" -- for purposes of background noise, but not hi-fi or audiophile intense enjoyment of a real work of art -- as the original, but even when sound quality is not important enough for the downloader to purchase the original copyrighted work, the suitability of an mp3 is not reliably comparable to a CD. The unwanted insertion or removal of 2-second pauses between tracks on an album comes to mind, a much more noticeable defect to the casual listener than "quality" differences in mp3s or compressed video. Also, dedicated fans, defined as willing to pay retail CD mark-ups, generally want the liner notes, the high-quality photos and/or artwork, etc., available only on the original. Downloaders are not, generally, the same people as purchasers of the same work. So, no, it is not reasonable to assume that each file downloaded represents a lost sale, of either an album or single or anything, nor even that a consistent ratio of downloads represents one lost sale. Any such ratio would differ according to the nature of the work and the average quality standards of the audience.
For the reason of the differences I described above, I purchase any music or video I expect to be worthy of my time, basically because I value the one or more hours that I might otherwise spend learning something, too valuable to waste on the chance of copying errors. I've seen software being written. 'Nuff said. Despite having no files in my personal collection subject to the DMCA, music and software copyright litigation is a blatant waste of the judicial system for which I'm taxed. The cost/benefit analysis is a matter of public record, and does not support the business case for the corporations to initiate litigation, IIRC. Only the lawyers are gaining from this. So, as they're already running the businesses [into the ground, btw] let ^H^H^H make them write the code and the lyrics, too, for Pete's sake. Right now, they are looting economic value, meaning acquiring loot without providing anything of value, to anybody.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
I found the post implied only that logic is the standard of the quality of an argument, not that "the economy (and the world in general, for that matter) functions in a manner consistent with logic." Granted, the historical record includes illogical behavior, but such does not alter the definitions of logic and truth.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p