RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

to educate the public by Eric+Smith · 2009-01-17 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.
Re:to educate the public by The+Snowman · 2009-01-17 06:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.
Correct, they want to educate the public with their lies. However, this is not the way they want to do it.
Step one: win the court case by any means necessary, including not following court procedures, obtaining evidence illegally, etc. However, try to be discrete. Step two: after winning the court case, spin it such that the defendant was guilty as hell and you were the shining beacon of justice and honesty. Tell everyone that they need to do whatever it is you want because hey, the court just agreed that you are right.
What they don't want is for everyone to be "educated" before winning the court case. Otherwise, people will see the tactics they use and the unwashed masses may become actively hostile toward their cause.

--
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Re:to educate the public by causality · 2009-01-17 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"
Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.
So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

Now why'd you hafta go and bring religion into this discussion?
Re:to educate the public by causality · 2009-01-17 07:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe. Now why'd you hafta go and bring religion into this discussion?
That's a pretty funny joke that seems all too accurate. It requires something like a religious belief to behave in the abusive and amoral fashion as, in my opinion, the RIAA has done. That is, they imbue this cause/agenda of theirs with an undue importance that, in their minds, justifies any measures they take to further it. They sacrifice even their conscience on the altar of this Cause of theirs and in their minds they can do no wrong. To me, this elevation of peddling music to a status of mattering more than human suffering is the real meaning of "idolatry" (and is probably different from how most religious people use the term). It's really not unlike the process by which peaceful democratic nations become warlike dictatorships, just on a much smaller scale.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:to educate the public by vell0cet · 2009-01-17 07:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

the education they want the public to have is "you will get sued" not "you will get sued, it could end up in court and you may actually win".
Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:50 · Score: 0

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"
Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.
So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.
Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.
Damn the clarity, impress with obfuscity (yes, I know it should be obfuscation, but I wanted the tie to 'clarity' :P).
Re:to educate the public by Andy_R · 2009-01-17 08:45 · Score: 5, Funny

I think the original phrase may have been "teach the public a lesson"?

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:to educate the public by Nathrael · 2009-01-17 08:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Just because you are unable to understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

--
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Re:to educate the public by KwKSilver · 2009-01-17 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

in their minds they can do no wrong
An excellent example of hubris. The ancient Greeks seemed to consider it the worst possible character flaw; tragic heroes afflicted with hubris inevitably ended up dead, insane, maimed, or some combination thereof. Basically, it's playing God. That said, may the Furies perch upon the shoulders of the RIAA, its clients, and agents.

--
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Re:to educate the public by RichardJenkins · 2009-01-17 09:23 · Score: 1

They want to educate the public to pay them more money, not educate them on these litigious travesties. Would love to see them file that in their appeal.
Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 09:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.
I won't comment on whether or not I have a degree of any sort or what type of degree it is if I do have one. What I will tell you is that I've always felt that my education is far too important to me to be trusted to the complete strangers who call themselves professionals because they have made a profession out of something that is not inherently a business transaction. To abandon my education (let alone my edification) to them would be a failure to take responsibility for my own life. Modern education has many primary purposes but enlightened, tough-minded individuals who are capable of critical thinking and are not easily misled by propaganda and misinformation is definitely not one of them.
Re:to educate the public by causality · 2009-01-17 09:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.
I won't comment on whether or not I have a degree of any sort or what type of degree it is if I do have one. What I will tell you is that I've always felt that my education is far too important to me to be trusted to the complete strangers who call themselves professionals because they have made a profession out of something that is not inherently a business transaction. To abandon my education (let alone my edification) to them would be a failure to take responsibility for my own life. Modern education has many primary purposes but enlightened, tough-minded individuals who are capable of critical thinking and are not easily misled by propaganda and misinformation is definitely not one of them.
Oops. I didn't mean to post that anonymously (I should watch where I click eh?). This is my writing.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:to educate the public by martin-boundary · 2009-01-17 12:16 · Score: 1

You mean "teach the customer a lesson"? Every member of the public is a RIAA customer. Whether they know it or not. Those slackers.
Re:to educate the public by C0R1D4N · 2009-01-17 13:44 · Score: 2, Funny

What they don't want is for everyone to be "educated" before winning the court case. Otherwise, people will see the tactics they use and the unwashed masses may become actively hostile toward their cause.

The unwashed masses just can't get enough of tort on TV.
Re:to educate the public by mattrumpus · 2009-01-17 13:48 · Score: 1

Nice post.

--
Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
Re:to educate the public by FingerSoup · 2009-01-17 14:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually, what they don't want is hundreds of lawyers on the internet picking apart their case and e-mailing their findings to Harvard.... Because, even the RIAA can't stand a chance of an entire army of lawyers working pro bono.
Re:to educate the public by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 14:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, what they don't want is hundreds of lawyers on the internet picking apart their case and e-mailing their findings to Harvard.... Because, even the RIAA can't stand a chance of an entire army of lawyers working pro bono.
Quite true. Thing is, in the entire world, the RIAA have no friends except those on their payroll. But as for enemies, well, most anyone who knows about these cases is on the side of the RIAA's victims.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:to educate the public by digitalunity · 2009-01-17 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

To the RIAA, everyone who ISN'T a customer is a thief, because nobody in their right mind would choose to simply not listen to music from their crappy member corporations. /sarcasm

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:to educate the public by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 17:30 · Score: 1

And that's where their spin is an outright lie. I used to be their customer. I bought quite a bit of music in my life. I don't anymore. First, the crap that's currently produced ain't even worth the bandwidth to "steal" it, let's not even consider talking about actually dropping money on it. Second, I'm not doing business with a company that I don't want to stay in business.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:to educate the public by aynoknman · 2009-01-17 21:34 · Score: 1

Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.
I won't comment on whether or not I have a degree of any sort or what type of degree it is if I do have one. What I will tell you is that I've always felt that my education is far too important to me to be trusted to the complete strangers who call themselves professionals because they have made a profession out of something that is not inherently a business transaction. To abandon my education (let alone my edification) to them would be a failure to take responsibility for my own life. Modern education has many primary purposes but enlightened, tough-minded individuals who are capable of critical thinking and are not easily misled by propaganda and misinformation is definitely not one of them.
Oops. I didn't mean to post that anonymously (I should watch where I click eh?). This is my writing.
'Tis not. It's mine! You just quoted the parent and claimed it as yours! I'm the one who has to watch where I click.

--
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
Re:to educate the public by Arancaytar · 2009-01-17 23:54 · Score: 1

Yes, I think they meant the definition of "educate" that rhymes with "indoctrinate".
Re:to educate the public by Ihmhi · 2009-01-18 00:51 · Score: 1

I'd wager that if this ruling stands (and as Mr. Beckerman has stated, it probably will) they will just pull out from the case and cut their losses.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:to educate the public by Andrew1963 · 2009-01-18 01:46 · Score: 1

Can't have the peons knowing how to defend themselves ...
Re:to educate the public by commodore64_love · 2009-01-18 03:59 · Score: 1

The one who will ultimately lose is the guy with a bullet in his head.
That will be the RIAA CEO if I find myself sued and fined with $100,000 or more.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-18 04:32 · Score: 0

Actually, what they don't want is hundreds of lawyers on the internet picking apart their case and e-mailing their findings to Harvard.... Because, even the RIAA can't stand a chance of an entire army of lawyers working pro bono.
Quite true. Thing is, in the entire world, the RIAA have no friends except those on their payroll. But as for enemies, well, most anyone who knows about these cases is on the side of the RIAA's victims.
And while there have been lots of comments about the appointment of a seemingly pro-RIAA lawyer to the position of AG for the USA, I wonder how much the above holds true: now that he's no longer in the employ of the RIAA, will he continue to support their position?
Admittedly he could have said no to the RIAA checks, after a while, but maybe the checks were big enough that he did the job professionally whilst putting aside what he thought was moral?
And that now the AG-elect is no longer in the employ of the RIAA, we shouldn't expect him to so blatantly toe their line?
Re:to educate the public by volpe · 2009-01-18 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

including not following court procedures, obtaining evidence illegally, etc. However, try to be discrete .
Of course. Doing such things continuously will get you into trouble.
Re:to educate the public by causality · 2009-01-18 09:54 · Score: 1

Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.
I won't comment on whether or not I have a degree of any sort or what type of degree it is if I do have one. What I will tell you is that I've always felt that my education is far too important to me to be trusted to the complete strangers who call themselves professionals because they have made a profession out of something that is not inherently a business transaction. To abandon my education (let alone my edification) to them would be a failure to take responsibility for my own life. Modern education has many primary purposes but enlightened, tough-minded individuals who are capable of critical thinking and are not easily misled by propaganda and misinformation is definitely not one of them.
Oops. I didn't mean to post that anonymously (I should watch where I click eh?). This is my writing.
'Tis not. It's mine! You just quoted the parent and claimed it as yours! I'm the one who has to watch where I click.
Makes me think of what you may think of as Eastern ideas as to just what constitutes "you". Like that Bill Hicks quote (I may change my sig to that) "It's as though we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively." From that perspective this is really funny.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:to educate the public by MikeBabcock · 2009-01-18 10:27 · Score: 1

More importantly, I don't believe the RIAA wants to try and win in the courts at all since they have a very good chance of losing to a good defense -- thus the substantial "discount" offered for settling out of court.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:to educate the public by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-18 10:59 · Score: 0

Quite true. Thing is, in the entire world, the RIAA have no friends except those on their payroll
Unfortunately, that's a pretty big group of people... and government officials.

I'm just a country lawyer by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:23 · Score: 0

They don't have mercenary scum lawyers in the country?

Re:I'm just a country lawyer by morgan_greywolf · 2009-01-17 06:47 · Score: 2, Funny

So I take it you've never seen Matlock? ;)
*ducking*

--
My blog

No more TiVo by Caspase9 · 2009-01-17 06:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Does this mean I don't have to TiVo Judge Judy anymore?!?!???

I Know I'll Be Watching by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · 2009-01-17 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?

--
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?
Good question. Presumably this is a matter of public record.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by MMC+Monster · 2009-01-17 06:47 · Score: 1

While it may be a matter of record, one would think that since the lawyers are not media figures, you would have to get a release from each of them to display their likeness in a public manner.
Of course, IANANYCL (I Am Not A NewYorkCountryLawyer).

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by jav1231 · 2009-01-17 06:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Oh I doubt that. Once they enter the courtroom it really comes down to whether that preceding can be re-broadcast. The litigants are in open court and thus are not subject to privacy in this regard. It's just like taking a photo at a park. You don't have to get a release from everyone involved. IANAL either but I'd venture this is the case.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by MrMista_B · 2009-01-17 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Put it on YouTube?
No.
A single DMCA complaint will remove it, and three DMCA complaints will have your account deleted entirely.
It doesn't matter if there is or is not anything in any of your videos which warrants a DMCA complaint - by posting anything that in any way threatens, or seems to threaten any corporate interest, it'll be the end of you.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by fluch · 2009-01-17 08:17 · Score: 1

No problem, just post it on Piratebay.org :-) Which is not as convenient as Youtube, but it will remain available...
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by garry_g · 2009-01-17 08:25 · Score: 1

Wonder if it would beat download rates of other popular stuff, like 24 or so ... (one time I checked, one of the S7 season openers was at 10k Seeds and 25k downloaders)
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Taxman415a · 2009-01-17 08:49 · Score: 1

A previous article about this on p2pnet said that the Berkman center at the Harvard Law School intends to pay for rebroadcasting the footage and intends to do so under a creative commons non commercial license. They say details are still being worked out. It's possible CC non commercial might not allow posting to youtube, but I'm no lawyer.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 08:53 · Score: 0

I see your IANAL and raise by not being from the same country. But in Finland it is legal to photograph the crowd in a public location but illegal to photograph a specific individual without permission. If there are similar laws in the USA I could understand claims that it is illegal to photograph or film the specific individuals (lawyers, the judge, etc.) for perhaps several hours even though it is legal to take a photo in the park without asking everyone.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 10:56 · Score: 0

put it on pirate bay, post links en any forum you come across.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Paradise+Pete · 2009-01-17 11:00 · Score: 1

A single DMCA complaint will remove it
The RIAA would not be the copyright holder.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by hldn · 2009-01-17 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't matter if there is or is not anything in any of your videos which warrants a DMCA complaint - by posting anything that in any way threatens, or seems to threaten any corporate interest, it'll be the end of you [until you make another account and post it again.]
fixed that for you.

--
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by DeeVeeAnt · 2009-01-17 11:44 · Score: 1

OK, ALL put it on YouTube then >:> Make a brand new fresh account to do so if you are that scared.

--
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by mdmkolbe · 2009-01-17 12:00 · Score: 4, Informative

In USA "anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes".
(See http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by MrMista_B · 2009-01-17 14:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

And that's the catch - you don't have to be the copyright holder to make a DMCA complaint.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 17:13 · Score: 0

Put it on YouTube?
No.
A single DMCA complaint will remove it, and three DMCA complaints will have your account deleted entirely.
It doesn't matter if there is or is not anything in any of your videos which warrants a DMCA complaint - by posting anything that in any way threatens, or seems to threaten any corporate interest, it'll be the end of you.
You know what will work? Put it on a torrent!
Oh, the circle of life! Lol
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Therefore+I+am · 2009-01-17 22:57 · Score: 1

But once it is on BitTorrent it will be available for as long as people are prepared to seed it.
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-18 01:41 · Score: 0

| Put it on YouTube?
Surely, P2P is the way to broadcast this stuff?
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by commodore64_love · 2009-01-18 04:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

In case you didn't realize the courts are OWNED by the people. You have every right to know what your employees are doing inside your courts, whether it be video, audio, or transcript.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by commodore64_love · 2009-01-18 04:08 · Score: 1

Well then set up your own private website, and when the DMCA request arrives, shred it. Just because a request arrives doesn't mean you have to comply with it. The RIAAS CEO is, to me, no more worthy of my attention than Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. They can all sit on my middle figner and swivel til they squeel like pigs.
Fuck tyrants and fuck their notices.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2009-01-19 08:14 · Score: 1

I once had problems with kids trespassing, and more importantly, vandalizing my property and attacking my kids (with bb guns, of all things). Complaints to parents ("What? My little angel?? How dare you!") and police ("Sir, you have no evidence, and they deny the charge") were fruitless, so I set up surveillance cameras on my own property.
I caught kids sitting on my fence, hurling animal feces on my deck.
Shortly after I presented the evidence to their parents, police pulled me over and demanded the "pornographic tapes" I made of their children.
Realize that "child pornography" is so broad a charge, that it has been levied against people taking pictures of fully clothed children in public, doing what kids in public tend to do, namely horse around, have fun, and occasionally behave.
The childrens' parents, in my case, made the charge that I paid them to hurl feces onto my property, and taped it for my sick, depraved, pleasure later, calling it "pornography".
I told the cop, "You have no cause to detain me officer, I am leaving. Pursue at your own legal risk." The camera in my car was running and recorded the whole absurd accusation.
He didn't. (If I had to defend against a charge of producing "child pornography", I figured (at the time, somewhat paniced) a somewhat sensational car chase without cause would have helped, rather than hurt, my odds.)

--
In Liberty, Rene
Re:I Know I'll Be Watching by Paradise+Pete · 2009-01-20 14:48 · Score: 1

nd that's the catch - you don't have to be the copyright holder to make a DMCA complaint.
Yes you do. Or at least be authorized to act on the holder's behalf. Google, for instance, wants you to state it like this:

"I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
You certainly can't go around filing groundless complaints just because you'd rather it not be available.

Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by eldavojohn · 2009-01-17 06:25 · Score: 1

First, please tell me you've seen the Futurama episodes with the lawyer chicken.

I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge.

Well, I'm not a lawyer but isn't it pretty much the modus operandi of lawyers who are paid insane amounts of money to toe the line in the interest of their clients?

I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing? If this becomes popular, the bawling college student they win a $500,000 suit against isn't going to help their image as heartless vampires.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 06:40 · Score: 5, Informative

I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing?
If you're asking me whether I'm surprised they're resisting it, no I'm not. If I did what they do for a living, I'd be ashamed too. The last thing I would want is for the world -- including my friends and relatives -- to see what I do.

But it's not really possible for me to imagine myself in their shoes, because -- having been born of a human mother -- I would never be in their shoes and -- being a lawyer and a gentleman -- would never do the things they do.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by morgan_greywolf · 2009-01-17 06:59 · Score: 1

I guess what the parent is trying to say, Ray, is that he thinks that if it were in your client's best interests to not have it broadcast on the Internet, you'd be whining and moaning at the judge, too. After all, as a professional, you have to maintain a fiduciary relationship with your clients, which means that you always have to represent your client's best interests.
What you seem to be saying is that your ethics don't allow you to choose clients who fight dirty. I can respect that, but as a fellow consultant, I will also say that I, too, always try to do and recommend what is best for my clients. That would seem to make the most sense.
Example: One client wanted a file server and requested that Linux would be the OS that they wanted to run. They also specified that they wanted it to be easy to maintain from a Web interface. It was a small shop and they weren't going to hire IT staff full-time. Even though ethically I love free software, I told them it would probably be in their best interests to get a pre-packaged file serving appliance rather than trying to build one and load free software on it. Even though the free software would have been my own choice, I knew that something that came prepackaged with support would be in their best interests monetarily. So I steered them in that direction. I did let them know what the alternative would be -- I could build it out and provide support for my usual rate per call, but I also showed them how the dedicated equipment would save them money. They went with the dedicated equipment.

--
My blog
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by geekboy642 · 2009-01-17 07:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Only on slashdot will the supporting anecdote be longer than the point it's supporting.

--
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by BlueStrat · 2009-01-17 07:48 · Score: 1

Ray, I'm a musician (just an indy blues player/songwriter in a blues band) and a fan of yours. I cheer your courage in standing up to these scumbags. I worry about you though. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I hope you figuratively/legally tear 'em a new one, but I also hope you pay proper attention to personal security. I doubt anyone that would conduct themselves in the way the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs and their masters do would totally rule out the possibility of arranging a "tragic accident/mugging/burglary" if sufficiently desperate.
There's plenty-enough money & power at stake here to make this, if not likely, at least plausible as an outlying possibility if they perceive you personally as enough of a threat to their revenue, power, and control. Scumbags that have demonstrated as little regard for the law and common decency as they have shown should not be underestimated.
I know you're certainly no fool, and are likely well-aware and taking proper precautions. I felt I had a duty to mention this distasteful possibility, however...men as honorable, principled, and courageous as you don't come dime-a-dozen.
Keep fighting the good fight my friend. My, and I'm certain many peoples', prayers & well-wishes are with you.
Bravo, Sir, bravo!
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 08:06 · Score: 1

Ray, I'm a musician (just an indy blues player/songwriter in a blues band) and a fan of yours. I cheer your courage in standing up to these scumbags. I worry about you though. I'm sure I'm not alone. I hope you figuratively/legally tear 'em a new one, but I also hope you pay proper attention to personal security. I doubt anyone that would conduct themselves in the way the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs and their masters do would totally rule out the possibility of arranging a "tragic accident/mugging/burglary" if sufficiently desperate. There's plenty-enough money & power at stake here to make this, if not likely, at least plausible as an outlying possibility if they perceive you personally as enough of a threat to their revenue, power, and control. Scumbags that have demonstrated as little regard for the law and common decency as they have shown should not be underestimated. I know you're certainly no fool, and are likely well-aware and taking proper precautions. I felt I had a duty to mention this distasteful possibility, however...men as honorable, principled, and courageous as you don't come dime-a-dozen. Keep fighting the good fight my friend. My, and I'm certain many peoples', prayers & well-wishes are with you. Bravo, Sir, bravo! Strat
Well, Strat, (a) blues is my favorite kind of music, (b) indie music is of course the only way to go, and (c) I'm not afraid of bullies. Plus if anything like that ever happened to me, where do you think the police would look?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by sjames · 2009-01-17 09:42 · Score: 1

The difference is, you were not supporting them in a fundamentally underhanded activity or unethical (and possibly illegal) practice. It was just a file server.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by hvm2hvm · 2009-01-17 10:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, right, they're ashamed... They do just what any other totalitarian style of government does: censor anything/anyone that can put an end to their reign.

--
ics
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by Paradise+Pete · 2009-01-17 11:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Plus if anything like that ever happened to me, where do you think the police would look?
Obviously they would contact the murder's ISP and submit a John Doe warrant based on the IP address. Case closed.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by ixidor · 2009-01-17 11:24 · Score: 1

i was thinking the same thing, wit the chicken scratch and feathers and all!
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by db32 · 2009-01-17 12:26 · Score: 1

You have provided enough proof that you are indeed a lawyer and act pretty convincingly human...but, now you are asking us to believe that lawyers have human parents? I think we need some proof here... If you are indeed human I think the most imporant work you can do is to prove that these other lawyers are highly evolved leeches that had absorbed human DNA. We wouldn't have to worry about their court room antics if we can get them all quarantined in genetic research facilities. Think of all the congress critters we could replace by showing they are all leechpeople taking over human society! They would probably build statues of you!

Disclaimer: I really do totally support the work that you do, but you are still a lawyer and subject to the jokes. :)

--
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 14:52 · Score: 3, Funny

If you are indeed human I think the most impor[t]ant work you can do is to prove that these other lawyers are highly evolved leeches that had absorbed human DNA.
If you want to make anti-lawyer jokes, well I can't stop you from that. But I must protest your attempt to insult leeches.

I have detected no signs of life, much less any human DNA, in my 'worthy opponents'.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by digitalunity · 2009-01-17 15:33 · Score: 1

Priceless.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by Gorshkov · 2009-01-17 15:43 · Score: 2, Funny

being a lawyer and a gentleman
And may god help you if I ever hear you dissing MY old profession .... military intelligence :-)
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 17:35 · Score: 1

I guess that's their reason to do whatever they can to keep this off the air. Either they lose and every bit of FUD they built up over the years evaporates instantly. Or they win and a college student is drowning in debt even before his life really started and they look like monsters.
They can't win.
I like it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 17:37 · Score: 2, Funny

You were a professional oxymoron?
Hold on, someone's at my door...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by Gorshkov · 2009-01-17 17:53 · Score: 1

*THWACK* :-)
Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? by db32 · 2009-01-19 03:52 · Score: 1

Androids?! Body snatchers?! The situtation appears to be even more critical than I had originally thought!

--
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.

We all know the answer that will be forthcoming. by Adambomb · 2009-01-17 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Because they mis-spoke when professing their aims. Or that they mis-spoke/typed/approved from paralegal when they filed this.

This whole ordeal is starting to feel like one of those theological arguments where a side insists on interpreting arbitrarily defined sections of text as immutable and others as requiring human context with themselves as the only interpreter. Interpretation may vary depending on the point they want to drill into peoples minds at the time.

--
Ice Cream has no bones.

Matter of definition ... by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:Matter of definition ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.
Correct. They have as much interest in 'educating the public' as Hitler did in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Matter of definition ... by mochan_s · 2009-01-17 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.
My psychology professor used to say that people make up their minds first and then look for reasons to support their decisions. This way people can rationalize anything as the right thing.
The obvious purpose of the legal action was to spread fear and terror - like terrorists and serial killer do. Anyone out there, downloading a song, can be sued. There is no logic, no system - it's just random. This can strike fear to millions of people even though 10 people are prosecuted.
Of course, we want to scare and terrorize anyone who downloads MP3 is not a "good" reason. So, an absurd reason of educating the public is made up. This is not a rational or logical reason and we don't require the Greek style logical discourse method of justifying a reason (OK, I have Philosophy 101 knowledge of these things, please correct me if it's wrong). So, we hear absurd reasons for doing things. Maybe this is not the most straightforward example, but the war of Iraq's reason was first WMD and then liberation. You almost felt that the leaders were just trying to find any excuse to justify and rationalize their actions.
So, my point is why does anyone even bother anymore, questioning reasoning and such? People make up their minds about certain things first and build reasons for justifying them. So, let's not waste precious time and energy with snark remarks about educating the public and such. Just ignore them and focus on the matter at hand rather than going into illogical discussions about stated reasons for actions.
Re:Matter of definition ... by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-01-17 06:54 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm sick of people wasting screen real-estate with their references to Godwin's law, as if it makes an analogy any less valid.

For all we know, NYCL or anybody else who invokes a Hitler analogy has no idea or couldn't give a rat's ass what Godwin's law is. Fuck Godwin's law and the cheeky little fuckers who waste my screen real estate calling people on it. And fuck me for making an offtopic post.
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:54 · Score: 0

In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.
None of which makes copyright infringement any less unlawful.
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:57 · Score: 0

Because forbidding rhetorical citations and comparisons to Nazi atrocities is the best way to make sure that no one forgets them, and that they never happen again.
Mike Godwin can go suck a hose.
Re:Matter of definition ... by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.
None of which makes copyright infringement any less unlawful.
And that, my friend, has never been the topic of this discussion. Of course it's illegal. So are a lot of things. Some should be, and some shouldn't, but that's a matter for lawmakers to decide.

The issue that the RIAA has done a lot of really horrible (and, yes, probably illegal) things in their quest to put a stop to infringement. They're still doing them, in spite of having claimed that they have stopped. If this outfit had done a bit of due diligence, only sued people that were truly guilty, only asked for a reasonable amount of compensation, nobody would be complaining.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Matter of definition ... by greendoggg · 2009-01-17 07:06 · Score: 1

Also, hearing the opposition's arguments, which point out the some of the absurdities of the RIAA's case, doesn't help their "re-education" campaign at all. They'd much rather the public only hear's their side of things.
Re:Matter of definition ... by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just ignore them and focus on the matter at hand rather than going into illogical discussions about stated reasons for actions.
I disagree. There's a substantial amount of logic and reason (not to mention pure black nasty evil) on the part of the RIAA and similar organizations. This deterrence campaign was well-planned, and implemented for a specific purpose. A purpose which, when pressed, they deny vociferously and cry "but we're only protecting the rights of the artists." That they've essentially failed in their quest to make file sharing and wide-scale copyright infringement appear too dangerous is irrelevant. They caused a lot of damage along the way, and are still. That needs to stop (or be stopped) but it will never happen as long as people accept what they're doing, or worse yet, see it as "their rights under the law."

When a group dissembles to such a degree, and with such an utter lack of concern for anyone but themselves and their corporate masters, the difference between what they say and what they do is extremely important. That's particularly true when dealing with those (i.e., the bulk of the American public) who don't follow the issues here, and would naturally be inclined to take their statements at face value. It's vitally important these bastards be shown as the crooks they really are, and if this Webcast helps to do that then it's worth it. People will be able to look at what they've been claiming they're all about, and then see what they're really about, and perhaps draw some correct conclusions.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Matter of definition ... by navyjeff · 2009-01-17 07:23 · Score: 1

An improper invocation of Godwin's Law.
The law applies in the case of an argument where one party uses a comparison to Hitler or the Third Reich as an ad hominem or to attack their opponent's stance.
In this case, NYCL uses the analogy to refer to the actions of a third party not involved in the discussion. Also, this jab is intended to be humorous and poingnant, rather than a mean-spirited barb. Therefore, Godwin's law cannot be applied here and the conversation is neither over nor lost.
Reference:The Godwin's Law FAQ
Re:Matter of definition ... by FishWithAHammer · 2009-01-17 07:38 · Score: 1

They're calling them wrongly, too. Godwin's Law simply states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." It says nothing about the appropriateness of the comparison.
That said, Godwin said (correctly, I think) that making comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis robs valid comparisons of their meaning. In this case, I would say that it's a little bit of a stretch to equate the two...but, unsettlingly, I had to think about it for a second to make that decision, where in most cases of Godwinning it's a no-brainer.

--
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Re:Matter of definition ... by FishWithAHammer · 2009-01-17 07:39 · Score: 2

Godwin's Law is an observational one. The "you lose, hur hur" shit is ancillary and stupid.

--
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Re:Matter of definition ... by The+FNP · 2009-01-17 07:59 · Score: 1

Fuck Godwin's Law! The war is already about Pirates vs. Nazis. This recent issue has taken years of open warfare, espionage, and political maneuvering and considering that all the lies about how much the MAFIAA are losing due to piracy have been refuted and shown to be wildly inaccurate time and time again, I think it's time to draw comparisons to the casus belli of 70-some years ago.
You want a good Nazi comparison, try the rise of Hitler to power by whining about how the Germans were getting economically punished by the rest of Europe (for starting WWI) compared to MAFIAA whining about piracy eating all of their profits (while fighting Steve Jobs tooth and nail over what has since become one of the most popular distribution channels they have); or Goebbles's propaganda machine compared to the MAFIAA's; or the anschluss of the lebensraum compared to the DMCA's provisions ("Oh hey, we just need a little accomodation, then we won't have to seize it by force"); or maybe the blitzkrieg of Poland compared to the sudden launch of thousands of lawsuits against innocents. . . . . . . Must I go on? I'm not going to compare the MAFIAA pissing off their customers to the Holocaust, because there is no order of magnitude that is sufficient, but if the jackboot fits. . . .
Granted, there is not a complete comparison due to the fact that in one, actual people were dying, but the tactics are the same: Dehumanize your opponent, Lie, exert any political force you can muster, use propaganda to the utmost, and tell your people that all of it is for their own good.
--The FNP
(It is possible that I could have used a few more hours of sleep, but sometimes /. really pisses me off.)
Re:Matter of definition ... by tsm_sf · 2009-01-17 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think it's also important to remember that Godwin's Law is a joke, a funny observation, an interesting bit of fluff. Claiming that some snide comment Godwin made invalidates an argument is kind of silly.

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Re:Matter of definition ... by FishWithAHammer · 2009-01-17 10:45 · Score: 1

Of course, though he does raise a good point, even if it's tongue-in-cheek: screaming that this or that IS JUST LIKE HITLAAAAAAAAR does kind of rob it of credibility.

--
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Re:Matter of definition ... by mdmkolbe · 2009-01-17 12:04 · Score: 2

I don't think you're being fair to the serial killer. Most of them aren't after spreading fear and terror. They just like killing people.
Re:Matter of definition ... by rastilin · 2009-01-17 12:34 · Score: 1

Somewhat maybe. But Hitler was a busy man who made many policy decisions, and World War 2 was a drawn out conflict that we could stand to learn from to prevent anything similar occurring.
For example.. in Mein Kampf he writes that we must set up the child as the most important object of the state. In this way people will accept any compromise to their rights. Where politicians want to firewall Australia from porn, and just coincidentally any anti-government material..... well call me paranoid but I'm seeing a few parallels.

--
How do you kill that which has no life?
Re:Matter of definition ... by mlwmohawk · 2009-01-17 13:40 · Score: 1

I'm sick of people wasting screen real-estate with their references to Godwin's law, as if it makes an analogy any less valid.
Any analogy that uses "Hitler" or Nazis *is* less valid. Did RIAA/MPIAA kill (literally) thousands of innocent civilians. Did RIAA or MPIAA develop ballistic missiles to bomb another nation?
No, the analogy is bad. "Godwin's Law" is a recognition of the "argument from the absurd."
RIAA and MPIAA are scum, but they are not genocidal dictators.
Re:Matter of definition ... by halcyon1234 · 2009-01-17 14:38 · Score: 1

People who invoke Godwin's law are real forum nazis.

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Re:Matter of definition ... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 14:40 · Score: 1

RIAA and MPIAA are scum, but they are not genocidal dictators.
My original comment didn't compare them to genocidal dictators. It analogized their disingenuous statement that the reason for the litigations was "educating the public" to the disingenuous statement of the Nazis that the guiding principle of Auschwitz was that "arbeit macht frei".

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Matter of definition ... by mlwmohawk · 2009-01-17 15:45 · Score: 1

Hey, Ray, seriously, love your work. Love reading your posts.
I just have a thing about Nazi comparison. They are not helpful at all because no matter how valid the finer points of the analogy, there is several truck loads of emotional baggage that gets evoked. Rather than initiating the intellectual process of evaluating the analogy to further understand the point, all a Nazi comparison does is label.
Re:Matter of definition ... by johnny+cashed · 2009-01-17 17:00 · Score: 1

You're right. We should start comparing them to Israelis. Oh, wait...
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 17:10 · Score: 0

And fuck me for making an offtopic post.

Will do. Wait, are you a hot female human?
Re:Matter of definition ... by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 17:43 · Score: 1

Neither were most Nazis. IG Farben certainly didn't care about the Jews, but they meant cheap, disposable labor and more profits. Don't make the mistake to think that all members of the NSDAP, especially the ones from the industrial background, were hell bent on killing Jews and Communists before anything else. Most were in simply for the money.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 22:28 · Score: 0

I know what Godwin's law is... of course I can't recall EVER making a Hitler analogy... Hm. If I say something like FUCK ME IN THE ASS WITH A BIG PURPLE DILDO THAT ROTATES, FOR POSTING AS A/C will this comment get modified +5 funny?
Re:Matter of definition ... by AtomicJake · 2009-01-18 00:30 · Score: 1

It's true that the RIAA/MPAA does not have any interest in real education.
It's true that Hitler did not have any interest in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".
Nevertheless, the comparison of the two does not make any sense, and drives the discussion off-topic.
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-18 03:52 · Score: 0

The obvious purpose of the legal action was to spread fear and terror - like terrorists [...] do
You mean we can send them to Gitmo?
Re:Matter of definition ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-21 08:47 · Score: 0

And if you had any reading comprehension, you'd understand that the analogy was apt.
Here's the comparison:
RIAA says they want to educate the public, but reality is that they want the public to remain ignorant --> I.e. What they say is opposite of what they want to do --> They are lying.
Nazis say they want to free the jews, but reality is that they want to imprison them all (and eventually kill them) --> I.e. What they say is opposite of what they want to do --> They are lying.
The analogy in no way, shape or form, implied that the RIAA were genocidal murderers or developers of weapons. Not every single comparison to nazis implies murdering people or making weapons.

If you want an "Aw, shucks" intro... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 06:35 · Score: 0

s/I'm just a country lawyer/I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid/

Go balls out, man.

Re:The Impossible! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the United States Code, it's not an appealable order.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

the point.... by budword · 2009-01-17 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The point has never been to "educate" the public. The point has been to THREATEN the public.

Re:the point.... by PMuse · 2009-01-17 07:41 · Score: 1

This (opposition to the broadcast) is very, very simple. They're about to get shellacked and they don't want anyone to see it any more than absolutely necessary. Much less do they want it spliced up and replayed on YouTube for eternity.
Heck, there'll probably be a montage on The Daily Show in 24 hours.

--
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:the point.... by rhizome · 2009-01-17 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're about to get shellacked and they don't want anyone to see it any more than absolutely necessary.
Which is why I predict they will drop the case if the motion is denied.

--
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Re:the point.... by deniable · 2009-01-17 13:48 · Score: 1

I made a comment a while back about defense lawyers using this case like game video for football coaches. If they're going to get pasted, I want someone to post the video with color commentary. Any volunteers?

It is not that they don't want you to see it by cortesoft · 2009-01-17 06:46 · Score: 5, Funny

What the RIAA is upset about is that people can download it for free. They don't want people pirating their court appearances!

Re:It is not that they don't want you to see it by He+who+knows · 2009-01-17 07:18 · Score: 1

can we pirate it before it is officially released.
Re:It is not that they don't want you to see it by He+who+knows · 2009-01-17 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I wonder if i can pirate it before it is released.

In this, as in everything... by painehope · 2009-01-17 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

What one says is not necessarily what one means. What one professes to do is not necessarily what one intends to do.

That is the credo of the modern world in which we live.

It is disgusting and dishonorable. But it is a fact of life. One that I've had to learn the hard way. I'm honest to a fault, but my "bullshit detectors" have been calibrated by dealing with this world in which we find ourselves. Many people (especially scientists) find this hard, since there are many wrong answers and only one right answer in many circumstances. At other times, there are no right answers, just some that are less incorrect.

And people wonder why I hate the world and would much rather deal with computers.

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.

Re:In this, as in everything... by tyroneking · 2009-01-17 07:24 · Score: 1

"politically correct moderators can suck my white pierced tattooed dick." - so do you really MEAN what your tag line says or is this bullshit too?
Re:In this, as in everything... by painehope · 2009-01-17 07:34 · Score: 1

Yep. 2 gauge Prince Albert, 10 gauge Frenum. Shaft tattooed like a WWII-era bomb. Did the piercings myself (it's how I put myself through most of college, running a body piercing shop).
And what's this "is this bullshit too?" bullshit? Are you making a reference to my original comment, or what?

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Re:In this, as in everything... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 12:31 · Score: 0

Did the piercings myself

that takes balls.

topologically, it's no longer a ball if it's pierced.
Re:In this, as in everything... by niteice · 2009-01-17 17:17 · Score: 2, Funny

We need a "+5 eww" mod.

--
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Re:In this, as in everything... by painehope · 2009-01-18 02:43 · Score: 1

And, if you bothered to use the Internet (you know, this thing us geeks built and use), you'd know that neither of those piercings has anything to do with one's scrotal sac.
And they didn't hurt much either. It was more trouble to find someone to stand in to hand me equipment while I was laying on the piercing table juggling forceps, needle, cork, jewelry, etc. I didn't trust my girlfriend not to panic.

--
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.

Real reason: compensating the performers by noidentity · 2009-01-17 06:49 · Score: 4, Funny

The RIAA has appealed the order entered several days ago allowing the January 22nd hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum to be streamed over internet TV.

They went on to explain this was because the court refused to give fair payment to the artists/performers (lawyers) for the massive distribution of the video over the internet.

Intimidation not Education by jcwynholds · 2009-01-17 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

The MPAA and RIAA have been using their legal team to "educate" the same way that loan sharks use hired thugs to "educate" people about their outstanding debts.

Both the loan sharks and the **AA want their tactics and motives hidden. The message is intimidation.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 06:50 · Score: 5, Informative

I think anyone reading the post knows that those were my professional opinions. I specifically said "as far as I know". However, I think it is clear that my opinions were correct, as evidenced by the fact that they have not pursued their defective "appeal" but have instead filed a "petition for mandamus or prohibition" (they don't know enough to know whether it's 'mandamus' or 'prohibition'; in fact it's prohibition). (a) Under the Federal Rules it was not an appealable order; (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, since the order was not appealable, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge, since it ought to have been directed to the appellate court, which is why the RIAA has now filed a motion for a stay in the appellate court.

I.e. even the RIAA lawyers have evidenced their awareness that all 3 statements were correct.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:Um, great by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 06:52 · Score: 1

I did not say it's impossible to file a defective document.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

I can see why now... by advocate_one · 2009-01-17 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

they want to educate the public, but don't want to be seen losing in court...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.

Re:Um, great by dissy · 2009-01-17 06:53 · Score: 1

They did someting you claim is impossible, so your claim is clearly not accurate.

I don't think anyone meant that the act of sending them paperwork is impossible. The mail does run come rain and sleet and whatnot.

He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate.

Re:Um, great by tabrisnet · 2009-01-17 07:10 · Score: 1

They are "trying to appeal", not that they "have appealed". Your concept of what divides possible from impossible is flawed.

Re:Um, great by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

No you said it's "(a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.

Try all you want. You will fail.

Re:Ok, I get it by Ant+P. · 2009-01-17 07:15 · Score: 1

Looking at your comment history reveals a lot about your own priorities.

You're a deluded crank seeking attention, and you have reading comprehension issues.

Re:So that's all you've got? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nothing NYCL said was factually incorrect. He said that it was not possible to appeal the order. While the RIAA can file as much bogus paperwork as they want, their request will not be honored.

An analogy might be that you bought a blender from a store. When you bought the blender, you were explicitly informed that you could not return or exchange this product. After bringing the blender home, you discovered that it's the wrong color and you try to go back to the store to return it. No matter how much you argue and pester the management, they are not going to permit you to return it, despite the fact that you brought your receipt and waited at the returns register for someone to help you.

Re:6 mod points wasted by Shadow-isoHunt · 2009-01-17 07:23 · Score: 1

Dude you're just like a little kid. Grow the fuck up, take your fingers out of your ear, and stop going "nahnahnahnahnah can't hear youuuuuuu". There's no need to shit up /. with repeated posts. That's why people mod you troll.

--
www.isoHunt.com

So why don't they by arun84h · 2009-01-17 07:27 · Score: 3, Funny

just charge people to view the court broadcast? That way, no persons involved can come back and sue the viewers who got free "entertainment".

Re:So why don't they by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 17:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Also, nobody would watch it.
I mean, be honest, have the RIAA's members released anything recently worth paying for?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:6 mod points wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:28 · Score: 0

didnt waste them. your karma is down by 6 points. idiot.

Re:"They don't know enough" by TaoPhoenix · 2009-01-17 07:29 · Score: 1

Hi Ray.

Do you think they're hoping that if they compile enough consecutive legal errors, then 13 wrongs will add up to a right and then they're hoping they'll win?

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:6 mod points wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:29 · Score: 0

"There's no need to shit up /. with repeated posts"

And yet you keep posting.

"I don't kowtow to the pet anti-RIAA slashdot 'lawyer'" That's why people mod me troll.

FYP.

Read the dictionary much???? by Mathinker · 2009-01-17 07:31 · Score: 1

From a commonly used online dictionary:

> 4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.

Repeat after me: words often have more than one meaning.

Epic fail.

One trick pony. by kulakovich · 2009-01-17 07:35 · Score: 1

These guys have a one trick pony. Once we've seen the trick, no one will pay. ~kulakovich

Re:File sharing is illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 07:36 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Bring back the steve jobs/coprophiliac copy-paste trolling. This is the blandest garbage I've ever seen on slashdot.

Re:Um, great by pdabbadabba · 2009-01-17 07:44 · Score: 1

No actually. Filing papers that purport to make an appeal is not the same as appealing. To actually appeal requires some uptake from the court, not just the filing of some documents.

So, they have not appealed they have merely attempted to appeal.

--
caritj.org

It is - read this by Weaselmancer · 2009-01-17 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, I'm not a lawyer but isn't it pretty much the modus operandi of lawyers who are paid insane amounts of money to toe the line in the interest of their clients?

If you ever want to know just how sleazy your "toe the line" lawyers can get, read this. It's an interview with a tobacco lobbyist. He's dying from cancer and decided to come clean on tactics. It's unreal.

So yeah, the RIAA lawyers being creatures of the same stripe, sure. Filing all this crazy stuff is absolutely par for the course. Remember - every single day the laws stay in their favor, that makes them money. If they file these motions and it takes a week or a month to sort through then they've done their job.

When you're dealing with a gigantic industry and millions of dollars every day, even a single five minute phone call to delay makes financial sense. Look at the SCO fiasco for another example. Baystar invested $50M in a dying lawsuit. Why? Delay. Every day there is any legal doubt over Linux is a day where spooked customers will go elsewhere. It was an investment, and one that has paid off many times over. These RIAA guys are just doing the same trick. Delay to keep the gravy train going.

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Re:It is - read this by Sj0 · 2009-01-17 09:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

That was pretty interesting to read. It also made me realise why Ron Paul got kicked down so hard. He doesn't want the federal government controlling things, he wants to throw it to the states and communities. That basically fucks over all the lobbyists.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by curmudgn · 2009-01-17 07:52 · Score: 1

While your first two statements are correct, the third is not. Under Fed R App P 8, a motion for stay pending appeal is directed in the first instance to the district court.

Re:"They don't know enough" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hi Ray. Do you think they're hoping that if they compile enough consecutive legal errors, then 13 wrongs will add up to a right and then they're hoping they'll win?

:)

No I think the lawyers are still in control and still trying to do anything they can think of that they can bill for.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Why fight tooth and nail? by d_jedi · 2009-01-17 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Probably because it's in the best interests of their clients. Yes, public education is a stated goal of their campaign.. and these videos may have a benefit to that. But not by much - as these legal proceedings in and of themselves do not make for particularly compelling watching.

On the other hand, these videos would also assist defence lawyers arguing against the RIAA. There's also the potential for a 30-second sound byte of an RIAA spokesperson saying something stupid appearing on the 6 o'clock news. And the potential to pull short clips out of context (a la negative political ads).

On the whole, I think it's understandable but disappointing for the RIAA to be opposing this.

--
I am the maverick of Slashdot

Re:Why fight tooth and nail? by Sj0 · 2009-01-17 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd like to dispute that. Court proceedings can be very interesting. I've spent hours reviewing supreme court cases, and often even though the issues aren't ones I care about, the cases are interesting, because they give insights into the legal system.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 08:11 · Score: 1

While your first two statements are correct, the third is not. Under Fed R App P 8, a motion for stay pending appeal is directed in the first instance to the district court.

You're absolutely right. Were there an appeal, a motion for a stay could have been properly addressed to the district court.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:6 mod points wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 08:33 · Score: 0

well said. im sick of kiddies on here kissing ray dickheads ass because it makes them feel ok about stealing.
Fuck these ignorant hippies.
he isn't a real lawyer anyway, just a guy that runs an adsense site and spams links to it here.

new acronym by ca111a · 2009-01-17 08:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

IAJACL = I'm just a country lawyer

Re:Now it's 7 by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 08:40 · Score: 1

Even your own dog hates you.

Okay, now there you went too far.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:6 mod points wasted by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-17 08:41 · Score: 1

well said. im sick of kiddies on here kissing ray dickheads ass because it makes them feel ok about stealing. Fuck these ignorant hippies. he isn't a real lawyer anyway, just a guy that runs an adsense site and spams links to it here.

Damn! I guess Ripley was right ... IQs DID drop sharply she was away. That, or ignorance really is bliss.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

I agree by commodoresloat · 2009-01-17 08:53 · Score: 1

Bunch of fuckin Nazis.

Re:Um, great by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 09:02 · Score: 0

Bzzzz!

timezones by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 09:11 · Score: 1, Informative

it will be televised on the 22, 14.00 ( Massachusetts time )
This is the list for the other timezones for those of you who want to see it :P

Re:The Impossible! by TechForensics · 2009-01-17 09:20 · Score: 1

Because, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the United States Code, it's not an appealable order.

Indeed, is this not the classic interlocutory appeal which is generally prohibited?

Further, is it not your experience when counsel make such an incompetent mishmash of their pleadings and procedure most courts cannot help let it color the charity with which the pleadings are regarded?

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Re:Now it's 7 by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-01-17 09:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Take a look at his comment history. Almost all of his 400+ posts read like mine above. Heh, I'm actually getting chuckles out of that rager's posts. Unfortunately, NYCL was troll'd.

Trolls harassing NYCL by troll8901 · 2009-01-17 09:42 · Score: 1

... Almost all of his 400+ posts read like mine above. ... Unfortunately, NYCL was troll'd.

Could this "GuloGulo (959533)" person be appointed here to harass NYCL (where he least expects it - in Slashdot) as well as to give other people (important new readers) a bad impression of Slashdot (so that they'll stay away)?

Or should I be following the Hanlon's Razor principle?

I assume you can read all 400 of his posts, due to being a subscriber, you get a "More Comments" button?

Re:Trolls harassing NYCL by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 10:10 · Score: 1

Could this "GuloGulo (959533)" person be appointed here to harass NYCL
If he were one of the pros, he would probably would have posted as an AC.

(where he least expects it - in Slashdot)
You've got to be kidding, I get harangued plenty here.

as well as to give other people (important new readers) a bad impression of Slashdot (so that they'll stay away)?
I'm not worried about Slashdot; it seems to be doing fine.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:Trolls harassing NYCL by Sj0 · 2009-01-17 11:16 · Score: 1

Hey, you get your fill of praise, I'm sure, but good work out there so I'm going to add to it.
There are so many forces in the world that just want to break the legal system, to turn it into force of corporate totalitarian control by fiat. "We gave you a big thick sheet of paper, now we own you", or "We don't like you so you disappear".
The little guy doesn't have money, but we've got a soul, something a corporation will never have no matter how heavily "corporate personhood" is legislated. Thanks for standing up for him.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Stating the Obvious by fishbowl · 2009-01-17 09:51 · Score: 1

Or worse, the public, not as uneducated as we are led to believe, may be allowed to see the prosecution in a copyright case being ignorant of copyright law.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Me troll by troll8901 · 2009-01-17 10:07 · Score: 1

Hey, *I'm* supposed to be the troll around here!

Egads! There's an angry mob outside with pitchforks, accusing me of breaking some "DNFTT" rule. I better run!

Re:Now it's 7 by Shakrai · 2009-01-17 10:08 · Score: 2, Funny

NYCL gets all the pussy while you're stuck beating your shrivelled, uncircumsized needledick on weekends

What's wrong with being uncircumcised? ;)

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so bad? by MarkvW · 2009-01-17 10:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

As NYCL points out, you cannot appeal NONFINAL rulings of the trial court. Otherwise, people would be appealing EVERYTHING that happens in the trial courts, and the trial process would turn into an endless Dickensian jumble. A person has to wait until everything is over in the trial court before he or she can appeal. The RIAA didn't do that, so this "appeal" is doomed.

Right now, the RIAA's lawyers are looking stupid (even to themselves) and may be worried that their clients will be pissed at them for making such a silly procedural blunder. They'll seek to convert their appeal into an attempt at interlocutory review. The problem with interlocutory review is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get (for the same reasons stated in the first paragraph). Very generally speaking, a person can only get interlocutory review if they can demonstrate that the trial court's decision was soooo bad that its consequence would screw up everything afterward. The appeals courts will bend over backward to uphold the trial court's use of its discretion. A motion for interlocutory review is a really bad in this case because it has virtually no chance of success.

This presents the really interesting question: Why is the RIAA acting so stupid? This appeal is a loser motion that will cost real money (and maybe elicit monetary sanctions) and will hurt the music company's public relations. Are the lawyers (not the client) making the decisions here? Is the client asleep at the wheel? Is the lawyer keeping the client in the loop so that the client can make informed decisions? Is the decisionmaker-client not any one person? Who is making the calls for the music company here?

Often rich ligitants seek to financially exhaust poor litigants by making tons of motions. That strategy doesn't make sense in this case, because Nesson's team is like the Borg. They'll eat that stuff up.

Generally, the strategic decisions are made by the clients and the tactical decisions are made by the lawyers. Maybe the lawyers reckoned that this is a tactical call that the lawyers get to make . . .

This is a high-order blunder by the RIAA. I'm just wondering why . . . .

The RIAA is, among other things, a joint venture formed by a bunch of music companies. The mandate of the RIAA, insofar as it is clearly expressed or understood, must be the product of negotiation and compromise and inertia.

Re:Um, great by Sj0 · 2009-01-17 10:52 · Score: 1

I can file marriage papers to marry that cute press secratary of Bushs, it doesn't mean I've married her. It's impossible to marry her, because she's already married, and also because she doesn't know me and didn't consent to it.

--
It's been a long time.

record this stream! by azenpunk · 2009-01-17 11:01 · Score: 1

so does anyone know if this stream can be recorded on a linux box and what software to use? wasn't there another article stating silverlight would be used?

the proceedings are public and cannot be copyrighted since it would be 'sweat of the brow' so lets record it and put it on thepiratebay.

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 11:40 · Score: 3, Informative

As NYCL points out, you cannot appeal NONFINAL rulings of the trial court. Otherwise, people would be appealing EVERYTHING that happens in the trial courts, and the trial process would turn into an endless Dickensian jumble. A person has to wait until everything is over in the trial court before he or she can appeal. The RIAA didn't do that, so this "appeal" is doomed. Right now, the RIAA's lawyers are looking stupid (even to themselves) and may be worried that their clients will be pissed at them for making such a silly procedural blunder. They'll seek to convert their appeal into an attempt at interlocutory review. The problem with interlocutory review is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get (for the same reasons stated in the first paragraph). Very generally speaking, a person can only get interlocutory review if they can demonstrate that the trial court's decision was soooo bad that its consequence would screw up everything afterward. The appeals courts will bend over backward to uphold the trial court's use of its discretion. A motion for interlocutory review is a really bad in this case because it has virtually no chance of success. This presents the really interesting question: Why is the RIAA acting so stupid? This appeal is a loser motion that will cost real money (and maybe elicit monetary sanctions) and will hurt the music company's public relations. Are the lawyers (not the client) making the decisions here? Is the client asleep at the wheel? Is the lawyer keeping the client in the loop so that the client can make informed decisions? Is the decisionmaker-client not any one person? Who is making the calls for the music company here? Often rich ligitants seek to financially exhaust poor litigants by making tons of motions. That strategy doesn't make sense in this case, because Nesson's team is like the Borg. They'll eat that stuff up. Generally, the strategic decisions are made by the clients and the tactical decisions are made by the lawyers. Maybe the lawyers reckoned that this is a tactical call that the lawyers get to make . . . This is a high-order blunder by the RIAA. I'm just wondering why . . . . The RIAA is, among other things, a joint venture formed by a bunch of music companies. The mandate of the RIAA, insofar as it is clearly expressed or understood, must be the product of negotiation and compromise and inertia.

What they've done is abandon the "appeal" and file a writ of "mandamus or prohibition". (I.e. they couldn't make up their mind whether it was a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition, so they say "or". PS It looks to me like an application for a writ of prohibition.)

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Appealing an Order by debrain · 2009-01-17 11:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

The text of the appeal is:

===
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. et al., )
Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No. 03-cv-11661-NG
) (LEAD DOCKET NUMBER)
v. )
)
NOOR ALAUJAN, )
Defendant. )
)
)
SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT )
et al., Plaintiffs, ) Civ. Act. No 07-cv-11446-NG
) (ORIGINAL DOCKET NUMBER)
v. )
)
JOEL TENENBAUM, )
)
Defendants. )
)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Plaintiffs, Sony BMG Music Entertainment; Warner Brothers Records, Inc.; Atlantic
Recording Corporation; Arista Records, LLC; and UMG Recordings, Inc., hereby give notice of
their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the Order dated
January 14, 2009, authorizing the broadcasting of certain proceedings in this case over the
internet.
===

This text they've submitted isn't especially informative. It contains no grounds for the appeal, no citations of rules or statutes, and no factual background. I would charactise this want of information in a pleading to a circuit Court as "uncommon".

To answer the questions as to "can they appeal an Order", one must reach into the bowels of civil procedure for Massachusetts, and the statutes governing the relationship between the Mass. court of the Order and the Circuit Court. I don't know these laws, but the general principle is that one may appeal (i.e. a request for review of, with a view to altering, the decision of a lower Court) only determinitive decisions-- i.e. those that end the case. The reason being that interlocutory (i.e. pre-emptive) appeals lead to all sorts of procedural nonsense, most heinously gross delay and ultimately undermining the exclusivity of the Court of first instance (i.e. where the proceeding was started) to make determinations in an expedient, coherent and effective manner. It also has a psychological and financial effect on non-institutional parties (i.e. humans), who are subject to litigation fatigue and often have limited legal resources that are, I would argue, most effectively used in a single concentrated hearing of the issues.

The rare exceptions to the rule against interlocutory appeals would tend to be based on some sort of gross unfairness. For example, you may be able to appeal an Order that is effectively determinative, even if it is not procedurally determinative (i.e. where time is of the essence, and the lower-Court's Order will render moot any ultimate decision). For example, if a Judge orders that sugar remain on a ship, but leaving the meat on the ship will cause it to spoil, an appeal Court may issue an Order to have the sugar stored someplace that will preserve it. The other case that comes to mind is the patent unfairness of bias, such as a biased Judge making non-determinative decisions that nevertheless effect prejudice.

This latter point (patent unfairness--not bias) would have application and merit, if the RIAA were able to show that a public viewing of this proceeding would give rise to prejudice or, alternatively, that it would cause incidental harm. I doubt the RIAA has the legal wits to bring up that argument, and even if they did it'd be difficult to reach the standard for showing (a) the Judge's Order was improper and (b) the harm to the RIAA is outweighted by the benefit to the public. An appeal Court does not generally have plenary jurisdiction, but only has a certain scope to review and change an Order of the Court of first instance. Changing a Judge's Order requires overcoming the presumption that the Judge was incorrect, with respect to either in a factual or legal conclusion. Again, without seeing the reasons of the RIAA, we can only speculate as to the basis for their appeal. They'd almost certainly need a gag order already in effect to get the circuit Court to reverse the Judge's Order to broadcast the proceeding.

I suspect, based on what I've read here, that the RIAA is using this "appeal" as a fishing trip to delay the proceedings, and to punish the defendant with legal costs

Re:Appealing an Order by jwilcox2009 · 2009-01-17 15:10 · Score: 3, Informative

That is not the text of the appeal. That is the notice of appeal that they are required to file with the district court before their appeal can be docketed in the First Circuit. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, 12. It has no argument because you do not present your argument when filing your notice of appeal; you file it later with your brief on the merits according to the schedule set by the First Circuit.
Re:Appealing an Order by debrain · 2009-01-17 18:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thank you for clarifying. I suspected that some sort of brief with reasons would have to be filed by the RIAA. My post was misleading in implying that this notice would be the only filing by the RIAA for this appeal. I wouldn't expect that the RIAA's counsel to appear (or, nowadays, be able to appear) before the circuit Court without filing written submissions.

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by rozthepimp · 2009-01-17 12:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Sounds like you are looking for an explanation from Matt "The Dentist" Oppenheim, who directs the HRO team and local counsel. Based on his demeanor in the Joel Tenenbaum deposition in this case, he appears to have gone from just plain nasty to borderline obsessive.

My Prediction (Sure To Go Wrong) by sk999 · 2009-01-17 14:10 · Score: 2, Informative

If the "writ of mandamus or prohibition" ever gets decided on the merits, it will be denied. The RIAA tries to read Rule 83.3 (the rule that governs recordings and broadcasts of a case) in a way to which it is not susceptible. Specifically, ...

83.3(a) reads, "Except as specifically provided in these rules OR by order of the court ..."

Rule 83.3(c) reads, "The court may permit ..." followed by a list of certain types of proceedings.

The RIAA wants 83.3(c) to apply as a limitation to 83.3(a) "... by order of the court .." However, 83.3(c) is a rule, and as such it applies to 83.3(a) "specifically provided in these rules". For example, this rule permits a court to allow a recording of proceedings without the need to resort to an order.

Sorry folks, I have read too many SCO v. The World Court filings. The RIAA thinks just like SCO. Oh yes, SCO is now in bankruptcy.

Here is the Court filing:
http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090117PetitionWritProhibitionMandamus.pdf

Re:My Prediction (Sure To Go Wrong) by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 14:32 · Score: 2, Funny

If the "writ of mandamus or prohibition" ever gets decided on the merits, it will be denied. The RIAA tries to read Rule 83.3 (the rule that governs recordings and broadcasts of a case) in a way to which it is not susceptible. Specifically, ... 83.3(a) reads, "Except as specifically provided in these rules OR by order of the court ..." Rule 83.3(c) reads, "The court may permit ..." followed by a list of certain types of proceedings. The RIAA wants 83.3(c) to apply as a limitation to 83.3(a) "... by order of the court .." However, 83.3(c) is a rule, and as such it applies to 83.3(a) "specifically provided in these rules". For example, this rule permits a court to allow a recording of proceedings without the need to resort to an order. Sorry folks, I have read too many SCO v. The World Court filings. The RIAA thinks just like SCO. Oh yes, SCO is now in bankruptcy. Here is the Court filing: http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090117PetitionWritProhibitionMandamus.pdf

Actually reading the rule? What a radical concept. How come no one told the RIAA lawyers about that?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Re:My Prediction (Sure To Go Wrong) by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 18:04 · Score: 1

They maybe got too used to being able to ignore the rules. Hybris comes back at you eventually.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 14:36 · Score: 2, Funny

Sounds like you are looking for an explanation from Matt "The Dentist" Oppenheim, who directs the HRO team and local counsel. Based on his demeanor in the Joel Tenenbaum deposition in this case, he appears to have gone from just plain nasty to borderline obsessive.

1. Are the two concepts mutually exclusive?

2. Why borderline?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:The Impossible! by jwilcox2009 · 2009-01-17 15:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

What about the collateral order doctrine? See Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, et al., 490 U.S. 495, 498 (1989). Granted, I think it will fail to meet the second prong of the test (the issue is too important to be denied review), but it is worth a shot if you really do not want this hearing broadcast.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by jwilcox2009 · 2009-01-17 15:24 · Score: 1

I think you are wrong about (c). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) says the initial motion for a stay has to be directed to the District Court. A motion for stay in the appellate court is only proper if it (1) shows moving first in the district court would be impracticable or (2) state that the District Court denied the stay and the District Court's reasons for denying the stay.

I have already posted about (a) and (b) elsewhere and why I think you are wrong as at least trying to get the First Circuit to assert jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine is a legitimate move and requires filing a notice of appeal in the district court; although I am confidant the First Circuit will not find that it has jurisdiction because the importance prong of the collateral order doctrine test has not been satisfied.

Re:"They don't know enough" by Gorshkov · 2009-01-17 16:01 · Score: 1

No I think the lawyers are still in control and still trying to do anything they can think of that they can bill for.

Wow - now, that was an interesting statement. But would you mind clarifying? Do you mean a) the lawyers are controlling the RIAA, b) this case, or c) the record companies, d) all of the above?

The implication is that this whole RIAA thing is nothing more a bunch of sharks jacking a client who doesn't know any better, and milking them like a moo-cow

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by jwilcox2009 · 2009-01-17 16:08 · Score: 1

I don't want to be a jerk, either, but I want to make a couple more points now that I have looked at the RIAA brief.

First, the proper writ is mandamus, not prohibition. See, e.g., Haas v. Kent, 803 F.2d 744, 744 (1st Cir 1986). Prohibition is about jurisdiction. I think they labeled it "petition for mandamus or prohibition" because under 1st Cir precedent the two writs are treated as interchangeable; throughout the body of their brief they ask for mandamus only.

Second, they have not abandoned their appeal. They are employing a two-track strategy. Track one is to seek an appeal and hope the district court order will be stayed while that appeal is considered. Track two is to seek an extraordinary writ to make sure this pops up on the 1st Cir's radar before Jan 22 (eight days is not a lot of time to even get an appeal docketed). In their brief, they ask for the writ or in the alternative expedited consideration of their appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

Re:"They don't know enough" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 16:08 · Score: 1

The implication is that this whole RIAA thing is nothing more a bunch of sharks jacking a client who doesn't know any better, and milking them like a moo-cow.

And?

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:"They don't know enough" by Gorshkov · 2009-01-17 16:11 · Score: 1

and I find the idea that the record companies don't know any better, given their long-term historical record for machinations, to be a bit incredulous.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 16:16 · Score: 1

I disagree with all of your contentions. They have not followed the procedures for an interlocutory appeal; their notice of appeal is a nullity. Their application is for a writ of prohibition. It should be denied because there is no basis for a writ of prohibition.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

Re:"They don't know enough" by NewYorkCountryLawyer · 2009-01-17 16:24 · Score: 1

I find the idea that the record companies don't know any better, given their long-term historical record for machinations, to be a bit incredulous.

Take a look at the respective balance sheets of (a) the record companies and (b) their law firms. Then think again.

I'm not saying the record company managers have not authorized the stupidity that's going on. On the contrary, I'm sure they have. But it's the easiest thing in the world for a greedy lawyer to exploit, to the lawyer's benefit and the client's detriment, a client's excess testosterone. Any litigation lawyer out there knows exactly what I'm talking about. The easiest way to separate a client like that from his, her, or its money is to encourage their aggressive tendencies. And the easiest way to get an aggressive client like that to seek another law firm, is to advise them to stand down. A real lawyer is one who has the courage to tell the client "enough". The RIAA doesn't have real lawyers.

--
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful

They are trying to get you to accept noise by crovira · 2009-01-17 17:50 · Score: 1

as a legitimate form of commerce.

And noise is all it is.

There is no conceivable reason for the **AAs to exist anymore in the age of the internet distribution of what they used to control.

We can now get around them from concept to ultimate delivery.

What gets to me and gives me a chuckle is that they are trying so hard to hang onto noise.

Do I really give a toss what Christina Aquilera recorded?

Am I willing to pay for it?

No, and they can't make me.

I, like a whole lot of people on this planet, don't have any money to waste on them.

I also have lots of other media to fill my life with.

Fuck the **AAs is not an argument of the rambunctious.

Its my cry to the police that these people are trying to rob me by forcing me to pay for something I never bought (and that is coercion and it is illegal.)

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

Just Let It Die... by flyneye · 2009-01-17 17:57 · Score: 1

This is the nervous twitching of an outdated business model dying.Legal coughing, viral torrents of diarrhea, delusions of entitlement and just a dose of reality is leading up to the death rattle of a parasitic industry.
Nothing to see here just let it die.
Music and entertainment are about to get a whole lot better.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 18:01 · Score: 1

And that's actually where I started to wonder: Do they not know that what they ask for is impossible due to the legal process? Or did they expect the judge not to know how the legal system works so it will slip? To me this simply looks like the RIAA lawyers don't even know what they're doing?

And I guess the judge would get pretty much the same impression, unlike me he (hopefully) DOES know exactly how the legal system works.

What purpose does a blunder like this serve? They didn't win time. They didn't win sympathy. They didn't intimidate or unsettle the opposition. All the accomplished was to piss off the judge, something that I somehow don't really consider a good thing.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:"They don't know enough" by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 18:10 · Score: 1

Why do you think legal works any different than IT?

I'm fairly sure some pointy-haired manager said "I want this to be, make it possible!", without giving them any details of how to achive this goal, simply because he doesn't know.

The only difference seems to be that legal actually gets the money to burn to achive such a goal, and that they want to fill their pockets instead of trying to buy as many nifty (but basically useless) tech gadgets.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:6 mod points wasted by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 18:14 · Score: 1

You're a teacher, right? And I guess you're one of those that answer a question like "can I go to the bathroom?" with a snide "you may, if you can".

Everyone here understood what he meant. That's all that counts.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:"They don't know enough" by Gorshkov · 2009-01-17 18:17 · Score: 1

because legal (apparently) can be a profit center, and IT has never been considered to be anything other than a cost center.

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by magus_melchior · 2009-01-17 18:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is the RIAA acting so stupid? This appeal is a loser motion that will cost real money (and maybe elicit monetary sanctions) and will hurt the music company's public relations.

It's useful to consider all of the RIAA's movements. They are trying to negotiate deals with ISPs where the ISPs police us and monitor copyrighted or non-sanctioned use of bandwidth. They are trying to get the federal government to bring lawsuits against downloaders for them on the taxpayer's dime.

This move, while costly in terms of money, will buy them time to finalize these deals. In a way, that means their political and philosophical opponents are winning, because they are realizing that artists are finding out that they don't need the big record labels to record, produce, and distribute music-- the entire core of the RIAA's business. Best to muddy the waters of downloaded music so that Apple/Amazon/etc. users are nailed for infringement they didn't commit, and thus kill off downloading as a legitimate means of obtaining music. They've already poisoned the minds of a bunch of judges to seriously threaten Internet radio; I have no doubt that they'll do the same to even more politicians and ISP execs.

In other words, they still haven't learned anything from the emergence of Internet commerce, and they will defend their (stolen) right to control the entire production chain of music to the bitter end.

--
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."

Re:"They don't know enough" by Opportunist · 2009-01-17 22:14 · Score: 1

When you run legal as a profit center, essentially you're a leech to the economy and should be eliminated for the general good. If the only thing that keeps you afloat is suing other companies who actually produce and contribute to the national gross product, then probably you're hurting the economy and it's time for a government to step in and step on you.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

FUCK YOU RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-18 03:42 · Score: 0

you babies.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... by jwilcox2009 · 2009-01-18 08:07 · Score: 1

They are not arguing for an interlocutory appeal. They are arguing for an appeal under the collateral order doctrine (in addition to their writ). which according to Supreme Court precedent is an appeal under 1291 (final decisions of district courts), not 1292 (interlocutory appeals). See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 US 706, 1718-19:

"[W]e must determine whether that review may be obtained by appeal under 1291. The general rule is that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated . . . We have also recognized, however, a narrow class of collateral orders which do not meet this definition of finality, but which are nevertheless immediately appealable under 1291 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

You are also wrong about what type of writ it is according to First Circuit precedents (such as the one I cited in my prior post), but it ultimately does not matter as First Circuit precedent also treats the two as interchangeable because it is so difficult to get the proper label on extraordinary writs.

fix it for yer by samjam · 2009-01-18 20:36 · Score: 1

The RIAA is, among other things, a joint venture formed by a bunch of FORMER music companies

--
blog.sam.liddicott.com

Re:Any ideas WHY the RIAA's decisionmaking is so b by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-19 04:56 · Score: 0

Perhaps they are setting the grounds to the failure. By making their lawyers do stupid things from the beginning, they can "diminish" the inevitable fact that they will lose. Then is a question of blaming bad lawyers or something like that... Can the RIAA change the law firm after this trial begins? Then the blame is shifted from the RIAA to the "bad, evil and greedy" lawyers that misrepresented their clients...
I wonder how much they are being paid to blunder...

Slashdot Mirror

RIAA Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

209 comments