Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's request for permission to appeal from the decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict has been denied by District Court Judge Michael J. Davis. In a brief, 6-page decision (PDF) the Judge dismissed the RIAA's arguments that there is a 'substantial ground for a difference of opinion' on the question of law presented, whether the Judge had erred in accepting the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making files available' could constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights. He likewise dismissed their argument that granting permission for the appeal would 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,' since (a) depending on the outcome of the trial, plaintiffs might not wish to appeal from the judgment, and (b) no matter how the appeals court rules on the 'making available' issue, the case will still have to continue in the lower court, since even if the RIAA wins on the 'making available' issue, the Court will still have to address the constitutionality of the large jury verdict, which may result in a new trial."
nigger obama has confirmed that he's going to give the riaa a free hand in law enforcement thanks to all the hollywood friends he now has.
I've frankly heard enough from Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer, who appears to use Slashdot as his personal advertising space for his business (legal services) and his cause (defending people being sued by the RIAA). I might not suspect that if he were doing all of it pro bono, but he's personally profiting from it, and possibly very handsomely (knowing lawyers, he's hardly going hungry or driving an old Chevy). He's hardly an impartial news source or observer in this process; rather, he's right smack dab in the middle of it. It seems quite possible to me that his motive in his very frequent Slashdot submissions is not to inform, but rather specifically to drum up more business. He's not the only entrepreneur who appears to do this, but I find this instance to be particularly distasteful. I smell an ethical conflict of interest.
You might find my reply comment to an earlier comment worth reading. I proposed the theory that Mr. NewYorkCountryLawyer's motives for his frequent Slashdot submissions are not at all what they appear. I think it's simple profiteering, not "news". Your observations seem to further confirm my own suspicions.
Perhaps all lawyers are ethically dubious, regardless which side of the courtroom they occupy? Given that their stock in trade is manipulation, can there ever be a truly honest lawyer?
Step 1: Build a reputation on Slashdot
Step 2: Flood your site with ads
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
That's a truly odd accusation to make; my employer(s) had no influence nor relevance to my comment. This is true because I simply don't even have an employer. I haven't had one in nine years. I assume you were accusing me of being employed by the RIAA? Your insinuation is baseless. I'd like to see the RIAA staff burned at the stake and copyright law reformed or abolished as much or more than you, but unlike you I don't have a Machiavellian bone in my body. I'll call a spade a spade even if it's serving my values.
If Beckerman is doing a "good thing", I'm suggesting that the goodness is incidental to his real goal, which is enriching himself... not the other way around. I see no reason to admire or idolize a person who would behave in such a fashion. Displaying the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed is not something I can admire, nor should anyone else who values ethics.
You don't even speak for yourself, much less anyone else: you're anonymous. Further, I've never spoken for Libertarians, because I think Libertarians are delusional idiots. Finally, I didn't actually claim or even imply that I spoke on behalf of anyone but myself. It's amusing that you thought that such a non sequitur would be a good supporting argument for demanding my silence.
I won't be considering your criticism because it was almost entirely ad hominem and lacking any rational argument why I should feel obligated to "go away".
By the way, you're not much of a "real libertarian" yourself, if you would dare to suggest that I be denied my right to publicly voice my opinions just because YOU don't happen to like them. What you are is an anonymous hypocrite.
If Beckerman is as disingenuous as I currently suspect he is, that is very much a "real issue" and relevant, even if it's not one you choose to acknowledge or prioritize. The "hijacking" accusation is trotted out by people intent on controlling the flow of the conversation. If you really wanted to have some other conversation, shouldn't you be off talking to other people who want to discuss the same thing instead of engaging and belittling me, as you and others have actually done? That behavior belies an intention to exclude and control.
I think I should mirror your own directive back at you. Oh, wait... I already did!
I might be modded down, because people react badly to any argument and often get careless where they place the blame for it. I didn't start this argument: that would be the AC who called me names, and then you when I responded to the name-calling. You've continued the argument rather than heeding your own advice.
Interestingly, NONE of what has been said by others in this sub-thread even tried to refute my allegation about Beckerman, so the argument wasn't really even about the point I made at all: rather, the argument has been about my right to make the point in the first place. I've been defending that right, and you and the name-calling AC have been claiming the right to take it away and shove me out the back door. I'd say your Slashdot alias fits you pretty well.
Generally, those who express opinions similar to yours on Slashdot are considered to be RIAA shills.
Yes, because every law-abiding citizen must be an RIAA shill. Or is it only people who disagree with Beckerman's underhanded, malicious tactics that's a shill? I'm not quite sure which logical fallacy it was you were implying.
Or maybe, everyone who attacks the RIAA is a pirating asshole. What about that side of the story?
What, exactly, was your point again?
I'm not the person you're addressing, but I believe his point was that Beckerman is blatantly abusing Slashdot for commercial gain under the guise of a self-appointed 'moral knight in shining armour', and that either most Slashdotians are completely oblivious to it, or have suddenly decided that using Slashdot for commercial gain is ok as long as most people agree with the goals of that commercial entity, which seems to be the case here.
You're free to disagree, and you're opinion is certainly welcome so far as it goes.
Thank goodness I'm not the only one who thinks the 'Troll' moderation was disgraceful and uncalled for.
I think it's pretty clear there are ulterior motives. Quite clearly, NYCL benefits commercially and egotistically from the support of the pro-infringement slashdot crowd. The constant postings and RIAA bashings are only self-serving for NYCL. The question is whether this behaviour - the manipulation of slashdot for commercial gain - should be applauded or condemned, or if the ethics of the case should be flexible based on what the majority of slashdot happens to agree with at the time.
Those who make content would be paid by members of the the BSA, ESA, RIAA, MPAA, or whoever else likes to pretend they're government agencies. And unless they make that clear in their comment, they'd be shills.
..."
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.