Slashdot Mirror
NYCL Responds to RIAA Accusations
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that when the RIAA decided to run away with its tail between its legs in the long running Brooklyn case against a home health aide who has never used a computer, UMG v. Lindor, it decided to take some parting shots at the defendant and NewYorkCountryLawyer, asking for 'discovery sanctions,' and blaming them for its inability to prove its case. Today NYCL gave them his response, accusing the RIAA lawyers of persistent misstatements of fact (PDF) throughout their motion papers, and of flouting the rules and misstating the law (PDF). Although the RIAA's motion papers took a number of shots at NYCL's copyright law blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People,' NYCL confined his response on that subject to a single footnote."
This kind of behavior is the lawyer equivalent of turning the lights off while someone else is in the bathroom. They probably left the toilet seat up too. Grr. Argh... wet socks.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It's nice to see someone like NYCL take such an in-your-face position against the RIAA's actions and come out on top.
NYCL writes in third person? Anonymous coward approves.
I decline to enter into a point-by-point rejoinder in defense of my modest foray into "blogging". Suffice it to say that (a) my law blog is irrelevant to the motion, (b) plaintiffs' counsel themselves rely upon the blog in the course of their legal work....(c) many in-house university counsels and student legal services offices refer their students to it ....... (d) many law schools and colleges use it in their curricula ..... (e) many
reputable organizations have found the views expressed in it to be worthy of further in-depth
consideration...... (f) it has been cited in law review articles.....(g) plaintiffs' counsel are not candid
about their real problem with the blog, which is that its existence interferes with their tactic of
attempting to conceal the litigation events and prior inconsistent statements they don't want
others to know about, from judges, litigants, and law enforcement authorities
Emphasis mine. He then goes on to give a specific example of why the RIAA hates his blog, basically because it exposes the stupid things they do to the world.
Must be a fun job to use the law to destroy evil. Kind of like that old movie The Rainmaker. If I were Ray Beckerman, I would feel like I were in a movie.
Qxe4
We here at Slashdot hope you get the RIAA to cover the bill for your hard work!
If not, just post a few more stories here and the ad revenue should cover it.
What's funny is that we still hear people talking about the so-called "illegal music downloading websites" and how they're horrible and shouldn't exist. Last time I checked, they don't. I have yet to find a website with right-click, save target as, music downloads.
Here's a guy who has single handedly changed my opinion of lawyers. Certianly he has friends here, I'd give him a dollar. But at the same time his existence speaks badly of other lawyers. The question is: Why are there not more like him? We all recognise the RIAA are effectively an extorion racket. Why do more not speak up and take on these criminals? Leading by example may not be enough. If I were NYCL my focus would be converting more of my peers, raising an army against the RIAA. A one man battle is heroic and all, but sooner or later we all need help. It's time other lawyers saw which way the wind is blowing and get behind this leader.
Sounds like a pep rally cheer, doesn't it?
We salute you, sir.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I know I shouldn't respond to this, but am I the only one that read it and thought most of it didn't sound half bad? I always thought public service was a good thing.
"You may recall that when the RIAA decided to run away with its tail between its legs in the long running Brooklyn case against a home health aide who has never used a computer"
Maybe I'm thinking of a different case, but I thought Lindor decided to settle?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
There should be a law stopping the dumb light sensors that make you get out of the stall to trun them back on.
Any judge these days who buys into the RIAA's bullshit as an absolute moron and should be impeached immediately for a lack of reasoning ability and common sense. These cases, all based on illegal investigations and no valid legal foundation, along with outright lies in the testimony of their sole "expert" at the ex parte John Doe joined subpoena phase should be stopped at that moment.
It is more than well known that the RIAA method is highly flawed and they have often demanded subscriber information for IP addresses that never existed in the ISP's log. Those are easy to filter out. The real damage comes when the IP address supplied is wrong, but valid to another user. The RIAA admits no error in their procedures and pursues many innocent people.
But the real blame is the idiot judges who seem incapable of understanding that the RIAA is using the court system in ways it was never intended to be used. It's the very same thing that Direct TV (may they rot in Hell) did only a few years earlier. These judges are apparently seduced that the RIAA members are losing billions of never proven dollars to filesharing and that somehow this must be redressed in trials that never seem to happen. I couldn't think less of the judges in too many of these cases, and am not alone in this regard.
There, that felt great!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There's nothing wrong with public service, as long as the person serving is doing it voluntarily. I know, wartime is a different issue which necessitates a draft, but for peacetime if you wish to serve, go ahead. Just don't require it, because if you do you tend to turn people off from doing it on their own rather than being forced. Too often you see people lining their pockets at the trough of "public service".
In other words, if you want to inspire people by doing public service, I applaud you. Just don't force people to do something that should come from within.
NYCL, I'm surprised. With all of the egregious conduct you're documented, I'm surprised you're just making a declaration in opposition rather than a motion of your own for sanctions under FRCP 11(c)(2). Is your reasoning something you can share with us, or shall we just watch the master in action? ;-)
--Somebody infect me with a
Personal interests
-Recreational distance runner from 5k to half marathon; beginner level student of Kung Fu.
http://beckermanlegal.com/attorney_profile
Being stressed, bashed, scarred, and abused is part of life.
True, and people should have some amount of thick skin. But...
When people stress others without caring for their well-being and (more importantly) without a valid reason and do so repeatedly, that's where it becomes chicanery and where I think it's reasonable to step in.
Whether we're talking about schoolyard bullies or corporate dragnet litigation, there should be some way of stopping chicanery. Lawsuits are not like an abusive spouse: you can't just divorce it.
Looked at the Skinnerian way, when people harass you, we need you to have some way of punishing them. Otherwise, as symes said (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1022819&cid=25690283), you become stressed out with bad effects to your health.
Shame me for using anecdotal evidence all you want; I know what ten years of near-constant bullying can do to you. When you feel universally hated and persecuted, you don't have the most fertile ground for developing social skills; what you do have is fertile grounds for developing social anxiety.
When on top of the endless bullying your cries for help go unanswered, you learn that you can't rely on anyone when you're in need, that no one cares about your well-being, and that people in practice have the right to mistreat you however they want.
I do not want to be expected to tell my children that "this is a part of life".
My wife's father, a Vietnam Veteran, once said to me that it is every Americans duty to serve at least once in the armed services. My knee-jerk reaction was to bring up rights and such but I do agree with him. Think of how much better off the average family would be as well as the country as a whole with that kind of training and education per individual.
A pipe dream I know but I found it a very interesting statement.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
Here's a guy who has single handedly changed my opinion of lawyers.
While he certainly is the prime example of fighting the good fight, and looks at bit lonesome, I wouldn't overlook the work of Eben Moglen. He's an excellent public speaker, and I remember seeing a video interview ('ish thing) where he talks about his past as a techie.
There's also Lawrence Lessig, who also shares some of the slashdot groupthink values. He's trying to change the world in a direction I'd like to see it go in. Maybe I want to go longer than him, but I still consider him a good guy and on my side.
Then there are the lawyers working for the EFF, and those talking at hacker cons. The name Cindy Cohen springs to mind.
Maybe they're not quite as much a superhero as Ray (he, not Cory, should be wearing a mask and cape :D), but they shouldn't be overlooked.
I really do not want the USA to become that sort of country. The military is important but you don't necessarily want every crook and scoundrel to have military experience. I think the standing army would become something more like Blackwater than what it is now.
Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Dude, is there a defense fund a lowly slashdotter can contribute to?
Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
"Obama's crew have reworded the text on the "America Serves" area of the Change-gov website. The word "require" has been removed, probably as a result of criticism"
Dimwit - his service plan has been on www.barackobama.com for months, but don't let that spoil your tinfoil-hattery. I don't know why I'm even responding considering you don't have the balls to actually post this without being AC.
Some lawyers are just bitter, evil people that believe that there is always someone to blame for every problem is everyone owes them something.
There is no defense against such evil. Engaging them on their own turf is ruinously expensive and drains the joy out of life. The rules are made by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. The whole system is designed to make money for lawyers at the expense of everyone else.
Dealing with such people brings violent fantasies of making them choke on their own lies and hearing them scream while their kneecaps are drilled out.
Think of how much better off the average family would be as well as the country as a whole with that kind of training and education per individual.
Considering how often you invade foreign countries, I'd say that "better off" is not the term. Unless you think the US is overpopulated.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486358/
I felt a mixture of nausea, crushing fear, despair, and helplessness as I watched evangelist children being brainwashed into thinking the devil was controlling the evil government (until Bush, that is), that the government was trying to take Jesus away from them by taking him out of schools, and that their "time" would come.
These days I get the same feeling from reading Slashdot posts on the RIAA.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Ray, When are you going to get an Amazon wishlist and cash in on all this slashlove you're getting?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
I think it should be every American's duty to spend at least one year living outside the country (preferably while they're adult enough to learn something). It might put a small dent in the ridiculously provincial attitude that a lot of Americans have.
If everyone's kids had even the same chance of winding up dead, we'd probably be more hesitant.
And even if not (which is doubtful), as you say, it'll help with overpopulation.
Win-win imho.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Writing a story about yourself in the third person?
Crowing about how muted and controlled your footnote response was?
Brag much?
I miss the somewhat more.. objective and clean Groklaw postings. Oh well.
I'm surprised the plaintiffs aren't moving for application of "spoliation" or whatever you call it. Basically, the guilty ring of fudge you see on a kid who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.
I think the RIAA should suck balls, however, if the RIAA were to say "The evidence should be considered favorable because the defendat's destruction of same implies said evidence was incriminating".
It puzzles me that the RIAA's lawyers haven't tried that, given what they assert about computer disposal by plaintiffs.
Any thoughts NYCL, or anyone else for that matter?
disclaimer: I am not a laywer, so please forgive any possible ignorance.
What is mainly happening is that the judges are fed a line of bullshit of reasonable quality - IMHO they are asked to judge evidence that is beyond their ability to understand. NOT because they are stupid (in my experience most of them are anything but) but because they don't understand the new technology it is based on.
It is our responsibility to educate, to avoid jargon and to improve clarity in what we say - and never, ever lie or assume. Just stay with the facts.
The issue is practically identical with what I come across when coaching CEOs in understanding IT. They don't want anyone to know I'm doing it (which is why we call it "coaching" and use a non-office venue), and the relief you can see when they finally understand it's in principle a complicated LEGO set is worth the effort (and the income helps too :-). It improves the quality of their decision making rather considerably, and it is IMHO a scandal they don't even teach the very basics like we do in any MBA programme. But hey, we make the cash, so well done :-)
Joking aside, judges have a duty to be impartial, which means they must haven an ear for both parties. If they lack the knowledge to recognise that data is inaccurate or "creatively acquired" then it is unfortunately the task of the opposition to point that out and prove what they say, again in a language that doesn't imply knowledge of the topic to start with (i.e. jargon).
The good news is that more and more judges are beginning to get exposed to this sort of education which will slowly yield results. Sadly, it IS a slow process and I can't see a way to speed it up other than what I'm planning to do in another country (and I can't talk about that yet, sorry).
In any case, please start with the assumption that a judge is not stupid. It is an unfair assumption and causes you to dismiss the problem instead of picking it up and thinking about solutions.
That's my 2 cents..
Insert
Duty implies a moral obligation - not a requirement. Your father-in-law is right, everyone should feel morally obligated to serve their community. Your knee-jerk reaction is a result of the misinterpretation of what the definition of the word, duty, is.
The problem here in the good ol' US of A is that we have, as a society, been struggling for equal rights so long that a large majority of us have forgotten what a moral obligation to community is - we're too focused on whether or not we've been wronged in some way.
Remember, kids, Ms. Lindor doesn't illegally infringe upon others' copyrights, and neither should you!
No idea why the 3rd person, but I think you should actually read the papers.
These people should be really do more "practising" law instead of doing it for real. It's absolutely disgusting what they do, and I really, really hope judges are starting to impose some sanctions on what happens in court. It has gone beyond a joke if this is tolerated, and only judges have the power to reign in this abuse.
Some VERY serious clamping down is needed, because it's been left to slide for too long.
I very much appreciate your "pipe dream" footnote.
Aside from the deterioration of the US military through reorganization whose design goals seem to focus on saving money, military service just isn't rewarding any more. Veteran's benefits have been wantonly slashed, despite the hard evidence that the WWII G.I. Bill produced a renaissance by providing a free college education to everyone who served. The pessimistic focus seems to mirror the canard of welfare cheats. I leave the irony of military recruiters targeting the poor as an exercise for the reader.
That being said, I found my own service experience useful in that it forced me to grow up and to recognize that I had been squandering my potential. If nothing else, the US military will teach you just how badly it sucks to take orders from someone less intelligent that you are. I count myself fortunate to have realized this before the age of twenty, and to have taken action by the time I reached twenty-two.
Not only did I get a college education on my own dime, I found that there were more than a few loopholes in the educational assistance program. I tired of fighting the bureaucracy and just did it on my own. In fairness, I did use the VA loan benefit ten years later.
I think that the problem is the mistaken belief that the common work-avoidance mentality of service{men,women} persists into the post-service, civilian experience. Some minority will game every system. That doesn't make it wise to turn it off.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
Which, as court employees (they work FOR THE COURT first), would be "not making bullshit cases up".
Also, this is very definitely broken as an anbsolute when you consider "Contempt of court" charges. No evidence of that is *presented* to them. Yet they "judge" such to have happened.
And they don't get sacked.
A Judge has to also tell the jury to ignore evidence that is inappliccable. This is not "evidence presented" but is MOST CERTAINLY their job.
The judge, after all, is not there to say "guilty". The Jury does that.
So if he doesn't say "guilty/not guilty" and cannot consider (in your view) anything that is not evidence presented to them, what the hell are they there for?
What if you made a movie with the images first, and carefully designed *two* soundtracks for it?
The version you holler about filming is some "3rd rate Grisham Pastiche" about a brief that upset some scandalous politician, blah blah. It gets a mention on page 17 of the paper, and everyone forgets it.
Then you componetize every sentence of dialog and run it through a special converter software module.
Suddenly it's the RIAA equivalent of "A Civil Action"!
(Shocked Media Exec: "That's not what you said you were filming!"
(Filmmaker: "Who said I needed your permission?")
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Thank you Mr. Beckerman.
Sir, you rock.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
Are you giving us the rights to that idea?
"Jewel In The Rough!"
Synopsis:
A etherially handsome wetlands boundary marker from Lousiana is displaced after the hurricane. He wanders around the shoddy federal support housing projects, doing odd jobs for gas stations. Only when a beligerent customer sprays him with the car wash hose (and thus spraying off the daily coat of grime) does said customer, a modeling scout, become shocked at his heretofore hidden good looks.
Three months later after attending to his health and recovering from near-total exhaustion ofhis previous existence, a small law firm which defends against copyright abuse picks him up upon discovering his hidden talents for legal documentation and public speaking.
One day the senior partner is chased down by thugs hired by Plaintiffs. The Diamond In The Rough has been boxed into an obscure legal corner and cannot receive an extension. Asking for leniency from the judge in special circumstances, he takes on the presentation of his life. He wins! The case establishes precedent that Thrown Away Script ideas cannot later be corralled under restrictive copyright.
Starring:
George Clooney as Senior Counsel for Defense Ray Beckerman
Aaron Eckhart as Diamond In The Rough
Zachary Quinto as Junior Counsel for Defense
Samuel L. Jackson as Judge Halloway
Tom Cruise as Senior Counsel for Plaintiff Morrison StealRight
Chris Tucker as Junior Counself for Plaintiff
Vin Diesel as Thug Hired By Plaintiff
Musical Score by Three 6 Mafia & Eric Serra
Cameo by Ray Beckerman as Nice Harvard Law Professor
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
By day, he's mild mannered lawyer Ray Beckerman, but by night he becomes.... THE UNDERSIGNED!
There's no need to fear, Undersigned is here!
When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Undersigned, Undersigned,
Undersigned, Undersigned.
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Undersigned, Undersigned.
When in this world the headlines read
Of those who's hearts are filled with greed
And rob and steal from those in need.
To right this wrong with blinding speed goes
Undersigned, Undersigned,
Undersigned, Undersigned.
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder,
Fighting all who rob or plunder
Undersigned, Undersigned.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Wow..... The RIAA doesn't like:
a) Legal bullies
b) Being sued
c) Lawyers who flout the rules
d) Misstatements of fact
How ironic, because what they are claiming are simply unsupported accusations, whereas the RIAA's own legal bullying, lawsuits, misstatements of fact, and rule flouting can be easily pointed out.
What Mr. Beckerman should do in defending himself is to take each of the RIAA's charges and show the court where the RIAA has themselves committed the wrongful acts that they 'claim' Mr. Beckerman has. Nothing will kill a lawsuit faster than showing the court that the plaintiff has committed the VERY SAME ACTS that they are accusing the defendant of committing. Honestly, how can you explain to a judge how you think you should be able to engage in those practices without consequence, yet they (the judge) should sanction an opposing lawyer for supposedly committing those same acts?
The Amazing Kreskin predicts a trial in which Exhibit A will be watching the RIAA eat their foot..... after they've shot themselves in it.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I liked your answer to the blog question, but didn't you leave something out?
h) Plaintiff's counsel's objection to my blog is especially perplexing in light of Plaintiff's multi-million dollar advertising that seeks to convince the public that downloading a song is the moral equivalent of auto theft. Plaintiff also spends a great deal of money lobbying to influence Congress to pass ever more restrictive legislation. It is disturbing that Plaintiff's counsel can feel so threatened by a simple text-based blog that simply seeks to shed light on the actions of their respective member companies.
You're doing noble work and you're doing an excellent job at it. I and many other Anonymous Cowards thank you.
In reading over the declaration, I am struck at the frequent use of subjective modifiers, asides, etc... For instance, I wouldn't have thought "Not surprisingly..." (2) would have a place here. Is this the norm?
Hey,
Don't dump your Americans on us...
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I laughed out loud, really.
Personally I don't have problem with drafts.
However, I think that draftees and volunteers should be treated differently.
Forcing someone into the military to ship them overseas and accomplish a political goal is IMHO an abuse of government.
However, if the US were to institute a draft AND make sure that draftees are only stationed in our homeland, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Well, the post you respond to may have been written by a "dimwit", as you say, but he wasn't wrong. On Friday, the "America Serves" section of change.gov said:
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.
where it now says
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
Either way, the word "require" has disappeared, even if the idea of requiring such "service" hasn't. How they make an end run around the 13th Amendment will be interesting to see.
Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the awful movie). Quite a good read, even if you disagree with it.