RIAA Threatens Harvard Law Prof With Sanctions

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Unhappy with Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson's motion to compel the deposition of the RIAA's head 'Enforcer', Matthew J. Oppenheim, in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA threatened the good professor with sanctions (PDF) if he declined to withdraw his motion. Then the next day they filed papers opposing the motion, and indeed asked the Court to award monetary sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Comments

Who is this guy, & why does he not want to spe

[Bearhouse]

From the first link: 'Mr. Oppenheim is the person who has been identified by the RIAA lawyers sometimes as the "client", sometimes as the "industry representative", and sometimes as the "client representative", and on at least one occasion as "the only person who had settlement authority" for the RIAA members. He claims to be associated with an entity called "The Oppenheim Group", and has acted as attorney of record for the record companies in several proceedings in Washington, D.C.'

So, if he represents the interests of the artists, (ahem), why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?

Grasping at straws

[tanmanX]

Someone either sounds nervous, or a poor loser.

Re:Grasping at straws

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Someone either sounds nervous, or a poor loser.

Or both.

You don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the law. It's about money! Stop interfering with our money-making!

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

going one step up, er... down, money is about control.

That explains why RIAA heads seem not to care if their actions get them hated or boycotted. Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced. Is it a primary objective or just a way to terrorize people and prevent them for doing other things, like, you know, looking at what other powerful people do to society, dunno.

Those who collected enough power to be able to influence how much money is printed have no interest in having more or less money. They want money to have maximum control over as much people as possible. This effort shaped the history of the latest centuries, somebody call it conspiracy, i call it a natural outcome of control freaks interacting with other people.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Just Some Guy]

Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced.

Umm, I'm all for certain types of IP being enforced (Copyright: good. Trademark: good. Software patents: terrible). You can be OK with copyright and still find their actions despicable.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[pdabbadabba]

I hate to side with the RIAA but, if the allegations in their motion are true (and you'd think they would be; they are simply claims about the proceedings themselves that the judge can easily verify) then the issue is simply that Nesson has repeatedly failed to follow the court's rules governing discovery. He has not subpoenaed the witness or given notice of taking a deposition before moving to compel it. He has not conferred with the plaintiffs regarding the motion before filing it. He has not filed the required initial disclosures. All of these, under either the Federal Rules of Civil procedure or the local rules of the court are grounds for the dismissal of Nesson's motion and, possibly, monetary sanctions.

This sounds to me like a solitary instance of the RIAA's being in the right in court. Sorry everyone!

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[mcgrew]

Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced.

Your sentence makes no sense. Do you mean "Their battle is making people accept copyright law being enforced?

The labels don't own the song, they hold copyright to the song. A thing is only owned if ownership is forever, and copyright is not. Copyright eventually runs out (in a couple of human lifetimes) and reverts to the public domain.

The idea of "intellectual property" is unconstitutional and unAmerican. Please stop using the term.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

if the allegations in their motion are true

You must be new here.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Dragonslicer]

Copyright eventually runs out

You must be old here.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Sloppy]

Their battle is making people accept Intellectual Property being enforced.

If only. That's what their battle should have been. When they got super-sloppy with their investigative techniques and started suing innocent people, the battle changed. Nobody needs berserkers who don't even know who their enemies are. I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer. Nobody would give a damn about RIAA and we would have moved on to fighting the much more evil and freedom-threatening MPAA.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[mcgrew]

You would have to be VERY old to have something produced in your lifetime to enter the public domain, but constitutionally the work is owned by nobody; that Jimi hendrix tune that should have gone into the public domain over ten years ago will reach that status sometime in (I'm guessing here) the 23rd century.

And yes, I am old here, I was a beta tester for dirt. They never did get all the bugs out.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer.

May well be so. I only came into the fight because of my hatred of bullies, and because these bullies were so obviously wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, and immoral and unprofessional in their behavior.

You might have otherwise heard of my alter ego, Ray what's-his-name, in other contexts, but probably not in this context.

I only first discovered Slashdot when one of my litigation documents in Elektra v. Santangelo got 'Slashdotted' one day in the Summer of 2005. I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers. It looked like an ordinary message board, but it obviously was a whole 'nother thing.

Things haven't been quite the same since.

1. Spend a lot of time on Slashdot.
2. Get the word out.
3. Have a lot of fun.
4. ???
5. No profit whatsoever (in the financial sense).

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Sloppy]

BTW, I didn't mean to belittle you in any way; I hope you didn't take it that way. I'm grateful that somebody who knows how to fight, is fighting on the people's side.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[jamstar7]

And yes, I am old here, I was a beta tester for dirt. They never did get all the bugs out.

Hell, I was there when they invented dirt. We thought it was a great idea at the time.

Too bad I didn't copyright/patent it...

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

They never did get all the bugs out.

It's a feature!

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[mcgrew]

Too bad I didn't copyright/patent it...

Both the copyright and patent have run out, dirt is now in the public domain. As is pottery, did you know that the plate you eat dinner on and the cup you drink coffe from are made of dirt?

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[orclevegam]

I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers.

We, generally speaking, are only smarter than your average lawyer as pertains to computers, the internet, technology, or other generally geeky/nerdy topic. I'm sure your average lawyer would thoroughly trounce us on other less geek-centric topics. Of course, your presence here, as well as the exposure to the legal world we've all received on account of groklaw and the SCO debacle has contributed greatly to the general improvement of all of our legal knowledge.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

--prevent them for doing other things, like, you know, looking at what other powerful people do to society, dunno.

So you're saying the RIAA is a government pawn to divert attention from Guantanamo, warrantless wiretaps and Iraq? Interesting.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

We, generally speaking, are only smarter than your average lawyer as pertains to computers, the internet, technology, or other generally geeky/nerdy topic. I'm sure your average lawyer would thoroughly trounce us on other less geek-centric topics.

Well, we're going off topic here, but I will tell you that in my experience:
-in the world of science and math one will occasionally come upon a genius
-in the legal world, in 34 years of encountering thousands of lawyers, I have met many reasonably intelligent people, but only 1 genius.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers.

Really? I don't see much intelligent discussion going on about the facts. What I see is a bunch of groupthink and emotional hatred against the RIAA, where screechy arguments rule the day. So what passes for +5 around Slashdot?

by HungryHobo (1314109) "Stop this (perfectly legal thing) or our teams of lawyers will fuck up your life" seems to be the new iteration of having thugs beat up a family member or sending pictures of your kids playing outside.

Is putting copyrighted music on a peer-to-peer network perfectly legal? What should the RIAA do instead, if not sue for damages? Are they wrong to sue for damages when they are trying to enforce their rights under the law?

The fact is the RIAA may be a bunch of cruel bastards, but at the end of the day they are just protecting their copyright. Early on Metallica was demonized in the Napster days, and as I recall they weren't even going after users, just Napster. Really this is just about people that want to share music online for free.

Spend a lot of time on Slashdot.

Preach to the choir. Enjoy the backslapping. Call everybody else trolls and mod them down to oblivion.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[UnknownSoldier]

> The idea of "intellectual property" is unconstitutional and unAmerican. Please stop using the term.

That's why I prefer the term "Imaginary Property", because "Intellectual Property Rights" are neither "Property" nor "Rights", but all this has been hashed before

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[ignavus]

I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer.

Well, I still would have.

There. Fixed your reply for you, NYCL.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[tebee]

Well I'm really glad to hear that NYCL gets as much fun out of slashdot as we get reading his posts on here.

One thing this whole saga has highlighted to me is the power of the web in bringing (great?) minds together in a common cause.

I don't think any of the interested parties - apart from the RIAA - would be as well informed and knowledge without the free sharing of ideas that has happened here, which somehow seems ironic.

Lets hope that the payback we get for all the hours we have jointly "wasted" here is to make the world a sightly better place.

T.B.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[jamstar7]

Yup.

I also know what goes into hot dogs. Still eat 'em.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[ScrewMaster]

i call it a natural outcome of control freaks interacting with other people.

Sociopaths masquerading as normal people, you mean.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[ScrewMaster]

The fact is the RIAA may be a bunch of cruel bastards, but at the end of the day they are just protecting their copyright.

Shows how little you know. The RIAA doesn't hold copyright: the media companies that fund the RIAA's activities do. And they're the ones who are morally (if not legally) responsible for the RIAA's reprehensible tactics. The Recording Industry Association of America is a group of hired guns, no more. Don't try to make them into some kind of unsung heroes ... because they're not.

Seriously, why don't you study this issue for a while, examine some of what the RIAA has done to "protect the bloody artists", check out the damage done to our legal system. Then come back and tell me that they're "just protecting their copyright." The reality is very different: they're screwing us ALL over, bigtime, in order to protect their masters revenue streams. And they're doing it by any means necessary, legal or otherwise.

Honestly, if you're a troll you're a fairly subtle one. Look, if the RIAA had stuck to suing people that had provably committed copyright infringement, using accepted and legal methods of investigation and had only asked for reasonable damages, nobody here would bother discussing the matter. Ray Beckerman would likely be spending his time on more productive work, not defending people who cannot be shown to have committed infringement yet are being destroyed anyway. But, that's not what the RIAA is all about, their activities are not legitimate, and that's a fact.

Really, clue up.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

Shows how little you know. The RIAA doesn't hold copyright: the media companies that fund the RIAA's activities do.

I was aware of it, and I was even aware of it as I was writing my post, but the RIAA is the face of these lawsuits, and are acting on behalf of the copyright holders. It's not a very interesting point to pick out of my post.

Don't try to make them into some kind of unsung heroes ... because they're not.

Who said I was? The copyright holders, or the RIAA as their proxy, yes they are bastards and I said as much.

Seriously, why don't you study this issue for a while, examine some of what the RIAA has done to "protect the bloody artists", check out the damage done to our legal system.

Why don't I just read the +5 Slashdot posts like the one I quoted in my comment? Where it is claimed perfectly legal things are going on, and people are being attacked by thugs for it?

The reality is very different: they're screwing us ALL over, bigtime, in order to protect their masters revenue streams.

The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?

Honestly, if you're a troll you're a fairly subtle one.

This is the Slashdot mentality that I was referring to. If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.

Look, if the RIAA had stuck to suing people that had provably committed copyright infringement, using accepted and legal methods of investigation and had only asked for reasonable damages, nobody here would bother discussing the matter.

Like when Metallica was demonized for going after Napster? And how do you "provably" go after people that committed copyright infrigement? As far as I know, they went with IP logs and files that were available on the net. What else can they do?

As for "reasonable" damages, what is reasonable when one person can distribute to 1,000s of others? I don't think these issues are black and white, and that's why they are in the courts.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.

You may not be "rabid and foaming at the mouth" but your quiet, temperate expression of your point of view nevertheless fails to stand up to scrutiny. For example you say,

The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?

1. You're engaging in the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy. "If they sued someone, they must have a good reason for it." Well that's bunk. (a) Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing. (b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.

2. You're assuming that there's "meat" in the RIAA cases, when there is not.

3. You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.

4. You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.

5. You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.

6. You're assuming that damages should be awarded based on distribution when there is no EVIDENCE of distribution.

Your arguments are as illogical as those the RIAA lawyers advance, and are similar or identical to those the RIAA lawyers advance.

Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments. When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.

Your means of expression may be quiet, but the lack of logic in your statements strikes a jarring note.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well I'm really glad to hear that NYCL gets as much fun out of slashdot as we get reading his posts on here. One thing this whole saga has highlighted to me is the power of the web in bringing (great?) minds together in a common cause. I don't think any of the interested parties - apart from the RIAA - would be as well informed and knowledge without the free sharing of ideas that has happened here, which somehow seems ironic. Lets hope that the payback we get for all the hours we have jointly "wasted" here is to make the world a sightly better place. T.B.

I try not to think about such larger issues as whether we will or will not succeed in making the world a slightly better place, because there are too many variables over which I have no control. History will do what it will; I just want to be on the right side of it. Win, lose, or draw, I just want to have done the right thing.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no mod-points today. Can someone please mod the parent post up? I found it well worth reading, personally, and I think it's actually both insightful and informative, so take your pick if your assessment is similar.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing.

How did you arrive at this estimate?

(b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.

I assume this is the "making available" argument. Wasn't this something to be determined by the courts?

You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.

What kind of examples are you talking about? For example, I don't assume file sharing of freely licensed material is infringement.

You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.

Well, let's see. After Napster was shut down, and places like iTunes went up, I think it's a reasonable position that there needed to be some crackdown on filesharers. There was a climate of "everybody is doing it" and "no consequences".

You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.

It's hard for me to say what's appropriate. Peer-to-peer networks essentially turn ordinary users into massive distributors. The damages, as I understand, were based on the same formulas that would be used for some guy selling CDs out of a warehouse.

Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments.

On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents. The vast majority of comments are mob mentality hatred of the RIAA, not "Talmudic" arguments. Their main driving force is the desire to illegally file share without consequences.

When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.

Indeed. That's exactly what ends up missing from these discussions.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents.

As the person who actually hosts the litigation documents, and can read the backlinks, I can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. While it is true that visitors from Fark or Reddit or Digg are more likely than not to skip reading the litigation documents, a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.

And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.

But the vast majority of the comments don't reflect that at all. It's simply RIAA bashing. I would hope, as a lawyer with a desire for "Talmudic" discussion, you'd recognize that for what it was. If this was law school and you were looking for somebody to take the other side, do you think the comments here are worthy?

And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.

Hmm, interesting. I responded to everything you put to me. Yet you threw out a stat that over 50% of the people being sued are innocent, and ignored a request for your evidence.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I responded to everything you put to me.

Yes you responded with nothing but conclusions and opinions and argument, but with zero facts or legal authority.

Do you work for the RIAA's law firm?

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

Yes you responded with nothing but conclusions and opinions and argument, but with zero facts or legal authority.

I am not a lawyer nor arguing in a court of law. I gave honest and meaningful answers, at the level you'd typically find from meaningful posts on Slashdot that don't involve file sharing. I gave an example of the typical +5 emotional rants I was sick of reading in these stories. I cited the example of the demonizing of Metallica for suing Napster, to show this issue isn't just about evil lawsuits against users. I pointed out that what you take as evidence of bad faith lawsuits, such as "making available", are issues in the courts.

You have still haven't backed up your statement: "My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing." That's quite a damning statement. Why won't you defend it? I'd expect you'd have your analysis written up on your blog so that you can link to it.

Do you work for the RIAA's law firm?

More of that Talmudic discussion you claim to be looking for.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I gave honest and meaningful answers

I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself. In my opinion your answers were dishonest and meaningless, and were not in fact answers at all.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

It's been a pleasure having this Talmudic discussion with you.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[mcgrew]

I agree, I too use the term "imaginary property". If it sin't tangible it isn't property.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Areyoukiddingme]

Snide little shit, aren't you.

I can't say if Ray's speculation is correct or not, but I can say as a disinterested bystander observing that tawdry little exchange that you definitely got the worst of it. You're a snide little shit and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out you're being paid by somebody who has RIAA interests, one way or another.

You didn't say anything at all except to baldly assert that the RIAA is perfectly justified in doing everything we know they're doing and guess what: nobody bought it. We do read the legal documents Ray posts, and make no mistake, we do understand them. I write software for a living. I studied software writing in college. I've been getting copyright lectures from lawyers and every other goddamn vested interest for 15 years. I know all I need to know about the subject and I have my very own opinion about it. It just so happens that a quarter million slashdot readers also have a similar opinion, and a great many of them acquired their opinion the very same way I did. We see through you, shill. Shut up.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[Raenex]

Thanks for adding your Talmudic remarks.

Re:You don't get it, do you?

[ScrewMaster]

Like when Metallica was demonized for going after Napster?

Metallica was quite rightly demonized for their petulant behavior. I mean, come on ... the group is lead by the bloody self-proclaimed Prince of Darkness, man.

modern version of sending pictures

[HungryHobo]

"Stop this (perfectly legal thing) or our teams of lawyers will fuck up your life" seems to be the new iteration of having thugs beat up a family member or sending pictures of your kids playing outside.
The intent is merely to scare people.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but doing it to a harvard law professor is a little bit... Simple

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Thanshin]

"Stop this (perfectly legal thing) or our teams of lawyers will fuck up your life" seems to be the new iteration of having thugs beat up a family member or sending pictures of your kids playing outside.

I may consider stopping the kids from playing outside if they sent me those pictures of the lawyers beaten up by the thugs.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[ubrgeek]

Never mind the lawyers, I hear there are bears out there!

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Hognoxious]

Does this constitute barratry? Whether you agree with the case or not, the defendant has a right to representation. The only way that can be atacked is by plaintiffs representative in court. That's what they're for. That's how the system is designed to work.

But any "off field" attempts to defeat the defence should be considered as contempt of court. What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[genner]

Never mind the lawyers, I hear there are bears out there!

Don't be silly there's no such thing as bears and lawyers.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[digitig]

If it saves one lawyer! Er, hold on...

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does this constitute barratry? Whether you agree with the case or not, the defendant has a right to representation. The only way that can be atacked is by plaintiffs representative in court. That's what they're for. That's how the system is designed to work.
But any "off field" attempts to defeat the defence should be considered as contempt of court. What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?"

IAAL. Sometimes, as in this situation procedurally, the provisions in the Federal Rules require you to make a request with opposing counsel before making a motion for sanctions with the court. I say procedurally because, based on what I know of the case, the substance of the motion makes it appear to be frivolous.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[geobeck]

Yes, but doing it to a harvard law professor is a little bit... Simple

It seems kind of like that scene in a movie where a group of young thugs start threatening a little old Asian guy in a saffron robe and a serene smile.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be thinking of Man-Bear-Pig. He's only half bear. ;)

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[cp.tar]

Always remember Rule One.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[IdleTime]

Have RIAA not learned a thing from the products their friends in MPAA pushes?

We all know that taking on people from Harvard Law is a futile activity, thanks to Legally Blond!

RIAA meet Elle Woods!

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[He who knows]

Slashing the tires wont work but cutting the brakes will.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's when I know it'll be safe for them to go play outside.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Anonymous Coward]

What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?

As a member of the RIAA I have to thank you for that idea. The idea is so simple, yet effective, I can't believe we didn't think of it.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[ScrewMaster]

What next, slashing his tires so he can't get to the court house?

Yes, and when you slash the RIAA lawyer's tires, make sure you paint a small round dot on the hood of his car.

Re:modern version of sending pictures

[Hognoxious]

You expect us to believe that YUAL and you don't know the difference between a request and a threat?

On second thoughts, I can see that being true.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[QuantumG]

He's a suit. 'nuff said.

Your Honor

[whisper_jeff]

Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.

Pathetic RIAA.

Re:Your Honor

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, the court can't impose sanctions under Rule 37 for fighting back.

Rule 37 says the court can impose sanction, basically, if someone refuses or fails to appear, respond, answer etc. when so ordered by the court:

(A) Motion; Grounds for Sanctions. The court where the action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if:

(i) a party or a party's officer, director, or managing agent â" or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4) â" fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for that person's deposition; or

(ii) a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.

(B) Certification. A motion for sanctions for failing to answer or respond must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to act in an effort to obtain the answer or response without court action.

Re:Your Honor

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.

Pathetic RIAA.

whisper_jeff, you really hit it on the head. I see you've already been modded to +5 Funny. I wish you could be modded to +10 Funny AND Accurate.

Re:Your Honor

[jonaskoelker]

(ii) a party, after being properly served with [...] a request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.

The court can inspect which of your activities are depicted in internet porn?

Re:Your Honor

[whoever57]

NYCL: The motion claims that the defendant did not follow the rules by, amongst other things, submitting a motion to compel without issuing a "valid subpoena" or conferring with the Plaintiffs, etc..

Can you comment on the accuracy of these assertions (are they correct about the rules and are they accurate about the facts?

Re:Your Honor

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In response to your question I know nothing about the underlying facts, however in my experience (a) one does not need to subpoena a person who is a "principal" of a corporate plaintiff, which Mr. Oppenheim has represented that he is, (b) there is nothing in the rules or caselaw to warrant the application for sanctions, and (c) I doubt that I have ever seen a set of papers from this law firm which has not contained intentional misstatements of fact. So I await with interest the papers which I imagine will be submitted by Prof. Nesson, which I am sure will state the facts correctly.

Re:Your Honor

[sabt-pestnu]

Ah, but what they HAVE done is require a reply, and a decision on the motion, all the while the motion to compel is stalled.

While it requires time on Prof. Nesson's part (and that of his students?) - and time is still not completely free for him - it'd be yet more expensive for someone who had to hire representation.

I'm sure we have never seen such tactics used before by the RIAA, have we now? :)

Re:Your Honor

[TheMCP]

I would think this strategy runs the risk of insulting the judge.

Re:Your Honor

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I would think this strategy runs the risk of insulting the judge.

You mean going to an appeals court and telling them that she is acting totally outside the jurisdiction of a federal judge and flagrantly violating the law?

Re:Your Honor

[bluefoxlucid]

That was basically Jack Thompson's plan, minus appeals court.

Re:Your Honor

[ozphx]

As long as we don't see rule #34 sanctions against a bunch of old RIAA execs, then I'm happy.

Capitalism at it's best.

[jbssm]

This is what capitalism is all about right?
You have money SO, you can hire good lawyers SO, you can prolong the process making the necessary appeals to higher courts for a long long time ... SO you bankrupt the other party SO, you win.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is what over-regulation is all about. The law has become so complex that the average person cannot easily represent themselves, SO they are forced to hire a lawyer, SO they are forced to shell out their hard-earned savings (taxed away by socialists), SO they end up being ground-up in the legal machine against corporations that have pooled resources -> your chain of issues.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[The Only Druid]

The law has not "become" so complex; from day one, the entire reason for the legal profession was that the average citizen (then, in the European nations) couldn't possibly be expected to know all the procedures of the courts, not to mention all of the details of substantive law.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm... no.

capitalism is more about moving and redistributing money, not about some people oppressing others.

that's dictatorship -or something similar-.

just because money are involved it doesn't mean it's capitalism.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[mustafap]

>This is what capitalism is all about right?
>You have money SO, you can hire good lawyers SO, you can prolong the process making the necessary appeals to higher courts for a long long time ... SO you bankrupt the other party SO, you win.

That's not capitalism, that poker

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[u38cg]

Not really. The RIAA is a perfect example of a cartel and what it can do. There's a reason they are usually illegal.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I am tired of hearing people deride capitalism as a corrupt system. Capitalism is as susceptible to corruption as any other system. But that corruption is not the definition of the system.
Capitalism is as much about buying laws and manipulating the courts as socialism is about creating an elite inner circle cronies living lavishly at the expense of the proletariat.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[cthulu_mt]

I suppose we could run things like they did in the USSR. The state picked the lawyers for both sides and the verdict was known before hand.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[jbssm]

I beg to disagree on the motive of the problem.
This is not a problem that advices from cartelization but sorely from the fact that the money balance is seriously pending to one side of the parties involved.

This kind of issue is as possible to happen either if it's a corporation vs a middle class worker or if it's some overwhelmingly rich guy vs another middle class worker.

The problem seems to be that defending yourself in a court of law in certain countries, it's a very monetarily demanding activity, so if one party has much more money than the other that party can prolong the process for a long time and drive the other party to bankruptcy effectively denning the ability for the poorer part to defend itself.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Hatta]

If they sanction this guy under Rule 37, we should sanction the RIAA under Rule 34.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Just Some Guy]

This is what capitalism is all about right?

No, this is clearly about oatmeal! I mean, as long as we're dragging in wholly irrelevant issues, let's go for broke.

True or false: they also have lawyers in socialist and communist economies.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Kindaian]

They don't need to.

You can represent yourself and stop the proceedings ALL the time asking for what you can or can't do at EVERY step.

It isn't contempt of the court, you just need to be informed by the court of it's own rules and the legal rules that apply. ;)

p.s. 1- don't do that...

p.s. 2- get a lawyer...

p.s. 3- IANAL (not am i in USA)

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

yet they didn't (and don't) allow one to be "ignorant" of the law therefore criminalising people who are pissing in the bushes (or letting frogs sing at night - I heard that's a real crime somewhere) only because they weren't aware of the law prohibiting such action

before driving a car on public road I need to pass an exam and know all the road signs... where do I get my licence to live (as in: reside somewhere without being annoyed by these silly rules) ?

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[jbssm]

Yes, of course they do (and I personally don't like the idea of simple communism, I'm more oriented to a Socialist culture like in northern European countries were it works quite well), but, there, one side of the parties is not in such a great economical difference to the other AND legal costs are normally much cheaper (in communist countries they were actually free).Also, in Northern Europe is normal for the loosing party to have to pay for the legal expenses of the prevailing party in case it can be seen an abuse of the system, which would lead to cases like this not to happen cause RIAA know they don't have a case to stand and just bully the adversary ... if they really had to pay the expenses in case they lost, they would obviously not be able to carry out this intimidation tactics:

In Finland:"The legal costs in the administrative court system are borne by the parties. However, the prevailing party may be awarded the legal costs partly or in full, if it is deemed reasonable in the light of the decision. If the private party prevails, the most important point considered is whether the proceeding was due to an error of the authority. The authority which prevails against a private party is not awarded its legal costs unless the appeal was frivolous."

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what capitalism is all about right?

You're obviously suffering from either a profound lack of education, or an overabundance of it.

The only thing worse than ignorance is having advanced knowledge of things that simply aren't true.

But don't worry, now that The One has been elected, he'll put a stop to all that pesky capitalism and punish the ones who shame us all by working hard and making wise choices in life.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[tmosley]

It's ABSOLUTELY NOT capitalism. The US doesn't have a capitalist system, it has a corporatist system. Corporations are in bed with the politicians, and what they spawn together takes away our freedoms, both personal and economical.

Another name for such a system is fascism. It's not pretty, as we have seen all too often.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[BobMcD]

That's a tad revisionist, isn't it? On day one, the best reason to hire a lawyer was that you were illiterate. We have gone a bit beyond that, I think, today.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 34? You're joking me.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[The Only Druid]

I don't think it's revisionist at all: the reason you couldn't be aware of the law was not just your illiteracy, but the difficulty in distributing the information. Today, it's not a function of literal illiteracy (i.e. inability to read) but rather figurative illiteracy of the law (i.e. inability to digest the readily available legal materials). We can solve that need by (a) educating everyone on all law, (b) continuing to rely upon lawyers, or (c) re-writing the law to be accessible to everyone.

Everyone (especially on forums like this) likes to jump on option (c), forgetting the basic problem that a system is definitely not automatically bad just because it's complex. Far from it, when you're describing a tremendously detailed world such as our own, it is inevitable that your laws would become complicated and labyrinthine.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[bhtooefr]

http://www.seasteading.org/

Although there's still some rules in maritime law. But spacesteading isn't practical yet.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[bhtooefr]

Except that could backfire - you could lose on a minor technicality, and then you have to pay the legal fees for the RIAA's legal team.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Walkingshark]

Then we should sanction the corporations that hide behind the RIAA under order 66.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Chabo]

Also, in Northern Europe is normal for the loosing party to have to pay for the legal expenses of the prevailing party in case it can be seen an abuse of the system, which would lead to cases like this not to happen cause RIAA know they don't have a case to stand and just bully the adversary ... if they really had to pay the expenses in case they lost, they would obviously not be able to carry out this intimidation tactics:

Actually, this is common in America too -- I remember at least one case the RIAA lost where the other party filed for legal expenses to be paid by the RIAA.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I remember at least one case the RIAA lost where the other party filed for legal expenses to be paid by the RIAA.

2 of which I am aware. Atlantic v. Andersen $108,000, Capitol v. Foster $68,000.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is off-topic, but all well...
I've been watching Deep Space 9 recently, and I think that the Cardassians must have been based on Soviet Russia. The state picks the lawyers, the verdict and sentence are known before the trial. The only point of a trial is to demonstrate to the people the guilt of the accused; it's all just a big theatrical production. Add to that the occupation of Bajor and the brutal oppression that the Cardassians brought (just like the USSR occupying East Germany, as well as Eastern Europe...)

OK, got it out of my system. Thanks!

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[He who knows]

They are nearly as bad as OPEC.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

youre an idiot

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

> If they sanction this guy under Rule 37, we should sanction the RIAA under Rule 34.

So, where should we mail the copies of tubgirl, lemonparty & goatse?

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism is as much about buying laws and manipulating the courts as socialism is about creating an elite inner circle cronies living lavishly at the expense of the proletariat.

Well, if those are common failure modes of those respective systems, to the point that they impose very large inefficiencies on the economies of those systems, and can even lead to the complete loss of confidence and breakdown of those systems then there is a valid comparison. There seems to be a lot evidence that the inner circle cronies assessment is true not just of communism but also of any system of government that doesn't allow the competition of parties in democratic elections (i.e. dictatorships and other totalitarian forms of government).

Capitalism does seem to often facilitate/devolve into crony capitalism, and human nature (particularly greed, but also group follower behaviour) seems to be responsible for the failure modes you discussed for both socio-economic systems. Democratic institutions do help mitigate or limit the capitalistic failure mode because they theoretically provide a way to reverse the corruption without a revolution. In practice, things can get pretty bad before people organize to reverse capitalistic abuses.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[ppanon]

Well, technically that's true. But it could also be said that capitalism naturally decays into corporatism, with a half-life of under a hundred years. Energetic interactions with other societies (such as wars) can accelerate the decay.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[FiloEleven]

...which is all a criticism of the judicial system, not capitalism. I read your post further down on courts in the Nordic model, and I too would like to see something like that here in the US. The socialist part of the Nordic model would not work in the US--the country is too big for that--but the judicial system is thankfully decoupled from the socialist state.

If you want to argue for socialism, go right ahead--it's a good argument to have as socialism certainly has benefits. Don't try to sneak it through the back door by blaming capitalism for the failure of our judicial system.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

the average citizen (then, in the European nations) couldn't possibly be expected to know ... all of the details of substantive law.

If this is the case then how can the citizen be expected to act within the law?

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

"we should sanction the RIAA under Rule 34"

No. We should use Rule 303 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080310/).

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a sample size big enough to make that determination.

Re:Capitalism at it's best.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? We have the full population of historically capitalistic societies. If your argument is that that full historical population is not representative of the population of theoretically possible capitalistic societies, then I think the onus should be on you to

• hypothesize a capitalistic societal variant that has not been explored yet and
• demonstrate why it would not be subject to the same behaviour that existing variants have followed.

Sounds like the makings of a good Poli Sci PhD thesis.

Legal language and strength of case

[Kupfernigk]

The PDF reminds me of something I have seen before with bad lawyers: the worse the case, the longer and more threatening the language. The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer. Then when you get caught, you can try to avoid testifying on the grounds of legal privilege.

On the other hand, when you have a strong case things are different. I'm reminded of a business acquaintance who had a case against a powerful US trade group some years ago. His lawyers said the case was unanswerable, spent a morning summarising it on one side of a letter, and sent it off. The other side promptly settled out of court. The other famous example was the UK satirical magazine Private Eye, which once received a long and very threatening letter from the lawyers of a notorious fraudster. Their reply was something on the lines of "We have had your interesting letter and we have taken legal advice. Our lawyers advise us to tell you to f**k off".

Given this history, the one liner back (in effect "bring it on") is surely instructive.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[plover]

The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer.

That's not exactly a new idea!

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[butlerdi]

That was indeed a memorable moment and one I would like to see repeated often.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[Tryfen]

The case to which you are referring is Arkell vs Pressdram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkell_vs_Pressdram#Litigation

The salient point is that Arkell's lawyers wrote to Private Eye saying "Our client's attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply". Private Eye's response was "We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows: Fuck off".

I recommend that people take this option more often. I *am* a lawyer - this is legal advice.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[HungryHobo]

One reason I love somethingawful. I wonder if the examples they publish are their normal reaction but they do seem to get a lot of threats along the lines of "People are making fun of us....on the internet...make them stop or else!" and their responses always crack me up.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[TimSSG]

A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more money than hundred men with guns

Unknown author. Tim S

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[Zordak]

The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer. Then when you get caught, you can try to avoid testifying on the grounds of legal privilege.

Or in the alternative, just be a citizen or other person subject to the laws of the United States, and then you get the benefit of the 5th Amendment.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[ebuck]

The real beauty of the letter is that Private Eye didn't tell them to fuck off, they just asked for information. The information they asked for made it abundantly clear the intent but didn't voice the intent or bind them to any course of action.

I'm not a lawyer, but I appreciate a well crafted argument. This one speaks volumes without actually saying anything.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[Anonymous Coward]

"The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer. Then when you get caught, you can try to avoid testifying on the grounds of legal privilege."

No one has to become a lawyer avoid testifying. Every U.S. resident has a Fifth Amendment right to NOT testify in criminal cases.

The RIAA lawsuits are civil actions. So, pleading the Fifth is not an option, and legal privilege is a cheap alternative.

Re:Legal language and strength of case

[ppanon]

Or in the alternative, just be a citizen or other person subject to the laws of the United States, and then you get the benefit of the 5th Amendment.

As opposed to living in the Star Wars Empire where the Sith Amendment is much less beneficial.

You know,... the Sith Amendment: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[meist3r]

First they get the live online-coverage of one of these processes postponed. Now they try to legally blackmail the defense lawyer. What's next?

"That's an awfully nice courtroom you have here, your honor. Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to it?"

Jeez, I hate these guys.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

MAFIAA

There, fixed it for ya.

Avoid buying from those companies.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[erroneus]

I know... I know... but still, the word you may be seeking is "extort" as in extortion.

Blackmail is "we will tell your secret if you don't do what we say."

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[meist3r]

Well you're right. English is not my primary language and even though my vocabulary is pretty good (I even knew extortion) sometimes I mix stuff up. So cut me some slack please?

If you don't I'll black-extort you.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Black mail is such a dirty word, I prefer Extortion, the X makes it sound cool.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Is no one reminded of the Monty Python skit?

"Sure is a nice army base you have here, Colonel. It would be a shame is something....happened to it"

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[Opportunist]

I really wish someone would finally go the the RIAA headquarters and start a speech with "This is an awefully nice office you have here..."

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[genner]

I know... I know... but still, the word you may be seeking is "extort" as in extortion.

Blackmail is "we will tell your secret if you don't do what we say."

Exactly......also the x makes it sound cool.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[PMuse]

Now they try to legally blackmail the defense lawyer.

Oh, just be calm. He threw a punch. They threw a punch. Neither blow has landed yet.

Just let these guys duke it out. This is how it goes in the litigation ring.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[TheHawke]

Or we could pull an Untouchables trick. Force the judge to switch juries with another one.

If RIAA got to one jury, they'll blow their tops if that happens.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

First they get the live online-coverage of one of these processes postponed. Now they try to legally blackmail the defense lawyer. What's next?

"That's an awfully nice courtroom you have here, your honor. Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to it?"

Damn you, meister3r. What are you doing? Trying to give them ideas?

Actually they've already taken action against the judge, by filing their petition for "mandamus or prohibition". Mandamus and prohibition aren't like ordinary appeals, where the lawyer is saying the judge made a legal error and that the judgment or order should be reversed. They are "extraordinary" writs which would only be granted where the judge totally screwed up and acted totally beyond her authority, and you are asking the appeals court to order the judge to do something or stop doing something.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[DustyShadow]

I know you are supposed to advocate fully for your client but doesn't doing something like that pretty much prevent these lawyers from ever winning a case in front of that judge ever again? Doesn't seem too smart.

Apparently these lawyers have never heard that "US District Court judges are the most powerful people in the land."

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Doesn't seem too smart.

Smart hasn't exactly been their strong suit.

Re:RIAA reaching new heights of credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn meist3r, you are absolutely right since Judge Gertner's courtroom 2 seems to be indeed a very nice one. With extra big plasmas and a bunch of 15 inchers for the jury and "you can even connect your apple [if you have the necessary adapter]" according to the description of her courtroom!
  "The courtroom is equipped with a fully integrated evidence presentation system with 15" viewing monitors for each attorney table, the witness, the Judge and their staff, and a 40" plasma for the gallery. The jury box also has 15" monitors built into the front and back rows of the jury box, one for every two jurors. Evidence being displayed from any source can be annotated from the witness, lectern, and Judges monitors. All attorney tables have the ability to connect both audio and video from a computer through a standard VGA port [laptop/desktop and even Mac/Apple if you have the VGA adapter]. In addition, there are two computer audio and video inputs located at the lectern location. Also at the lectern, is a document camera for displaying physical evidence that is not electronic and a VCR/DVD combo unit. This courtroom has a built in video conference system for remote appearances and a 62" rear projection smart board." http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/gertner.htm

lets hope she has some US marshals against those RIAA-Mobsters!

--
A_F

   

Uhg

[GF678]

Sometimes I wonder if the RIAA (and for that matter the MPAA) will ever change.

Must we wait for the old fogies currently running the joint to die of old age before younger people, who've grown up with modern tech and know how futile the legal threats/proceedings are, finally get in charge?

Re:Uhg

[butlerdi]

Well, the old fogies as you call them are really quite young the biggest of them being Edgar Bronfman, Jr son of a booze smuggler in prohibition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bronfman,_Jr.

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not because they are clueless. Music business just revolves around seedy people. I know. I am starting up agent myself. I have a history of 15 years of tech development and know my local law quite well. I am sought up by young bands around me because I can tell them gazillion seedy practises of how to actually get a licing out of their music.
These discussions always take a place in some smoky studio with booze flowing. If my client and moral quibles, he will do by himself. I have one of these. He has honestly tried to break out for 10 years and is a very talented vocalist and guitarist. I can't help him because he finds my methods unsavory.
I do not collect by success. I have a fixed price which I take from the first album or by selling them to a bigger label. I have very little investement in myself, but they know I can help and are willing to sign my contract because they are only obliged to work with me until they get to bigger stages.

Anyway. Music is dog-eat-dog on business side. Those who try to make a living out of it, are quite heartless cynic people. But brilliant, talented cynic people.

Have fun supporting your local artist. Your pennies will never feed him. Do the math and calculate how much an ethical unknown artist would have to sell and tour to make ends meet. Don't forget to calculate expense of light techicians, sound technicians, roudies the bus driver, etc. Those salaries usually go untaxed and the venues pay grey. Try to work in proper taxation, insurances and what the heck not. A gig should cost $100/person and CD another $100 for the poor sods.

Music is not a business of scarce resources. It is of scarce customers. That's why the biggest front of the business looks so brutal.

Re:Uhg

[R2.0]

"How long until JEWS are no longer running these companies?"

Probably about as long as bigoted assholes are allowed to flap their gums.

Re:Uhg

[R2.0]

"Those who try to make a living out of it, are quite heartless cynic people. But brilliant, talented cynic people."

And, apparently, totally lacking in skills at grammar and spelling.

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, not a natural English speaker, and a bit drunk ;)

Re:Uhg

[dcollins]

What the fuck? I nominate the parent post for "most incomprehensible 5-scored gibberish on Slashdot". I sure hope it's just pure bullshittery that there are any musicians signing contracts with this individual.

Re:Uhg

[Ralph Spoilsport]

And, apparently, totally lacking in skills at grammar and spelling.

Actually I thought it was great. Read it with "A Russian Accent", like it's Boris Badanov speaking - "Muzt get Mooose end Sqvurel" and it all makes perfect sense!

""Thoss who try tu mek a leeving out of it, are quite heartless cynic pipple. But breeelliant, talented cynic pipple."

See? :-)

RS

Re:Uhg

[mdarksbane]

You can make it, you just might not make it big.

My dad's been self-employed as a musician for fifteen years now and gets by. It's enough for him to support himself and help support the family. The trick was his business experience and not being too caught up in his art to not find new markets. He does a fair number of kids programs, but also a bunch of festivals, concerts in small venues, and a few big openers. It's about living within your means, selling your name and music at every opportunity, and not spending $50 on gas for a $40 show.

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

From one AC to another: welcome to the internet, you are no longer required.

Re:Uhg

[Xest]

I actually wondered the same, but seeing a recent BPI (The UK version of the RIAA) representitive talking bollocks on the news and noticing he was quite young I'm sad to say the problem isn't to do with any generation gap.

It's to do with people in the music industry getting good money for so long by effectively screwing artists with the way they handle contracts to allow them into their music cartel that controls production and up until the internet, distribution they simply will do anything to maintain that status quo whatever their age. They've found a way to make money by screwing the workers (artists) and price fixing the cost of something that outside of their cartel environment would be much cheaper. Think about it, how cheap would songs be if you didn't have to pay for the production, distribution, chief execs, lawyers, other office staff etc. that the music industry employs? Artists publishing direct to the net and only having to pay for marketing could offer just that.

These people are now almost entirely all redundant, they're just fighting to prolong their end date for as many years as possible by creating jobs for themselves with court cases and such. What they should've done is what Apple, Amazon, Play and the likes did - create online music stores, then they'd have still had jobs with a future. They even had the resources to do so, they just didn't have the foresight to realise physical media wasn't going to remain the little price fixing gem it has been so far for them forever.

Re:Uhg

[mcgrew]

No, we must wait for the labels' outmoded business models to kill them. Selling digital files of songs via download is a losing proposition for everyone concerned - artists, labels, and music lovers. The RIAA's independant competetion uses MP3s as a marketing tool, and the majors should as well.

You can't buy music. You can buy a CD (a physical object you can loan or sell) but you can't buy a download; a download gives you no ownersip or any rights rights whatever.

Only fools try to sell and buy music.

Re:Uhg

[mcgrew]

WTF does that mean?

I can tell them gazillion seedy practises of how to actually get a licing out of their music

Is it "get a licking out of their music"?

"get a liking out of their music"?

"get a licensing out of their music"?

Or do you mean that the musicians want to get cooties (lice)?

I doubt your experiance has anything to do with the actual topic, as you're obviously foreign, and every country does things differently. Here in the US most bands own their own labels as a means to hold copyright to their own work. Only the truly clueless sign with an RIAA label.

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how old you are, grandpa, but 53 years ain't young.

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently I'm the only one who found your post interesting. Everyone else here assumes a perfect knowledge of English, but I'm guessing English is your second or third language.

Re:Uhg

[FiloEleven]

If he's using a US QWERTY keyboard, the word was likely meant to be "living," as in "get [make] a living out of [from] their music," though "licensing" is a plausible alternative.

Attorney-Client Privelidge

[MartinSchou]

If Mr. Oppenheimer has been the RIAA's attorney, aren't they corrent in asserting privelidge?

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the conversations between the MAFIAA and their lawyers are subject to that privilege. Dispositions made in court are always on the public record (except when stricken from the record, of course)

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Bearhouse]

Depends on the court, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privilege

Plus, he can still tesify on actions or decisions he took on behalf of his client, and why, without revealing any conversations and/or communications with the client. After all, he was representing them...

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[l2718]

If Mr. Oppenheimer has been the RIAA's attorney (meaning agent only) then there has to have been someone at the RIAA giving him directions and telling him what to do. Basically the RIAA is trying to hold both ends of the stick: when you ask the RIAA: "who's the person who can speak for the corporation about this litigation", they say it's Mr. Oppenheimer. When you then say "Ok, can I ask Mr. Oppenheimer some questions?" they say: no, he's actually our lawyer so he can't tell you anything.

Say the RIAA sues someone. This means they gathered evidence etc. But the RIAA is not an actual human, just a "legal person". So some human employee of the RIAA must be able to testify to things like "we told our investigators to look for X" or "this is how much money we lost due to this alleged infringement". The RIAA is trying to claim that the employee who knows all this stuff is at the same time the RIAA's lawyer, so he only knows this stuff as their attorney and can't testify to it. It's a clever way to avoid having to present their case.

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Opportunist]

Well, IANAL, but it kinda sounds illogical. When you can't present your case, how can you have one? Isn't that like saying "I sue you, but I won't tell you why, I only want you to be convicted and forced to pay me a sum that springs from my imagination"?

Thinking about it again... that's pretty much how they do it, ain't it?

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Casualposter]

It is not supposed to be fair, reasonable, or logical. It is supposed to be frightening, frustrating, and impossible so that you will pay the money they demand, sign the Admission of Eternal Guilt, the Waiver of Salvation, and commit yourself to the eternal damnation of Hell as a minion of the RIAA in the afterlife, as well as this one.

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Opportunist]

I'm in the antivirus industry. I'm used to unwinable wars and fighting them. Bring it on.

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Loadmaster]

"I sue you, but I won't tell you why, I only want you to be convicted and forced to pay me a sum that springs from my imagination"?

Thinking about it again... that's pretty much how they do it, ain't it?

It will be if they hire Bush/Cheney as their new lead attorneys.

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that like saying "I sue you, but I won't tell you why, I only want you to be convicted and forced to pay me a sum that springs from my imagination"?

Or, in one word: "SCOing".

Re:Attorney-Client Privelidge

[ancientt]

The parallels are staggering.

When the client is a lawyer ...

[l2718]

If I sue you, I can't hide my claims against you on the theory that my thoughts about these claims are part of my legal representation. This is the case even if I'm a lawyer. The RIAA is trying to do just that by employing a lawyer intermediary between the RIAA itself and the legal team representing them: First, the RIAA generates "evidence". Then the RIAA gives the evidence to the intermediary lawyer, and also charges him with making all the decisions for the corporation. Finally, the intermediary becomes the "client" for the actual legal team. This way the real client is shielded from discovery: all their contributions to the lawsuit were done through their "client-attorney" relationship with the intermediary. It's a thing of beauty, but I suspect it's not legal.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ...

[Thanshin]

It's a thing of beauty, but I suspect it's not legal.

As always.

Wait, this isn't the britsh pedophiles topic.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a lawyer - and therefore not technically (heh) or morally inclined to post other than anonymously. But what Oppenheimer is doing is using the attorney-client privilege to create a legal "black hole" whereby some substantive operations of the company (the RIAA) that businessmen commonly have control over are instead controlled by the lawyer, creating a situation where documents that would otherwise not be privileged magically are. Most companies would rather pay someone in lower management a lesser salary than the relatively high salary of a lawyer to do everyday tasks, but on a strategic level it sometimes makes sense for a company to pay a relatively astronomical fee to a lawyer for the lawyer to act as an employee in lower or middle management.
While highly unethical, it's not illegal. Oppenheimer MIGHT be subject to sanctions for doing it, but might not be. Probably depends on the judge and the jurisdiction.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ...

[AK Marc]

But what Oppenheimer is doing is using the attorney-client privilege to create a legal "black hole" whereby some substantive operations of the company (the RIAA) that businessmen commonly have control over are instead controlled by the lawyer, creating a situation where documents that would otherwise not be privileged magically are.

Privilege extends to legal work alone. If someone happens to be a properly licensed attorney and you hire them to be your accountant, they can still be called on in court to testify as to accounting things. Using a lawyer for contractor management (even if the contractors are lawyers) is *not* legal work, and thus isn't related to priviledge. The only "magic" that appears is when you are willing to lie and say things are legal work when they are not.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I find a well thought-out automated backup and logging process as euphoric as the next person here.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ...

[Net_fiend]

This just one of the many loop holes that needs to be fixed in our judicial system.

From your explanation I can understand the situations where the need for something similar would arise for this, however the exact use as its described for the RIAA needs to be completely removed from ever being used again. There is no reason to ever need to that for ethical legal reasons...and no I don't mean they should be settling out of court either. I mean the idea of court should not even crop in their minds for something so trivial.

Granted I also understand that most uses of the law at this juncture in society are for the sole purpose of gaining money, which disgusts me and imo paints a poor self image for law and lawyers in general. I mean no disrespect to you of course. I just feel the law has been corrupted at this point and should be gone thru with a fine tooth comb and cleaned up.

Get rid of all the litigious lawyers who's only purpose is to stir up trouble and find people to get them to sue another person that they had not originally intend to sue, just so they can make a quick buck. The law has so many other better purposes than to find someone to sue because of a car fender bender which was obviously an accident. Now if it were due to negligence or an attempted run down then yeah I understand that, but because someone steps on your foot (yes I saw this go to court) is utter crap. Judges should be throwing this shit out of court and fining the dumb bastards who try to take it to court in the first place.

Begin rant

Perhaps my idea of a decent society is too far gone at this point. I'll probably be modded down or mocked for actually wanting a decent society that doesn't try to screw the next person. What the hell is wrong with being happy with what you have, not like you can bring all this shit with you when you die. Sure I can understand wanting cool stuff, but trying to steal, cheat, and lie to get all? Come on really there is more to life then that. But I'm probably preaching to the wrong crowd, since most /.'ers are pretty bright.

/ end rant

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[meist3r]

You mean THIS guy:

"was the Senior Vice President of Legal and Business Affairs for the RIAA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Oppenheim

"Mr. Oppenheim then became active as one of the lead litigators representing the record industry in the landmark "file-sharing" cases against peer-to-peer networks, including against Napster, Aimster, AudioGalaxy, Morpheus, Grokster and Kazaa."
http://www.spoke.com/info/p6QsSD8/MatthewOppenheim

"It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyright2.html

See, he doesn't even agree with himself. What the RIAA does is not legal, ethical or cool since they copy the artists CDs for their own use. Bad Bad RIAA ;)

Do we have an "oh boy, oh boy, oh boy !" tag ?

[unity100]

If not, we need it to tag this story on riaa's behalf.

More info on Matt Oppenheim

[Anonymous Coward]

If, like me, you couldn't remember who this guy is, try:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Oppenheim_Matt_14844608.aspx

Simple ?

[unity100]

its legal suicide.

Re:Simple ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in this case simple was being used as a synonym for very, very dumb. As in: "They know not what they do, because they are of simple mind."

Re:Simple ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what they are actually doing is some kind of legal suicide attack?

Re:Simple ?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

So what they are actually doing is some kind of legal suicide attack?

What they've been doing the past 5 1/2 years has been a legal suicide attack.

The only survivors are their law firms.

Re:Simple ?

[bhtooefr]

You know, I wonder if we should start throwing the T word ("terrorists") around to describe the RIAA - it is technically accurate.

Re:Simple ?

[khellendros1984]

It'll be just like a Pokemon game:
RIAA has used legal explosion attack!
*Professor loses a little health
RIAA has fainted. Music industry is out of organizations. You win 500 experience points!

Re:Simple ?

[Xenographic]

How much do you have to piss off a judge before they sanction you of their own volition?

Because if you don't know, I'm hoping we can find out together. They'll have to hire SCO execs if they want to make this any crazier. I have some idea about things they could do to further annoy the judge, but I don't care to give them ideas.

I have jury duty coming up (albeit in the wrong state for any of this). Too bad. I'd just love to be able to serve on an RIAA case. But I think they'd find me out if I said, "No, Your Honor, I haven't yet formed an opinion about the sleazebag Plaintiffs in this case and can be objective when seeking to become jury foreman and asking whether we have the power to put them in jail." :]

Re:Simple ?

[powerspike]

then why don't they ever die, cause they keep doing it over and over again..

Re:Perhaps you should read the RIAA's notice.

[Bearhouse]

Yes, I saw that, but that's why they would claim, right? We'll see what the court decides...

sanctions ????

[mr_musan]

could some one fill me in on exactly what the RIAA would sanction ?? are they going to tell all the record shops not to trade with him ??? I always thought sanctions where something countries did....

What a fantastic response

[RasputinAXP]

From: Charles Nesson

the motion stands
we welcome your opposition

-=-=-=-

He's become my new personal hero.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[PopeRatzo]

why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?

Because he's so morbidly overweight that he's no longer able to leave his bed. That and the bad hair plugs keep him from going out in public. Oh, and he's got one of those crazy eyes where you can't tell where he's looking and he knows everybody on the internet will put his testimony on YouTube and laugh at him and leave mean comments. He's really a very sensitive soul and if you met him you'd like him, except for the horrible odor that comes from his unwillingness to bathe due to his persistent aquaphobia.

That, and if he showed his face he'd be in more danger than Barack Obama at a Klan meeting.

A Spent Bolt

[hyades1]

Their most powerful weapon was intimidation. It isn't working anymore. Time to pull down their pants and give them what they so richly deserve. Something with thorns and sharp edges would be appropriate.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[PopeRatzo]

"It is not legal, ethical or cool to copy somebody else's CD for your own use."

Oh, come on. It is kind of cool.

You know it is.

And even cooler is copying DVDs. You can have like thousands of movies in perfect quality, and the best part is that Mr. Oppenheim (if that is his real name) and his Rothchild/Bavarian Illuminati/Reptilian/Council on Foreign Relations/Banking Cartel buddies don't get a single red cent.

And the fun with Blue-Ray is just starting.

Now that's really cool.

Seriously, who's doing the RIAA's public relations?

What is Rule 37?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be thankful if NYCL, or another /. regular legal eagle, would explain Rule 37 in normal English, or if possible in engineering English.

I tried reading the rule myself, and it was so chock full of legal terms that I fear I summoned a succubus.

Re:What is Rule 37?

[tiananmen tank man]

From the pdf, it sounds like rule 37 is saying "You haven't asked us nicely for this information outside of court first and you should"

Re:What is Rule 37?

[zappepcs]

Clearly, in this day and age, the easiest way to summon a succubus is to share some music files. It may take the demon a little while to find you, but that is understandable since the head demon is spending most of his time currently trying to stay OUT of court rooms.

Seriously, these legal tactics get used now and then. What is needed is some public information, you know, a coordinated Streisand effect making story. Something that will cause the RIAA to feel a need to explain what would have been answered in the deposition. Anyone got any ideas?

yeeaaa

[unity100]

they are taxed away by socialists, but legal system is fucked up by capitalists. hmmmmm.

I dislike reading anything from

[Pvt_Ryan]

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com as I am not a lawyer and everything relayed there might as well be in wingdings.

The guy behind the blog needs to do as groklaw did with the SCO stuff. At least her notes on the matter gave me a slight idea what was going on.

So can someone please explain all that gibberish in plain english for me.

I understood up to "RIAA threatens Prof. Nesson with" after that I have no idea what they are on about

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[aurispector]

I second this! Ray, please translate a bit for us poor unfortunates. A little color commentary would be nice, too!

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I second this! Ray, please translate a bit for us poor unfortunates. A little color commentary would be nice, too!

Sorry about that, but the reality is... I don't have the time to do good writing. I don't get paid for this. My highest priority in the blogging part of my life is to get the facts and the litigation documents out, and let the rest of the world handle the commentary. If I got a million dollar grant to spend more time writing I'd do it but I don't see that happening any time soon. I can't even get many people to buy an MP3 from one of my affiliate advertisers.

People compare me to PJ. You shouldn't. She's a great journalist; I'm not in her league. I'm just a lawyer who tripped across a wave of litigation bullying, and realized that the internet might help to slightly counterbalance one of the bad guys' strategic advantages -- their information monopoly.

What PJ and I have in common is that we've both taken advantage of the federal courts' transition to electronic filing to give our readers actual primary source material to read, and in so doing to honor, rather than insult as many other news sources do, our readers' intelligence.

Other than that, my amateur-hour work shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as her deservedly award-winning web site.

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[Kupek]

It would help immensely if you just put in a link to a recent news article summarizing what's going on. It wasn't until I found an article in Harvard's newspaper that I knew the basics of the situation.

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[Alexey Nogin]

It would help immensely if you would put in a link to the article instead of just saying you found a useful article ;-)

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[earlymon]

I can't even get many people to buy an MP3 from one of my affiliate advertisers.

Oh dear god - please tell me that it's not being pirated.....

(PS on a serious note- Your input here is very much appreciated and I, for one, welcome the information.)

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[crusher-1]

Perhaps you might garner the services of a willing post-grad or similar colleague to assist you! I can't believe some individual, at least from time to time, would not be willing to summerize your entries for lay persons so that they may be able to wrap their heads around the legal proceedings and their meanings therein more readily. I personally have had to do this in my profession. Unlike your situation, however, I did this in the context of my profession in the performance of my duties (critical care cardiac RN). So, I trust the most people fully understand the constraint you've mentioned between pursuing your case load while posting entries in your blog. Is there no viable remedy to this situation? Can anyone of those possibly qualified "/,'ers" perhaps contribute to this end?

Cheers!

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[Pvt_Ryan]

Sorry for comparing you, all I meant was that a small summary at the bottom telling us what has happened in a bit more detail would be nice.
There is no need to go to groklaw's detail but I would just like to follow the cases you have on the site but to me you might as well scribble on a page in random colours for all the sense legal documents make.

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sorry for comparing you, all I meant was that a small summary at the bottom telling us what has happened in a bit more detail would be nice. There is no need to go to groklaw's detail but I would just like to follow the cases you have on the site but to me you might as well scribble on a page in random colours for all the sense legal documents make.

From my experience reading journalists' accounts of cases I've worked on over the years, I've often been astonished about how false and misleading their coverage usually is. Usually the reason is not that they were trying to mislead, but that they did just what you're asking me to do, which is to dumb it down for the masses to help them 'understand'. Usually the result is that the readers 'understand' it, but their understanding happens to be wrong.

I really want to avoid falling into that. But I will endeavor to do as you say, and try to put in something making it more understandable to those less familiar with legal terminology.

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[Pvt_Ryan]

That would be great. Thanks.

Re:I dislike reading anything from

[Pvt_Ryan]

Sorry but saw this and had to post it:

Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i. e. the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.

The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:

1. The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, step stool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being non-negotiable.
2. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ("Receptacle"), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.
3. Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part ("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.

Note: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by any or all persons authorized by him, the objective being to produce the most possible revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as "Partnership."

Mumbo Jumbo

[countach]

What a bunch of Legal Mumbo Jumbo. It seems like this is all now a gigantic chess game, and we are at least 4 or 5 levels of stupidity removed from anything vaguely resembling anything like justice or serving the purpose of a legal system necessary for society.

Re:Mumbo Jumbo

[digitig]

It's not that we are any levels of stupidity away from understanding it. Consider it a form of encryption (DRM, even) and we don't have the key. It's not stupidity that means people with the key can access the information more readily than those without it (although with sufficient time and intelligence it should be possible to crack the key -- expect that to be made illegal sometime soon. Ha ha, only serious.)

The Glencoe massacre

[Kupfernigk]

Indeed. Students of Scots history know that the villain in the Glencoe massacre was a Scots lawyer, who used the law to acquire the land.

Not at all like our own beloved Tony Blair, a Scots/Australian lawyer who used the law to suppress dissent while invading Iraq to try and gain control over the oil. Lawyers can steal more money because they can gain control over the hundren men with guns.

NYCL, please start annotating your submissions!

[plasmacutter]

Most people are still not understanding what this means, its implications, and its likelihood for success.

It's important to translate things out of legalese and analyze it in the context of the proceedings.

Slashdot is a tech site, not a legal one, so while the general community can see "aha", "touche'", and "gotcha" moments in, say, the realm of computer science or electrical engineering, we don't see it in legal context without some actual analysis. Feel free to qualify things with "this is my opinion" or whatever, but analysis and translation is essential.

Re:NYCL, please start annotating your submissions!

[Big Bill the Conjure]

This is good advice. I find NYCL's posts quite interesting and informative as it is, but it being the case that IANAL, there is little doubt but that a bit of elucidation on his part would be very helpful.

Re:NYCL, please start annotating your submissions!

[Kupek]

Very much so. I had to Google Charles Nesson to figure out the context. It would help if along with the new stuff, he linked to a news article summarizing the latest.

RICO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't the RIAA long ago crossed into the realm of racketeering with their antics? I mean, sure - it's not like the old-school mob, whose thugs would shake down the local businesses for "protection money."

But it's the same quack. Same walk. It's just replacing the thugs with lawyers, local businesses with college students, and "protection money" with "settlement money".

Either way, they're not entitled to the money.

Re:RICO?

[dwiget001]

"Hasn't the RIAA long ago crossed into the realm of racketeering with their antics?"

Yes.

the legal system

[castironpigeon]

We've all seen the legal system (in the US and elsewhere) make honest mistakes, but to see a group of people wielding it like a club so consistently is sad. You can't even compare it to something like the Inquisition because at least in that case the people in whose interest it was to see injustice done were doing their own dirty work. The public went along with it too, but set that aside for now. Who is benefitting here? Groups like the RIAA. Who is being used as a weapon? The US court system. Are the courts really so collectively stupid that they can't see that? I would think more court officials would have enough self respect to say, "enough is enough, we're tired of being degraded like this."

Wasting resources

[immakiku]

RIAA's lawyers actually wrote this in the threat: "Defendent's repeated failures to follow basic rules of procedure is making this case far more expensive and time consuming than it should be." hmm... I'd almost say something like, Plaintiff's repeated contortions of basic rules of procedure is making multiple cases far more expensive and time consuming than it should be.

Re:Wasting resources

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

RIAA's lawyers actually wrote this in the threat: "Defendent's repeated failures to follow basic rules of procedure is making this case far more expensive and time consuming than it should be." hmm... I'd almost say something like, Plaintiff's repeated contortions of basic rules of procedure is making multiple cases far more expensive and time consuming than it should be.

Hmm. I would say something like that.

Re:Wasting resources

[steelfood]

Wait, so is GP liable if you act on his advice?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[sukotto]

Even cooler is that you:
- don't have to worry about your kid scratching the DVD and making it unplayable
- can easily skip the fscking "no skip" crap that every DVD seems to have
- can FIND the movie when you want to watch it

In almost every way, the ripped copy of the DVD is better than the physical disc

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Rogerborg]

why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?

Uh... because (they say) that he wasn't actually subpoenead to testify, and so being "compelled" is Bad Juju. (They claim) Profession Nesson actually subpoenead someone other mysterious 3rd party, who is resident in Maryland and so can't be subpoenad to a Massachusetts District court anyway.

Now, maybe they're lying, but that would be pushing it even for the RIAA. It almost sounds as though they created some Fake Oppenheim, let Nesson serve him, and now they bitch-slap him for claiming that he served the Real Oppenheim.

So I guess those would be extraordinary steps too, but at least the reason for taking them is obvious: it'd be damn funny if that's what they've done. Evil Robot RIAA Doubles. It's all true.

Dripping with Bias

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Their battle is to enforce (a certain subsection of) the law until it doesn't need to be enforced. Just like any honest law enforcement agency you care to name. That's no conspiracy; anyone in a functioning democracy can read up about their responsibilities regarding IP.

However, just like most dishonest law enforcement agencies, they are not above threatening people who aren't doing anything wrong.

There really isn't much more to read into it than that.

Re:Dripping with Bias

[bhtooefr]

However, they also lobby to have certain subsections of the law created or modified...

Re:Dripping with Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

However, just like most dishonest law enforcement agencies, they are not above threatening people who aren't doing anything wrong.

The RIAA is NOT a law enforcement agency.

This is going to turn Nesson on

[Anonymous Coward]

Nesson loves this stuff. He represented Ellsberg (the guy that stole and released the pentagon papers) against the us government. In classes he loves telling stories of how he stood against government intimidation to protect Ellsberg's location (e.g., being followed everywhere, never using phones in his home or office, taking elaborate trips arranged through fantastic means to have in person meetings away from the watching eyes of the us government). The government was breaking law after law to find Ellsberg and put him away, but Nesson managed to hide him long enough to prepare for defense and turned the government's own illegal actions back at them to get the case thrown out.

This is just the type of action the RIAA can be sure will get Nesson even more excited about this stuff. He'll just wear it a badge of honor.

Not news

[rssrss]

This is bog standard litigation tactics. It is done in many cases. One side, sensing a tactical advantage, demands a deposition (out of court, but sworn and recorded testimony) from a person on the other side who thinks he has better things to do. The other side file papers accusing the the party of the first part of having sisters and being lawyers. This will go on and on, until the case ends when one or both parties decide they no longer want to waste time and money like this.

Questions for NYCL....

[Anonymous Coward]

So reading the text of the complaint made by the plantiff, it would seem that they have a strong case: there are rules and regulations which the defendants have failed to properly follow. It matters not whether it is the plantiff or defendant who is at fault, proper procedure should always be followed - else why have them. The law is there to protect everyone.

However the counsel acting on behalf of the defendants have seemingly ignored this "warning".

So questions...
1) can I venture to ask what is your opinion on this matters such as this? for example, if a similar circumstance were to occur in another case, what view would you take on it? (if answering this puts you at risk, please don't.)

2) to the layman, reading the plantiff's motion seems to imply that the law is on their side. Are we missing anything important here?

3) if the plantiffs win this motion (arguably because it seems like counsel for the defendant was negligent), would the defendant be expected to pay for their counsel's "mistake"? And would counsel normally request go ahead from the defendant before proceeding further after receiving such a letter?

4) how do courts normally treat this type of interaction between defendant and plantiff? It would seem that the plantiff's communication was rather hostile, perhaps needlessly so.

Re:When the client is a lawyer ... mod up

[Ralph Spoilsport]

The anon coward is anon for good reason and is Informative.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[jedidiah]

Nevermind cloning the media.

Just shove it all onto a big hard drive and put
that on a network. Have every piece of media you
own at your fingertips with a click of a button.

Completely dispense with the obsolete media and
the annoying interactive menus and whatever other
nonsense media companies want to subject you to.

Death to Disney FastPlay.

Full Story?

[UnknowingFool]

What's the full story behind this? I'm only getting the RIAA's story. It appears that Professor Nesson wanted to depose Mr. Oppenheim on January 22. But sometime after January 9, the RIAA objected citing attorney-client privilege, the depositions were to be held in Massachusetts and not Maryland, there was no fee, there was no confer and meet, etc. Then Professor Nesson filed a motion to compel. I didn't read that he answered their objections. The RIAA then filed for monetary sanctions.

I am not a lawyer but dispositions and motions to compel seem to be fairly commonplace in lawsuits like these. The RIAA seems to have valid points on not allowing Mr. Oppenheim. Filing for monetary sanctions however is really overboard though.

Re:Full Story?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Mr. Oppenheim is a shadowy figure, who changes his stripes according to what he thinks the judge wants to hear. I.e., he will say whatever is most advantageous for him to say. He has claimed at various times to be:

-the client
-the client representative
-the industry representative
-the principal
-the only person in the world who has settlement authority
-the attorney

It is clearly true that he was the person who has controlled these cases, and who had complete authority to settle the cases. He is the enforcer of whatever unholy agreement these 4 supposed competitiors made among themselves, and he is instrumental in whatever trickery was developed to ensure that only the Big 4 -- and no other RIAA members -- were permitted to participate in this litigation war. He is the enforcer.

He is clearly an appropriate person to be deposed.

Re:Full Story?

[UnknowingFool]

I'm not questioning should Mr. Oppenheim be deposed only that if procedurally the RIAA have valid points on their objections? Even if they were technical like the place of deposition, fee, subject matter, etc. Filing for monetary sanctions is excessive as most of the time a judge resolves these matters before sanctions are imposed.

Re:Full Story?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not questioning should Mr. Oppenheim be deposed only that if procedurally the RIAA have valid points on their objections? Even if they were technical like the place of deposition, fee, subject matter, etc.

No there is no merit to any of their contentions.

Re:Full Story?

[aurispector]

It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?

By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!

Re:Full Story?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?

People who have no respect for the truth can say anything. Eventually, I have found, at least in the world of litigation, their lies catch up to them.

By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!

I have the same problem.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[pdabbadabba]

"...resident in Maryland and so can't be subpoenad to a Massachusetts District court anyway."

No. He can be. Massachusetts District Court is a Federal Court. No jurisdiction problem.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[mcgrew]

So, if he represents the interests of the artists

He doesn't. Nobody represents the artists, who get screwed over badly. The artist doen't even hold copyright to his own recorded performances, the label does.

If you want to know just how badly the RIAA labels screw over their artists, read any treatise by any RIAA musician (except Mad Donna or the dufus drummer from Metallica). There are good ones by Courtney Love and Steve Albini that will make you feel REAL sorry for the fools who sign with major labels.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[peterwayner]

Hmmm.
-- DVDs don't get viruses like hard disks.
-- DVDs don't get head crashes.
-- DVDs don't get written too many times like Flash memory.
-- DVDs don't freeze from stiction.

I'm not saying that plastic disks are better, just that in my experience they fail about as often as hard disks. I've cursed both of them in my life.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[jonaskoelker]

don't have to worry about your kid scratching the DVD and making it unplayable

My kids don't know how "head banging" doesn't relate to my hard drive :(

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[PReDiToR]

They who can give up essential backups to obtain a little temporary convenience, deserve neither data integrity nor security.

Apologies Mr Franklin.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[AviLazar]

1) If you are making a backup then you are OK, but face it, this crap started because too many people distribute movies on the net so people don't have to shell the money out. In all honesty if they came to your house and you could show them a 1:1 ratio every dvd/cd backup with the original, they would apologize and leave your house. Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.

I don't know why these issues are so hard to understand. Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC. If you think the movie sucks and is not wtflol worth the money then don't buy it, don't watch it. Wait for it to come out on TV and you can have it for free (not really since there is advertising) or borrow the movie from a friend. There are plenty of ways to watch a movie/hear a tune which doesn't require you to steal it or modify the DVD.

Good thing it wasn't rule 34

[mcbutterbuns]

Could you imagine what would have happened if they would have invoked rule 34 of the internet?

Re:Good thing it wasn't rule 34

[KingAlanI]

Would have redefined "legal brief", there would have been a motion called "of the ocean"...

[scrubs out mind now]

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Orange Crush]

So keep them stored in a cool dry place after ripping them. If the NAS goes tits up, you still have the original physical media as backup.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Hordeking]

why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?

Because he's so morbidly overweight that he's no longer able to leave his bed. That and the bad hair plugs keep him from going out in public. Oh, and he's got one of those crazy eyes where you can't tell where he's looking and he knows everybody on the internet will put his testimony on YouTube and laugh at him and leave mean comments. He's really a very sensitive soul and if you met him you'd like him, except for the horrible odor that comes from his unwillingness to bathe due to his persistent aquaphobia.

That, and if he showed his face he'd be in more danger than Barack Obama at a Klan meeting.

It's time we pimp'd your mod!

Wow.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[frieko]

Yeah but an $80 hard drive can backup a $2500 DVD collection.

THE RIAA SHOULD WIN THIS MOTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I HATE the RIAA, but everything they say in their motion is legally accurate. A Defendant can't take a deposition in federal court prior to making pre-discovery disclosures of core information. He must issue a valid subpoena, and, in most every jurisdiction, he must go to the witness's home state (but not always, but likely in this case).

Bottom line, the good professor may be trying to bulldog his way through...and perhaps is a little rusty, having spent more time teaching law than litigating before a modern federal court (which has changed dramatically over the past 5 years given the advent of electronic filing, etc...).

I think the RIAA will win this motion hands down (and should.) The good professor should enlist a seasoned litigator with federal court experience to help him navigate the rules. As the RIAA says, the rules he's breaking are very clear and simple.

Now after this motion is decided, and after the professor produces his pre-discovery disclosures, a Case Management Plan Order will be issued that sets deadlines in which the parties must complete discovery, including depositions. When that occurs, the noble professor can take this asshole's deposition.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[sukotto]

Stiction? Virii? sheesh. :-) In my household a scratched/snapped disk is a far bigger risk than a head crash.

The Media PC does not have a route outside the LAN. If a virus gets inside the firewall I have bigger problems to worry about than the Media PC and potential loss of ripped movies/music.

Just rip the DVD (or CD) then either keep the physical disk in storage someplace, or, if you like to look at the cases/booklets/extras, keep them out and gain those benefits too.

I know a guy that does the same kind of thing with his books. He has the ebook version of each book he owns. That way he can hold it in his hand if he wants, search it easily if he wants, easily cross reference info, etc. (The only real problems are that the pagination is a little different and you can't easily cross bookmark).

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[pxuongl]

the subtle thing to note in that quote is that he said "somebody else's CD"

well good. I'm copying a CD that I bought, whose music was licensed to me for my own personal use.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[whoever57]

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it

What contract? What TOC? I don't recall signing a contract the last time I bought a movie.

Modifying a movie is just like buying a book and then writing in the margin, or tearing out pages -- do you think that is illegal too?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[sukotto]

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.

I call bullshit. I'll watch the movie the way I want and not the way they want. How I consume it is my own business. Just like buying a sandwich or any other consumable... If I don't want the pickle then I'm not going to eat it. No matter what the guy at the deli tells me my obligations are to him.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

I'm not saying that plastic disks are better, just that in my experience they fail about as often as hard disks.

It's not really about the hard disks themselves, though, that's just how you implement it under the hood. The real values are

• It's always there, rather than on removable media. I guess that's not really a major issue if you have some huge jukebox for your optical media, but most people don't have that. When you have a thousand CDs, it's really hard to keep them physically organized (searchable), so you have the problem of "where is CD x so I can insert it?" I love not having that problem.
• All those layers between the filesystem and the physical disks. You have RAID and LVM to (transparently to your apps) deal with media failures. Hard disks can come and go, and the filesystem lives on like nothing happened. A scratched optical disk is a big deal; a failed hard drive isn't.

Threatening sanctions unless they dismiss motion?

[Locke2005]

In most states, doesn't that meet the legal definition of "extortion"? Sure, you can ask the judge for sanctions, but you can't threaten the opposing council with _anything_.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[fishbowl]

>Just like any contract

It is not valid without Mutual Agreement, Legally Enforceable Subject Matter, and Consideration.

I do not remember any Valuable Consideration changing hands between myself and any DVD producer.

PLEASE file a motion in court claiming you have a contract with me. I need to retire wealthy.

What they fight for

[lymond01]

The RIAA isn't wholly in the wrong with their copyright claims and demands for money for their product (they do seem to be wrong in attempting to sanction Dr. Nesson). Without signing with the RIAA, many (not all) artists are consigned to smaller venues and smaller paychecks. Very few earn enough to live on without the vast marketing resources of the RIAA.

Those that have signed do so willingly in the hope it pays off. I do not have any numbers, but even if an artist makes very little from CD sales, having a CD in Borders, Walmart, etc is huge advertising -- signed musicians do continue to tour and play in venues of appropriate sizes and they draw larger crowds (generally) and more venues are open to them because of that advertising and make more money (though the RIAA gets a cut of concert sales as well).

What the RIAA needs to do is what iTunes and Amazon are doing: giving people what they want. I want to get my music easily and once purchased I want to PLAY it ANYWHERE and on ANY DEVICE I so choose. That can mean my iPod or that can mean I gave it to the DJ at my friend's wedding.

Does it mean I can throw it on a P2P network and GIVE it away to thousands of people? It doesn't seem right, given that the above situation is true.

I don't want the RIAA to go away, because without their organizational skills we probably wouldn't have mega-concerts. We also wouldn't have them billing bars for playing the NFL theme song over their TVs when the game starts (that's got to be an urban myth...). So if they provided affordable, easily acquired, play anywhere music, they wouldn't need shady tactics and we wouldn't need to trade songs freely.

If it's amongst lawyers.

[motherjoe]

If it's amongst lawyers, it must be, "Lawful", right? :)

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.

Not at my house, so leave me out of your war. Drag me into the bullshit (DRM and DMCA) so I have to choose sides, and I'm going to be on my side.

Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC.

That's why I buy instead of license. It amazes me that so many people think they're saving a lot of money licensing music from online stores like iTMS or streaming from Netflix. We're talking fucking pennies at most (and sometimes not even that), and they have an agreement while I just have a receipt. (aside rant: And then the idiot hipster kids call me a luddite. Come look at my fileserver and lack of DRM if you think I'm a luddite. Downloading content under a license, as opposed to buying media, is not a technical advancement, you fools. The only "technology" here is corporations programming people to do what they want.)

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[gnick]

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.

It's not that I disagree with your motivation or principle - I think piracy is bad. It's just that you're wrong - I didn't sign any damned contract. What do you mean, "do not sign for it"? I just follow the laws as they apply where I live. (Well pretty close, I do rip what I buy to avi and put it on a hard drive before storing the media in case of a crash...)

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.

I wish that people would stop referencing my welcome without a verb to tell me what's so special about it. What about my welcome?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[WCguru42]

I'd say in my personal experience I download from iTunes because of the convenience of not having to go to the record store (and by record store I mean Best Buy). Once all the small record shops closed down around where I lived I had no interest in going to a store to get music. The closest Best Buy is an hour bus ride from my place and downloading is a 10 foot walk from my couch. It's not like the employees at Best Buy know much about music. I miss the small record shops with the High Fidelity Jack Black characters.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[peterwayner]

A scratched optical disk is a big deal; a failed hard drive isn't.

Well, everyone's experience is different. Perhaps I'm being affected by watching my hard drive quit booting. It's taken me a day to recover. A scratched DVD can often be polished. If it can't, ebay and half.com are ready with new versions. Netflix is also happy to help out.

Right now hard disk space costs about 10 cents/gig. A full-sized DVD iso costs about 40 -90 cents to store. That's not including the cost of the media server infrastructure. A basic HP model costs $400-600 and it costs more for a Drobo which gives you some of the raid protection you cite. Good compression can make a big difference here, but not that much.

I'm often amazed how much people spend to steal the content that I rent for $20/month from Netflix.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[LilGuy]

You obviously don't have little kids in your house.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[LilGuy]

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.

I think you're modded down for entirely different reasons, but the end result will probably be the same.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[peterwayner]

Actually I do. And believe me my hard disks are just as vulnerable to their games.

RIAA Hummmmm yea

[Anonymous Coward]

What never ceases to amaze me is that so many have for so long putup with and allowed the continual existence of the RIAA why they are still drawing breath both as a functioning company and a living body is totally mind numbing ,

I am sure a lean one one or two of there legal schleps would solve a lot of problems and if gentle pressure dont work then simple take em down a dark ally and smack the living fuck out of them and tell them to pass the message on know what i mean

sometimes the only thing people like that understand is a little basic EDUCATION :-) pick axe handles 3 foot lenghts of scaffold ect

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Chabo]

... did... did you just call Courtney Love a good musician?

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[Achromatic1978]

Right, twitter, to quote you, we "DESERVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS to ALL ... ENTERTAINMENT". Excuse me, who the fuck are you? You deserve free access to a product that might have cost someone a hundred million dollars to produce?

You might have a better argument with knowledge. But no, you do not have a fundamental right to be entertained at someone else's expense. Sorry.

See how they spin

And you would know. You're fairly well traversed in the area of spin.

Warning: Known sockpuppet/troll

[Anonymous Coward]

User maintains more than a dozen sockpuppet accounts on Slashdot.

*this* riaa motion seems reasonable, if true

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the RIAA's motion to refuse the deposition. I am not a lawyer. I am assuming for the moment that what the riaa says in this motion is accurate.

*If* the defendant did not follow proper legal procedure to subpoena the guy, then it is proper for the court to refuse the motion for him to appear.

Now, OTOH, *if* in the case, the riaa did not follow strict procedure and the court has allowed it, then perhaps the court should overlook strict procedure issues for both sides. I don't know the facts enough to say...

I didn't read the motion asking for sanctions.

Re:*this* riaa motion seems reasonable, if true

[Anonymous Coward]

lol wut?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying CDs is cool, cause you have to burn them. Of course anything with the word "Hurt" or "Burn" is cool.

// Mr. Oppenheim is probably a Witchalok

A schedule, huh?

[DingerX]

You mean, like the one the plaintiffs cited in their motion? (subsequently amended and so on)

There's a lot that doesn't make sense here. I mean look at Plaintiff's opposition to a protective order to seize the parents' hard drive. Whatever shift in Tenenbaum's perceived behaviour might have come about from the fact that moved from acting pro se to having competent representation, the RIAA admits that defendant provided them with an exhaustive list of everyone who could have come in contact with the computer, and which computers he used. Part of the meat of their motion here is that defendant has not shared vital pre-discovery information. In fact, they state in the motion they were perfectly willing to discuss an Oppenheim deposition, once defendant complied to the RIAA's liking with Rule 26. But not even in their motion do they specify what they think defendant should do and has not done -- they cite the schedule set last January and one of their own motions as evidence. If you want to talk about Bulldogs, those would be the people making motions that they refuse to substantiate.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[dedazo]

All we have to do is share.

This is all mildly interesting twitter, but assuming you're not just karma whoring, maybe you'd like to explain how the people who produce the content you so eloquently demand must be shared are going to make a living?

The system is clearly broken at the moment, and shady legal actions and stacking from large groups that rarely have the artists' best interests in mind hardly help. Their passe distribution and promotion mechanisms also have to go.

But all these poetic "information wants to be free" essays I see here (yours is honestly just slightly north of corny) inevitably fail to explain how artists are supposed to avoid starvation and homelessness when freedom-loving folk like you are hard at work "sharing" their work.

The other day I read an article on game piracy. It centered mostly on DRM, but it also identified the lack of availability of titles in most of the world as a driving cause for piracy. In other words, there are millions of potential customers who would gladly pay for a game, yet simply can't because they have no legal way to do so. So they simply pirate it. That got me thinking that maybe if we had an open, secure and global mechanism for micropayment (< $100 on average) transactions, that could be used as an effective way to allow independent artists to profit from their hard work. Sure, there would be some piracy, that's a given. But depending on your overhead, even if only 10% of a hundred million people who have access to your work could pay, you'd probably break even and then some.

But just offering up empty prose on how everyone must "share" (and where is your shared content, BTW?) is and how eeeevil the **AA people are is, as usual, nothing but empty prose.

Sorry, no

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a gazillion ways to do what the RIAA *ALLEGES* to do without bending the law past breaking point. You don't educate people with a stick. You don't "teach" someone by taking away the money they need to get an education and be able to earn a living, or take away their life savings for the price of 10 CDs. You don't educate by taking people to court who have provably never had a chance to commit the offence they are accused of because thy are either (1) without computer, (2) babies of (3) residing 6 foot under and formally registered as dead.

And you most certainly don't REPEAT that raping of the legal process if you discover you screw up. And you don't yell "noooooo" when a judge then finally gives you the chance to indeed educate the public - the crap they come up with now shows clearly they're heading for serious trouble. I expect sob stories to emerge any minute now ("poor artist with starving babies", is my guess).

And that's just the legal side. There are also plenty models that would enable the sale of music, but it would mean less direct profit, less control or, gasp, thinking about a new business model. No, they choose the use the money THEY KEEP FROM THE ARTISTS THEY ALLEGE TO "DEFEND" (read "Courtney does the math" for an example) to harass the very people who would give them money if they did it right.

I DO want the RIAA to go away. The RIAA is a front to hide from the public that the real assailants are the record industries themselves. The RIAA is a (failed) front to hide from prosecution and consequences if the thing goes horribly wrong - and that is EXACTLY the reason Sony BMG is now fighting like a maniac to avoid what they have coming to them and in my personal opinion deserve for not stopping this farce from day one.

I have chased a criminal who stole money from my business for 2 years before I had him bankrupted and on the wanted list. I cannot believe the similarity in the BS he tried in court to what the RIAA and its willing participants submit. There too, white is alleged to be black, and everyone is at fault but the accused.

Let me make this clear: I do NOT steal music. I don't use P2P other than to pull in a Linux ISO or something else, and I have a small iTunes collection but I'm getting rid of everything that doesn't work on all the devices (which means no more iTunes sales either unless it comes in Ogg or MP3 format). I do not support crime, nor piracy either. I do, however, support the sharing of books, software, gardening tools, CDs, anything I have bought so someone else can enjoy it and (in quite a few cases) buy their own if they do. But the RIAA actions has put a dead stop to me buying CDs even though the quality is much higher. Unless I buy direct from the artist I will simply not buy it.

I respect for the law in a way the RIAA demonstrably has not in my opinion, and the abuse the RIAA is committing on behalf of the record companies has side effects in setting precedents where they should not exist. They deceive judges into questionable conclusions, they extract money from people who have done nothing wrong which is a travesty of justice in itself.

I hope they lose the case, big time, and I would support anyone of the people who had judgements against them for setting up some class action for the deception and abuse the whole club has committed. I hope they get sanctioned so much up each others rear end that the whole collection will hurt when the front one drops the soap in the jailhouse shower.

The last 8 years have seen an unprecedented erosion of the right normal people like you and me used to enjoy, and the RIAA has been riding this like all the other profiteers. I think it's time this stopped. I also think it's time they get to pay the piper (pardon the accidental irony in using this impression).

It's time "justice" starts to get closer to the dictionary meaning of the word again.

EOR (End of Rant) ..

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[jamstar7]

1) If you are making a backup then you are OK, but face it, this crap started because too many people distribute movies on the net so people don't have to shell the money out. In all honesty if they came to your house and you could show them a 1:1 ratio every dvd/cd backup with the original, they would apologize and leave your house. Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.

I seem to recall somebody posting something about *IAA not liking archival copies much. They'd MUCH prefer you buy another copy of the media. Hell, buy a DOZEN new copies. Their theory is, disposable income belongs in their pockets.

And didn't they try sneaking the theory of having an archival rip on your computer that's connected to the internet constitutes 'making available' the 'pirated' media? Course, a judge shot that down, but who knows what judge might overturn that?

Ohhh - subtle!

[cheros]

ROFL - I like your sense of humor.

Hahaha.

Personally, I would dearly hope the matter of sanctions to start biting the RIAA and its members. But one thing at the time, I guess..

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[jamstar7]

No, he said Courtney's rant about her contract is a good one.

Personally, since Courtney got sober, I'm waiting for her to finish detoxing so we can see just what kind of artist she really is. Should only take a couple more years...

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[NormalVisual]

Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC.

You mean like how the RIAA/MPAA and their paid congressmen have stolen countless millions of dollars' worth of content from the public domain through continued retroactive copyright extensions?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Anonymous Coward]

The recording industry has ripped us off by price fixing cds. Making us re-buy music we already bought in a myriad of formats. Denying us the ability to copy for fair use. Using payola repeatedly to decide what we get to listen to. We've had a relationship where they screw us as hard as they could for decades. Now that it's only starting to even out they want to cry foul. Screw them..I hope their children starve in the streets. Music distribution is available very cheaply now with no need for record execs stealing from artist and consumer alike. Your services are no longer required. Buh bye..don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[digitalunity]

You win 1000 internets.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention the fact that with the uber sized HDDs we have now and the nice low powered "Netbox" style machines in the pipe with decent GPUs we SHOULD all have nice low powered multimedia servers streaming all our stuff around our house, probably in a nice resolution .MP4 or .MKV container. I have noticed their is a growing consumer base among my customers that want the convenience that you mentioned along with a "click and it goes" ease of use when it comes to their media.

Instead they have passed crazy laws that says you pretty much can't do ANYTHING with the media you payed for except stick it in a DVD player and push the button. You certainly can't start a business that sells a "one stop rip and play" multimedia server that transcodes and stores the users files for convenient access, even though we all know that technically it would be trivial to manufacture.

Which of course points out one of the worst problems with the *.A.As is the fact that they want to stop progress. They don't listen to what their customers want, or what the market demands, instead they simply push more DRM and crazier laws trying to keep time frozen before the age of digital trying to keep their insane profit margins from selling $0.20 pieces of plastic for $20+. I mean is it any wonder they want to charge as much or more for a crippled digital file as they do for the piece of plastic? Because for them if they can just make things a little nastier they can keep back the tide. But just like the horse and buggy died out and those that didn't adapt went the way of the dinosaur, so to will they pass if they don't adapt.

People want cheap and easy, and the technology is there to give it to them. And for the first time in history the artists can go to a local studio with a good engineer and get something that sounds REALLY fucking good. So if they don't jump on the bandwagon I predict it will just be a matter of time. We simply have to wait on them to blow through their war chests bribing congress critters. And at the current price of congress critters that shouldn't take too awful long.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[mcgrew]

Hell no. I said her treatise on the industry was good.

The Internet Debacle

[Hausenwulf]

Check out Janis Ian's website for something called "The Internet Debacle." Sure, the info is several years old, but the RIAA isn't any different now than it was then. Her thoughts on the artists' interests?

"However, I object violently to the pretense that they are in any way doing this for our benefit."

Watch Groklaw, then.

[Xenographic]

Just FYI, Groklaw is following the case now, though it remains to be seen how much time PJ has to devote to this. As NYCL says, he doesn't have a lot of time for commentary, given that he's busy fighting the RIAA in court.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[BlueStrat]

...allow independent artists to profit from their hard work.

That part is precisely what the media cartels *don't* want to have happen, and what is in large part the reason for all the stupid crap they've been doing or attempting, like killing internet streaming radio and destroying the entire concept of copyrighted works entering public domain. They want to control distribution and access to distribution, as well as control artists' very ability to build on the past work of others to create independent works, in the same way that all advances are built on the work of others before.

Their business model is dependent on their ability to sit in the middle as gatekeepers and screw over both ends...the artists and the consumers by being the only game in town. How are they going to be able to get artists to sign ridiculously-usurious, one-sided contracts if the artists were to have an alternate viable means to distribute their work? Why would consumers buy locked-down, overpriced, marketing-formula-designed & created corporate pablum if they could buy directly from artists who don't use marketing software to "write" their "next big hit"?

This rape & pillage of our culture, public domain, and the violation of the rule of law and the spirit (if not the letter of) the Constitution with the cooperation of greedy and corrupt politicians is an affront to all people, and no better than an organized-crime operation. In fact it's worse, as politicians are at the least scandalized by revelations that they accepted money from someone like a "Don Corleone"-type mob boss and sponsored legislation on their behalf to prop up their extortion racket, yet take money openly from *these* racketeers, even bragging how they're "protecting US business". Sickening.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[AviLazar]

I call bullshit. I'll watch the movie the way I want and not the way they want. How I consume it is my own business. Just like buying a sandwich or any other consumable... If I don't want the pickle then I'm not going to eat it. No matter what the guy at the deli tells me my obligations are to him.

You can call whatever you want last I heard the sandwhich vendor could care less how you eat it as long as you buy their product. Then again - only one person can consume the entire sandwhich - more then one person can use a burned copy of some software. Also -as for a sandwhich places TOC... McDonalds has a no shoes, shirt, pants no service sign.

Also - and again you fail to reply to this argument - don't buy it if you don't like their standards. is it really that hard? So many people state "this movie sucks, that song sucks, this program company sucks and I won't pay for it"....yet they turn around download it and use it. Thats hypocracy and it's theft. If you don't like their agreements don't consume their products - unlike food, you won't die if you don't have that movie, song, application.

As for the OP who said "I didn't sign anything" - grow up, shrink wraps, EULAs, TOCs have been held-up and will continue to be held-up in court. So the "but i never signed anything on paper" is well pointless. Considering technology is what it is, people on this board should be the last to say "no paper, no pen = no contract".

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[AviLazar]

It is not valid without Mutual Agreement, Legally Enforceable Subject Matter, and Consideration. I do not remember any Valuable Consideration changing hands between myself and any DVD producer. PLEASE file a motion in court claiming you have a contract with me. I need to retire wealthy.

The courts disagree with you. Read some articles by attourney Don Shekley. Shrink wraps are held up in court. They have been, and until there is some law against it, they will be. And it is not just in this medium it's in any medium. Someone may have ripped the song - by itself - and removed the TOC from the meta-data, but that does not mean their contract is invalid it just means someone pulled the contract out - someone who was not authorized to do so. At best, if you could proove you are a moron who has his head in a hole and has no idea about contract law - you might get sympathy...but last I heard, receiving stolen property -- even if you did not know it was stolen -- still gets you on the bad side of a judges ruling.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[AviLazar]

That's why I buy instead of license. It amazes me that so many people think they're saving a lot of money licensing music from online stores like iTMS or streaming from Netflix. We're talking fucking pennies at most (and sometimes not even that), and they have an agreement while I just have a receipt. (aside rant: And then the idiot hipster kids call me a luddite. Come look at my fileserver and lack of DRM if you think I'm a luddite. Downloading content under a license, as opposed to buying media, is not a technical advancement, you fools. The only "technology" here is corporations programming people to do what they want.)

You are able to BUY a movie? How much do you pay for said movie? Even if you go to your local store and grab a DVD off the shelf you are still not the OWNER of the property. You are LICENSED to use it within certain limitations. To BUY a movie, at least the rights to the movie, you most likely need to get a contract and spend quite a bit of money on it.

And to repeat my argument, people ignore it, - it is not your created work you do not hold any rights to it. When you pay a company for the CD/DVD to use it you also enter an agreement - no signature is requried (again refer to Don Shekely attorney). For those that say "hah i got you zomgn00btard, I don't buy, I just download it from my bit torrents"....great you are stealing. And if you think you are not, I dare you to go to the RIAA and sign in an affidavit that you download their content from torrents that are not authorized by the copyright holders. I double dare you to then put down in an affidavit that you upload those torrents to other people so they can get copies of the software. Until you are willing to do that - all your arguments are moot. - In lamens terms - Put up or shut up.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[jdcope]

When I can read the EULA before I purchase something, we'll talk. Until then, EULA's mean nothing. That irks me more with software though. They all say if you dont like the EULA, you can return it. Except no place will take software back that has been opened.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

You are able to BUY a movie? How much do you pay for said movie? Even if you go to your local store and grab a DVD off the shelf you are still not the OWNER of the property.

The transaction was identical to buying a book or buying a sixpack of beer. (Wait, scratch that: unlike movies, I have to show my id to buy beer.) Do you think books and beer aren't purchased either?

Furthermore, it's not even like shrinkwrap software, where after you think you bought it, you are then presented with a license that claims you didn't, after you open it up or when you install it. So it can't even be compared to that can of worms.

Don't believe the previous paragraph? Think I'm full of shit? Ok. Look at your CDs and DVDs: do you see a license? Can you perhaps quote one of the terms from any of these secret licenses that aren't even included inside the packaging? You said "You are LICENSED to use it within certain limitations" so perhaps you could explain what those limitations might be. Do you even know what the license says? Are you claiming that a person can be bound to a contract that they not only never signed, but has never even been shown to them even after they have signed? We're way beyond shrinkwrap EULAs and into Catch-22 territory here.

Can you explain the "own it now on DVD" ads? "Own" is their word, not mine. How about the "On sale, January 23" ads? "Sale" is their word, not mine. (Do you think I'm making this up?)

To recap: music and movie disks are advertised as purchases instead of licenses, they are transactionally treated just like purchases rather than licenses, and even after the purchase (which it should be too late to change the rules anyway), no license is presented and no claims are made by the publisher that it wasn't a purchase.

Dude, are you sure you have thought about this? Were you paying attention to what actually happened, the last time you handed your cash over in exchange for a shiny disk? It was all right there for you to see (or not see, in the case of the license itself).

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

What contract? What TOC? I don't recall signing a contract the last time I bought a movie.

It gets worse: Do you even recall seeing one? Do you remember thinking you had bought it, opening the box, and finding a page of legalese making the preposterous claim that you hadn't really bought it, but that they would graciously grant you permission to watch the movie provided that you agree to the following conditions? I don't.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

When I can read the EULA before I purchase something, we'll talk.

This AviLazar troll is wacked. He won't even show you the EULA after you purchase it. And yet, he claims it exists.

Throwing stones at a hornet nest...

[Chris Snook]

Common sense suggests that when you can't even beat single mothers who can't afford lawyers, you should avoid getting personal when litigating against someone who has close ties to the most influential legal minds in the country.

Trying to intimidate legal scholars won't work, but they're desperate, and they've already tried everything higher up on the list. At this rate, by the end of the year they'll probably start randomly breaking into houses looking for evidence of copying.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, what's a TOC? Terms of Contract? That's not real legal terminology there, Jim Bob.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Maxo-Texas]

You know, they had a damn fool law that set the national speed limit at 55 and another really stupid one that made alcohol illegal.

Then there were the laws saying people of certain races had different contracts than others.

Society is a negotiation. Movie makers have added additional costs ("You must watch these commercials before you can see the movie on the DVD you bought".) And we have to obey those requirements as well as we obey other laws we disagree with.

Unpopular laws only create disrespect for the law.

I'm with you on the copyright thing-- but only for 28 years. The current terms they have bribed the government to pass are ridiculous and not widely respected and even against the intent of copyright law which is to encourage artists to create lots of new stuff. Current copyright law is used to suppress the creation of a lot of material.

You have a right to your opinion- and what you are saying is legally true. And I'll probably think about that for a few seconds tonight as I drive home 5mph over the speed limit and have some absinthe-- oh wait-- absinthe is now legal again. Those darn pesky laws-- they just change if enough people resist them.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[nobodylocalhost]

Right, Generic manufactures, Excuse me, who the fuck are you? You deserve free access to products producing methodologies that might have cost someone a hundred million dollars to produce?

You might have a better argument with knowledge. But no, you do not have a fundamental right to be profiting at someone else's expense. Sorry.

well, at least we know your argument can be used to go against public domain as a whole.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

Yay tits!

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[tirefire]

Quote (emphasis mine): "For those that say "hah i got you zomgn00btard, I don't buy, I just download it from my bit torrents"....great you are STEALING."

Nitwit.

http://www.questioncopyright.org/cm/images/piracy-is-not-theft.jpg

Have fun paying high prices for something you'll never truly own. I only know a few people who have such a backwards view on filesharing as yourself. They're all above the age of 40, so I'm hoping that you and any others who can't understand such a simple difference will all be dead and gone within my lifetime.

I think I'll go out to eat tonight with the money I saved from downloading a movie this week instead of buying it. Then I'll watch the movie. I guess you'll just have to eat your stupid $20 plastic disc instead of food. Be sure to do that after you watch the movie, though (being a good little MPAA tool, you wouldn't consider ripping the DVD).

Good day to you.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

Buy the physical CD from Amazon.com, buy the MP3s from Amazon.com

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

Don't believe the previous paragraph? Think I'm full of shit? Ok. Look at your CDs and DVDs: do you see a license?

Yeah. It's that thing that says you can't make copies and illegally distribute/publicly display the work. It's usually touted as an "FBI Warning," but the only relevance is that they would call the FBI on you if they wanted to investigate you for violating the given license; it's a license from the copyright holders.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

judges that are convinced every PC is sharing anything, I guess. \\you.comcast.net\C$ ?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

Screw them..I hope their children starve in the streets.

Yes they deserve to die; and I hope they burn in Hell!

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Sloppy]

Yeah. It's that thing that says you can't make copies and illegally distribute/publicly display the work. It's usually touted as an "FBI Warning,

That's a copyright notice. And notice the consistency:

1. The FBI is arguably "interested" in violations of copyright law (though not very much, I'd wager). That's why the publisher bluffs that they'll bring in the FBI if you violate copyright.
2. OTOH, the FBI is not interested in your civil contract. If I think you're in violation of my license, I run to my lawyer, not the cops.

So bzzzt, try again.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[fishbowl]

I know contract law very, very well, and I am telling you that something is not a contract unless it has enforceable subject matter, mutual agreement, and valuable consideration. If nothing else, no consideration is offered for a "shrink wrapped TOC", in the United States it cannot be a contract, in and of itself. In order to be enforceable, it could be made part of a contract, but that's another ball of wax. I know what I'm talking about here. Keep spreading misinformation if you want to.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[bluefoxlucid]

That's what 14 year term patents are for.

Re:Who is this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

What the professor actually subpoenaed was an .mp3 file in someone's P2P directory that was named "Oppenheim". The real "Oppenheim" is an empty, useless file in the RIAA's P2P directory and it's a copyright violation to down^H^H^H^Hsubpoena him.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Arterion]

So you're saying if I'm Jesus Christ, and I turn two fish and five hushpuppies into enough to feed over five thousand people that Captain D's should be able to sue me for it?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Raenex]

And to repeat my argument, people ignore it, - it is not your created work you do not hold any rights to it. When you pay a company for the CD/DVD to use it you also enter an agreement - no signature is requried (again refer to Don Shekely attorney).

Please provide a link for this "Shekely" or "Shekley", as you've spelled this name differently in two different postings. I've searched on both and could find nothing relevant. All you've done so far is provide unverifiable references and insisted that your point of view is correct. In particular, you have claimed that buy merely purchasing a DVD you have entered into an agreement on how you may personally use it, which I find absurd.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Raenex]

I thought Celebrity Skin was a good song.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[penginkun]

"When you have a thousand CDs, it's really hard to keep them physically organized"

Speaking as someone with a 1,500 CD collection, I have more trouble keeping the digitised versions of my collection organised than I do the physical media.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[penginkun]

Why would I want to? Are they delicious?

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[bluefoxlucid]

Forget it, you don't understand copyright law. It's not contract law.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Anonymous Coward]

...or the dufus drummer from Metallica

He's not their drummer, he's just their tennis player.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[nobodylocalhost]

Now if only there are 14 year term copyrights... oh wait... copyright concerning work for hire lasts 95 years here, I must be missing something ginormous; and you, my friend, missed my sarcasm by light years.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[De Lemming]

If you want to know just how badly the RIAA labels screw over their artists, read any treatise by any RIAA musician (except Mad Donna or the dufus drummer from Metallica). There are good ones by Courtney Love and Steve Albini that will make you feel REAL sorry for the fools who sign with major labels.

FYI, the links:
Courtney Love redefines music piracy and blasts the RIAA
The Problem With Music by Steve Albini

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Michael Hunt]

1) If you are making a backup then you are OK, but face it, this crap started because too many people distribute movies on the net so people don't have to shell the money out. In all honesty if they came to your house and you could show them a 1:1 ratio every dvd/cd backup with the original, they would apologize and leave your house. Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.
Of course. Anyone who wants to rip discs to a different format is a warezie. That's logic if ever I saw it. Sir, you could out-debate a horse!

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.
I'm actually not sure what you think you're trying to say here. Modifying the movie would require a copy on your hard disk, and hard disks don't HAVE a TOC! (In fact, on newer recordable media, ATIP/PMA is arguably the correct term anyhow.) You might, of course, mean Terms of Use, or something, in which case I'd suggest you go fuck yourself, because nobody signs anything when they buy a movie, and it's fascist assumptions such as 'corporations can bind us to whatever we want without our recourse' which get society broadly raped over time. You're a REALLY sharp one, aren't you?

I don't know why these issues are so hard to understand. Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC. If you think the movie sucks and is not wtflol worth the money then don't buy it, don't watch it. Wait for it to come out on TV and you can have it for free (not really since there is advertising) or borrow the movie from a friend. There are plenty of ways to watch a movie/hear a tune which doesn't require you to steal it or modify the DVD.
So, while you're against warez (that much of a consistent position was at least present in your ramblings, remind me to tip your speechwriter!), you have no problem with people borrowing discs off their friends. How, exactly, is this any different? (other than the ENTIRELY LEGAL AND NOT AT ALL PRAGMATIC argument about the number of copies in existence, and the desire for copyright law originally to make non-tangible goods resemble tangible ones).

There are cogent arguments for not infringing peoples' copyrights. You, sir, have made none of them.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Fjandr]

Movies are not subject to the same screwed-up rules as software, by-and-large. The "first sale" doctrine applies to them, as far as I'm aware, which means that while you cannot copy and distribute the copies any more than you can copy and distribute bindings of books, you can rip it apart and arrange it any way you wish for consumption.

There is no EULA for movies. None. They have not been held up in court relating to usage of a movie, and if you're claiming they have I'm sure there would be a large number of people here who would like to read the transcript. By all means, provide a reference to this in relation to consumer use and abuse (not copying and distribution, or public demonstration) of a DVD.

The only things you're arguing against that have any basis is piracy, and the only person in this string of replies who mentioned copying for anything other than private, personal use of already-owned movies did so as an obvious joke. Ergo, the only arguments you put forward with any merit are strawmen. Yeah, you can beat those arguments down, but that doesn't help when nobody was talking about them before you brought the subject up.

It's not "no paper, no pen = no contract." It's "no consideration, no meeting of the minds = no contract." Please, provide at least some basis for what appear to be entirely specious claims. I can do any damn thing I want with personally-owned movies, so long as I do not distribute them or present them for public display. If you disagree, I expect citations of the Federal Circuit case that affirms the limitation on a particular private use (that haven't been overturned).

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[martin-boundary]

He's a suit. 'nuff said.

What, suits are more equal than others? Fuck him.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[bluefoxlucid]

14 year copyright term seems like an excellent idea.

Re:I dislike reading

[ancientt]

Your humility is commendable sir and my hat is off to you. You almost make me want to be a lawyer if I ever grow up.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[ScrewMaster]

Why would I want to? Are they delicious?

Yes. They are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[ScrewMaster]

1)In all honesty if they came to your house and you could show them a 1:1 ratio every dvd/cd backup with the original, they would apologize and leave your house. Chances are it would be a ratio of 100:1 pirated:legit.

Huh? No they would not. They do whatever they could to destroy your life, that of your family, and anyone else that they can remotely connect to your alleged acts of "piracy" in order to make an example out of you. That's essentially why everyone who follows what's happening is so up in arms about the RIAA's tactics. Furthermore, I don't know what part of your anatomy you pulled that 100 to 1 statistic from, but I can guess. There are millions upon millions of people who do nothing but dutifully purchase commercial media, and are then presumptively treated as criminals by the media cartel.

2) Modifying the movie, and the extra's, violates the TOC. Just like any contract, if you do not like it then do not sign for it and do not use the product. If you like the product that much then use it how they asked you to use it.

Huh? What TOC? What contract are you talking about? Are you daft, lad? I buy DVDs and immediately rip them, and put the original in a safe place. And when I copy that disc, I remove all the crap (including all the "piracy is stealing" baloney with which they irritate legitimate customers, and which have no effect whatsoever on those who aren't), and anything else I don't want. When I put in one of my discs, it jumps right to the title track. That improves the experience and frankly, I wouldn't buy a commercial disc if I couldn't do that. If these idiots (and yes, they are idiots) would stop attempting to threaten and intimidate their loyal customers, and actually think about how their product is perceived, I might feel differently. But they aren't, and I don't.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Anonymous Coward]

TOC. Table of Contents. AviLazar just has some weird kinks. You don't want to know what else they violate.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[spiritraveller]

'. . . has acted as attorney of record for the record companies in several proceedings in Washington, D.C.'

So, if he represents the interests of the artists, (ahem), why is he - or his legal team, taking such extraordinary steps to avoid testifying?

If he is their attorney, one might wonder what it is that they intend to ask which would not be covered by the attorney-client privilege.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[hedwards]

I believe that's Hooray for boobies.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[hedwards]

Umm, people don't intend to own when they stream from Netflix. The reason why people do it is because it's cheaper to spend $9 a month for the privilege and then not bother buying the movie ever. Very few movies are worth watching more than a couple of times, and renting access to a fairly substantial catalog is a lot cheaper than buying a lot of movies that you're only going to watch once.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[hedwards]

Remember kids /. does not support the cool crime of music piracy.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Undoubtedly, the things they want to ask Oppenheim about have nothing to do with his work as a lawyer, they have to do with his work as a "principal" of the record companies, which he has himself represented himself to be.

Re:I dislike reading

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You almost make me want to be a lawyer

Don't even think about it. If you think actually having to deal with low lifes like Timothy Reynolds is a nice way to make a living, let me disabuse you of that right now. It's no fun.

That's 5318008 Re:Who is this guy,

[mrmeval]

you insensitive neo-geek!

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[nikkipolya]

Hmm...
So moral of the story is... use DVD's to back up those movies that are sitting on your hard-drive every now and then. Peace.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[spiritraveller]

Undoubtedly, the things they want to ask Oppenheim about have nothing to do with his work as a lawyer, they have to do with his work as a "principal" of the record companies, which he has himself represented himself to be.

How is that likely to reveal any relevant information in a lawsuit that alleges a copyright violation?

I know it's a pretty loose standard for what is discoverable, but I don't see what they're getting at.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You have to go back and read the legal documents, particularly the proposed counterclaims and defenses and the defendant's motions to amend and to add the RIAA and to amend his pleadings.

Re:The Real Issue: Universal Access to Knowledge.

[The Bungi]

So flocktard, let's see all the content you shared without receiving compensation of any kind and don't really mind - in fact it made you positively happy to do so. Let's see it.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[NC-17]

Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins) essentially wrote this song, and contributed much to the rest of the album as well. FYI.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[cduffy]

Umm, that's his point.

When I buy a copy of a movie, I own the media, rather than having licensed it, so I can do anything legal -- ie. anything that doesn't violate copyright law. There isn't a contract, which is why it isn't a contract violation but rather copyright infringement (and thus potentially grounds for FBI involvement, rather than something resolvable only via civil suit).

Same thing -- if I go into a bookstore and buy a book, I own that book. I can't copy it -- that would be a copyright violation -- but that has nothing to do with my ownership of the book, which is mine fair and square.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[cduffy]

It's that thing that says you can't make copies and illegally distribute/publicly display the work.

Wrong. You couldn't do those things even if they didn't have the FBI warning, because buying a copy of the media gives you no rights to do things copyright law restricts to the rightholder. The FBI notice is completely irrelevant, except as a warning.

So -- in the common case, your rights are spelled out by the set of things not restricted by relevant statutory law; what the copyright holder wants you to be able to do is completely irrelevant one you purchased outright a legally created copy.

known troll, mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's something twitter has shared with the world about assholes like you.

What is a flocktard? Your tag queue for that is empty. I like how you credit Boycott Novell and Erris stories to twitter. Keep up the good work.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Chosen Reject]

Where do people get this idea? You bought the movie. A little collection of laws you may have heard of called Copyright Law keeps you from distributing the content without the copyright owners permission. That's it. There isn't any kind of fancy license or whatnot. The copy you bought was distributed by some store who had been authorized by the copyright holder to distribute the copy you bought (assuming you didn't buy it from the guy with the large coat in the subway station). You bought it. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it barring violation of copyright law. It's the same kind of thing as when I buy a car. There was no contract I signed at that time that was a license to use the car but not to go over the speed limit or run over people with the white sticks crossing the street. No, I bought the car and can do whatever I want with it so long as I'm not breaking some law. I buy the movie and can do whatever I want with it so long as I'm not breaking some law. It's not licensed to me, it's purchased. A copy of the movie, not the copyright. I bought the movie, not the copyright. Do I have to repeat this again for you to understand? There is no license, only a purchase.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Areyoukiddingme]

He's not doing it because he wants to. He's doing it because he's compelled to. He has a contract with the RIAA.

Re:Who is this guy, & why does he not want to

[Areyoukiddingme]

Wow. I'm not much interested in Courtney Love's music, first because of her association with Nirvana (which made music useless to me) and second because her style isn't really my thing, but damn, you go girl. I didn't know she had a vocabulary. And could write. And could do math. Go figure. Nine years after she wrote that, I hear about it, and I almost didn't read it this time. The world has gotten a bit too big...