RIAA Filed 62 New Cases In April Alone

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Based upon a quick examination of the records in PACER, I detected 62 new cases brought by the RIAA against individuals in the month of April alone. In December, 2008, the RIAA had represented to Congress that they had 'discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August [2008].'"

Comments

Surprising

[count rostov]

The RIAA, lying? Who saw that one coming?

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA are poster boys for the Legal profession in my book. Sorry NYCL but this is why we must bust your Guild. We also should replace most of the Judges in this country with lay men with good BS detectors and not lawyers.

Re:Surprising

[futureb]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. If you are ever served with a complaint, I would welcome you to the Guild and would look forward to your learning civil procedure in the time given to you to file your answer...if you know how much time that is.

Re:Surprising

[erroneus]

A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties. Justice should have NOTHING to do with party affiliation.

Re:Surprising

[TheGratefulNet]

remove the NEED for lawyers, then.

you guys are not very smart, are you? you can't quite see that you created this monster and are still arguing that the monster 'needs' to continue living.

so that the monster can continue.

circular, huh?

simplify the laws, put normal 'thinking' people in charge as judges and we could NOT do a worse job than is being done now. not joking about it either, the system is just too complex and needs to be totally broken down and redone.

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

Re:Surprising

[v1]

But you're forgetting, there'd be a lot less poor innocents such as the OP being served if there weren't so many lawyers to begin with....

Considering lawyers as the answer is clouding your vision that they are also the cause.

It's a common situation to be in, "What's the answer to x? More x!". No. The answer is "NO x."

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Simplify the laws. Good answer.

You know what happens in any game, be it online, tabletop, sport, or whatnot? You lay down a simple rule, it will get abused. You tell people they can't do something in general, they'll argue for specifics. If anybody disagrees, without a specific rule to account for the situation, it's all bitch, bitch, bitch.

Now, that's just in terms of games. Which don't mean shit. Move that to the real world, where things matter. Someone spilled hot coffee on themselves? Well, they certainly don't want to be embarrassed, so they'll take advantage of a lack of explicit warnings on the cup and sue the restaurant! Broke into someone's house and tripped over something they left out? Technically, you're in a legal grey area regarding trespassing, and besides, there's nothing in the trespassing law saying you don't have to clean up your junk, so sue the homeowner!

People will fight that much harder to abuse any law you give them until it's spelled out in such explicit detail that they can't find loopholes in time. And thanks to these assholes abusing the "simple" laws, we need to staple more laws on top of them to shut them up when they're being assholes. And that's what's happened. Lawmakers make a law that should be simple, some asshole wants to abuse it for kicks, judges set precedents to attach more detail to laws, repeat cycle.

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them. Either they'll get their way or they'll keep arguing you to a stalemate, and seriously, what else are they going to do with their day? You've got important things to do and they don't. They'll win. And regardless of your personal views of how reality works, you'll have that army of assholes whether the laws are "simple" or "complex" or if we "need" lawyers or not.

The laws and social norms are the only things keeping some overly creative asshole with too much time on his hands from picking you at random, finding some way to empty your life, and getting away with it scot-free. Yes, even if you think anarchy is teh bestz!!!!1!1 and we'd all be better off if we just did things your way. The legal system didn't make society into what it is. People did.

Unless it's your plan to eradicate all of humanity?

Re:Surprising

[SydShamino]

simplify the laws, put normal 'thinking' people in charge as judges and we could NOT do a worse job than is being done now. not joking about it either, the system is just too complex and needs to be totally broken down and redone.

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian. So, if you want the law to be consistent, what your saying is that we should scrap all the existing precendences, but start over reestablishing them, which will eventually require lawyers again.

Or, do you intend to abolish precedence, and let each judge conclude for each case how to interpret and apply the law? Because I see the world where judges can arbitrarily apply law with no regard for established precedence to be far, far worse than the world we have now.

Re:Surprising

[Miseph]

If I were to say that we should do the same for programming, engineering or open heart surgery, what would you think about it? If you can't see why law needs people who specialize in it, then you are a fool.

Most lawyers and attorneys are actually pretty reasonable (keep in mind that most are also not involved with trial law), and most judges get that job because of their well-tuned BS detectors. The only thing I got out of your post is that you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about, that you've probably never even been in a court, and that you honestly believe your reading a handful of blogs and news sites that just touch on law actually give you a serious capacity for it.

Re:Surprising

[TeXMaster]

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian.

Wait, why are you talking about thinking people in the first sentence and then switch to a totally different topic in the second one?

Re:Surprising

[HuguesT]

Judges are normal people like you and me. The right to belong to a political party of one's choosing is a pretty fundamental right.

Re:Surprising

[jabithew]

Please mod this down. This is the trite masquerading as the insightful. The entire argument is predicated on the concept that 'normal' people* can agree when they sit down and talk peacefully. I cite precedent** that this is not the case.

Simplification of the law would be great, but it won't absolve the need for legal specialists, nor will it simplify the complex interactions between free agents in a democratic society.

*Lawyers, as we all know, are bred in special vats.
**c.f. the entire of human history

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? they wouldn't find a way to do more work with less time?

Isn't that what computers are supposed to enable?

Re:Surprising

[wealthychef]

You cannot keep making more rules. In your world, integrity is assumed not to exist, and you rely on the rules to keep order. Consider two options. In the first, we rely on simple, clear rules and citizens with integrity to enforce them. In this system, some people will cheat, yes, but when the rules are clear, then we can deal with the cheaters by executing good-faith judgment in a trial of their peers, and delivering the full punishment when the law is broken, in speedy, reliable fashion. The downside is that the citizens are expected to be men of honor and we all then have a burden to keep our word. Abuses will occur. In the second option, which is the system you propose, we assume that everyone will cheat, in fact, we expect it. A little cheating is OK, but a lot is "bad." We punish the eggregious cheats, but let the little cheats slide with a wink, since we all do it anyhow, right? How dare some sanctimonious person dare judge our behavior? In this system, you have to keep making more and more rules to cover the edge cases because everyone is looking for a little advantage. Juries are not allowed to exercise as much judgment, instead the rules keep getting "improved". The good thing about such a system is citizens are no longer responsible for their behaviors -- they can blame the rules when things go bad. Or is that such a good thing? Hmm. The down side is that the rules become so twisted that cheating is the NORM. There is no such thing as 98% integrity. As soon as you accept 98% integrity, then you redefine 98% as 100%, and then you start having 96% integrity, which then becomes the new 100% etc. AT some point, we are going to have to admit that we as individuals are responsible for our entire lives and everything we do and say in them, and really be engaged in our society. It cannot work any other way. So yes, scrap the system, replace it with something simpler, I say, and then let's start actually FOLLOWING THE RULES. :-)

Re:Surprising

[wealthychef]

The ability to arrive at different conclusions is fine, that's why we have juries. We need to have simpler laws and let the juries have more discretion, all the time utterly respecting the rule of law.

Re:Surprising

[erroneus]

Not really, no. A political party does a lot in the way of telling people who operate under their banner to behave. For example, there was no way that a republican or democrat judge was ever going to follow the rule of law when it came to keeping Democrats and Republicans on the presidential ticket in Texas even though both parties failed to meet their deadlines.

While there are some rules and laws that may generally be subject to some interpretation, the enforcement of the law should never be related to or affiliated with any one party that happens to be in power. The enforcement of law should, under all circumstances be fair and even. We know they are not, but it should be.

You may feel it is okay for individuals to pick a side and defend it. But you can never be impartial when you do that. Are you okay with a justice system that is not impartial? I'm not. Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.

Re:Surprising

[HeronBlademaster]

The rules are largely irrelevant to people with integrity. That is, most laws have little effect on the majority of the population; murder being illegal has no direct effect on me, personally, because I've never murdered nor do I plan to murder. Would you argue that since murder being illegal has no effect on most of the population we should make it legal?

The whole point of laws is to keep the minority of people - the GP's "army of assholes" - from screwing things up for the rest of us. The only way to do that is to make laws more and more specific as those people try to find smaller and smaller loopholes to get out of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish people would stop abusing the McDonald's coffee case, it's basically the hallmark of people who refuse to fucking pay attention. She didn't sue because there wasn't a warning the coffee was hot, she sued because it caused 3rd degree burns in under 5 seconds, as it was kept 60F _above_ what was industry standard.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Rules? Who's rules? Your rules? What gives you the right to impose your rules on me?

I don't need any rules. The rules are great for keeping YOU in line. Rules are great for keeping YOU from bothering me. But don't ever assume YOUR rules apply to me. I don't need them, because I'm fine. YOU follow the rules, and leave me the hell alone.

--The general consensus among the populace if they were ever really honest with themselves. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a senator or congressman say "We have to pass this bill! It will protect ME from myself!"

Re:Surprising

[mrmeval]

And McD's still can't make a decent cuppa. And they're slowly jacking the temperature again up as people bitch about 'cold coffee'.

Re:Surprising

[spanky the monk]

true dat. Seems to me that PEOPLE are fundamentally the thing that needs to be reformed. This "monster" is really just a sickness of the people themselves.

You are not separate from the world people! you grew out of it and are as connected to it as an apple is to a tree. It's all YOU. Wake up!

Re:Surprising

[number11]

A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties.

That'll just make it "wink, wink, nudge, nudge". In my county, sheriff is an elected "nonpartisan" position. I'm sure the fact that one candidate received lots of help from Republican sources and the police union, and the other candidate received help from Democratic sources, was entirely coincidental. In any case, the parties were technically not involved, they did not directly contribute. Most judges (also a "nonpartisan" elected post) are a little more discrete (one is married to a high Republican operative, but of course that doesn't indicate anything about her own politics), though I have noticed that for some reason the names of most of the individuals endorsing a particular judge tend to also appear endorsing the same flavor of candidate for more partisan races.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds reasonable can we start with all the lawyers first thu?

Re:Surprising

[Anarchduke]

Of course everybody hates lawyers, they are like giant vicious pit bulls. Still, you want the vicious fuckers to protect your property. And when the pit bulls come scratching on your door wanting to chew your balls off, then you have to get your own vicious pit bull and pay him your arm and leg in order to keep your balls.

Re:Surprising

[SausageOfDoom]

I may have misunderstood, but I think wealthychef was suggesting simple clear rules should be applied to everyone by people with integrity, rather than hoping everyone will have integrity.

Rather than having to explicitly cover every little corner of human nature in laws, you have simple guidelines (don't kill, don't steal etc), and leave it down to a panel (ie a judge and jury) to decide whether the actions of the defendant were right or wrong, based on the guidelines set down.

It's pretty clear you'd have to go into a bit more detail than "do not kill", and some work would need to be done figuring out how to ensure consistency etc, but I like the idea in principle.

Re:Surprising

[syousef]

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them

So your argument is that we should make laws as complex/detailed as possible so that no one can even tell you if they're abiding by them let alone try to comply??? Did you pass that thought through a sanity check before posting it?

Re:Surprising

[Dragonslicer]

Considering lawyers as the answer is clouding your vision that they are also the cause.

Assholes are the cause. Asshole lawyers just make it even worse. In theory, non-asshole lawyers (and judges, and politicians, and just about everyone else) are the answer.

Re:Surprising

[erroneus]

In Texas, the party supporting the candidate is printed on the sign... it would be better if it weren't. But straight-ticket voting is very encouraged here.

Re:Surprising

[v1]

Lawyers are a lot easier to find though, they're even registered.

Re:Surprising

[insllvn]

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them.

And things would be exactly as they are now, except the army of assholes wouldn't be called lawyers anymore.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

If it makes you feel better, I hate lawyers even after I need one.

Re:Surprising

[Thinboy00]

The problem is that such laws need to deal with complex circumstances (e.g. killing in self defense, "manslaughter" by drunk driving, estoppel etc.). The more circumstances need to be dealt with, the more complex the laws need to be (that's ungrammatical, isn't it?).

Re:Surprising

[shentino]

Kinda like how the catholic church tried to influence politics by denying JK communion for his support of abortion.

Re:Surprising

[Thinboy00]

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian.

Wait, why are you talking about thinking people in the first sentence and then switch to a totally different topic in the second one?

Libertarians are thinking people. The first two though...

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone spilled hot coffee on themselves? Well, they certainly don't want to be embarrassed, so they'll take advantage of a lack of explicit warnings on the cup and sue the restaurant!"

Before you use this example, you should take the time to find out the facts of the McDonalds Coffee suit : http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Re:Surprising

[debrain]

You might be interested in reading Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire, the definitive treatise of law as integrity, Amazon's blurb being:

"In this first full-length exposition of his theory of law, Dworkin, who teaches jurisprudence at Oxford University and New York University, maintains that society should ensure for all its members a legal system that functions in a coherent and principled manner. In prose accessible to the lay reader, he discusses at length several views of American constitutional law such as "passivism" and "framers' intention." Rejecting both conventionalism and pragmatism, he advocates law as integrity which holds that propositions of law are true if they derive from justice, fairness and procedural due process in accordance with the community's legal practice. Citing examples, he further argues that law should be more than a collection of formal guidelines and that it should uphold more abstract moral principles, distinguishing between issues of policy and matters of principle affecting rights of the individual. Uniting jurisprudence with adjudication, Dworkin sees each judge as a link in a chain of law of which his or her judgment becomes a part."

You will be well armed to have an informed discussion of law as integrity after reading Professor Dworkin's book. It aptly describes (or perhaps in no small part constituted) one of the prevailing "modern" approach to judicial reasoning.

Another blurb:

"Dworkin (Jurisprudence, Oxford; and Law, NYU) sets out a theory of how judges determine what the law is and its application in hard cases where no settled or clear rule of law disposes of a matter, testing his theory in common law cases turning on statutes and constitutional cases. He posits that propositions of law are correctly established not because they represent a consensus or an efficient means to social goals, but because they answer the requirement that a political community act in a coherent, just, and principled manner toward all of its members. An exceedingly complex work which echoes certain of his previous writings, this volume will be of primary interest to scholars with an intense disciplinary interest. For subject collections. Merlin Whiteman, Dann Pecar Newman Ta lesnick & Kleiman, Indianapolis"

Re:Surprising

[Nursie]

Libertarians are idiots that would return most of the population to serfdom by removing all that protects the weak from the strong.

Re:Surprising

[ahankinson]

Libertarians think they're the only ones that *are* thinking people... and never waste an opportunity to tell you about it.

Re:Surprising

[SausageOfDoom]

Like I said, it's pretty clear you'd have to go into a bit more detail. "Do not kill" would have sub-clauses like "Intending to kill someone is worse than accidentally killing someone", "Killing in self defence may be warranted, depending on circumstances" etc.

The point is that rather than explicitly going into details, morals that the government/judicial system holds the population to are described in simple terms, and the details are decided by the judge and jury. Judgements are based on the facts, a handful of moral points, and what seems right.

Think Judge Judy, only without the attitude, and with a jury to avoid individual bias. Like I alluded to, the challenge would be to figure out how to avoid social bias - but the principle of the idea does appeal to me.

As an aside, I'd never heard of estoppel. I went to the wikipedia page to find out more, and I'm still not much clearer. It seems a perfect example of how the feedback loop in the legal system has made the system too closed to the layman. It seemed to be using very verbose language to lay down the details of a specific circumstance, which could just be handled by saying "Be honest" and "Honour your promises", and leaving the details of a judgement to the people listening to the facts.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

she sued because she was careless and *GASP* no way could *SHE* be responsible for her own actions.

You pick up a hot pan and burn yourself, *GASP* it's your fault.

You slip on ice because you moved to fast, *GASP* it's your fault.

You spill hot coffee on yourself and get burned, *GASP* it's your fault.

plain and simple she thinks all problems are externally caused and got some gaseous winbag of a judge/jury to believe her bullshit, trumped up excuses.

It was HER fault and no-one elses.

Re:Surprising

[Faylone]

Industry standard was far below what the National Coffee Association suggests for optimal flavor extraction.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I've read the case files and it still stands as a case of a frivolous lawsuit where a lady got rich because she injured herself. The coffee was between 180 and 190 degrees. If you've ever made a cup of instant cocoa or coffee or tea, that water coming out of your whistling kettle is hotter than the temperature of the coffee at the time McDonald's served it. That's really all you need to know -- this terrible, menacingly hot coffee was still colder than what comes out of your water kettle.

The people who try to justify this case are borne of this modern era of the pussification of America. They're enabling all sorts of frivolous lawsuits and yet they think of themselves as enlightened, because they can cite details about the case and yet they miss the forest for the trees.

Re:Surprising

[Samah]

It's a common situation to be in, "What's the answer to x? More x!". No. The answer is "NO x."

Unless, of course, "x" is XML.

Re:Surprising

[pudro]

it was kept 60F _above_ what was industry standard.

That is a bold-faced lie. Not only do other major sellers of coffee sell their coffee at temperatures near, at, or above the temperature in question, but McDonald's continues to serve it around the same temperature as well. Starbucks - FUCKING STARBUCKS - recommends coffee be served at or near the temperature McDonald's serves it at.

Get a clue. Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings. If those thins had been the claims in the case, maybe I'd be okay with it. But to say that the coffee was too hot is definitely a frivolous claim.

Re:Surprising

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Obviously she should have used common sense, but the penalty for failing to use common sense when handling a cup of coffee should not be 3rd degree burns.

Accepting responsibility would have been dealing with the annoying chafing from mild surface burns, replacing the pair of paints, fixing her own upholstery. Hospitalization from (and let me repeat) a cup of coffee is above and beyond what one should reasonably expect from a lapse in common sense.

Re:Surprising

[Jay Clay]

"Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings."

Actually, McDonalds (at least at that particular location) dropped their serving temperature 30 degrees cooler. For that matter, if FUCKING STARBUCKS recommends serving between 180 and 190 degrees (the temperature of the lawsuit coffee), perhaps they should be told that it's not fit for consumption at that temperature, since you'll have a guaranteed burn of the mouth and throat.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Re:Surprising

[sakredkow]

I dunno. I think all people will answer yes, I am fully responsible for my entire life. But in my opinion, and I honestly don't believe I'm a cynic, I don't think you'll find one in five who actually lives as if they are responsible for their lives. That would be like the next anthropological leap for humankind.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

Put another way: it's usually a waste of time to optimize for edge cases.

Judges know this too, and it's why, at least in America, the judge and the jury have leeway in the sentencing, as opposed to just looking up a required penalty in a hard list. Our system relies on both laws and equity, and for good reason. Almost two millennia ago Aristotle argued for both approaches in order to show that they both fail in certain ways.

So we have a thread declaring all lawyers to be evil, and then the obligatory call to simplify the law, and the parent to your post, who, to be fair, was only reacting to the previous comment. But the generalizations are flying fast here and no one's going to get anywhere trying to fix things that law students learn are philosophically separate in their first week.

The system that you describe...trial by a jury of your peers, clear rules, people expected to keep their word. It sounds nice, but are you sure that we don't have it already?

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks to these assholes abusing the "simple" laws, we need to staple more laws on top of them

I disagree. Simple code tends to work better than complex code. Ordinary citizens must be able to understand
what is demanded of them if we are to have any hope for respect of the government. Our ideal for rules governing
human behaviour should be, as Albert Einstein is rumored to have said, "As simple as possible, but no simpler".

But then again, this is slashdot and IANAL.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

Judge Judy, only without the attitude

What exactly is Judge Judy without the attitude? She acts like an asshole and demean people who need help for ratings. Don't act like the appeal of Judge Judy isn't "OMG what trash does she have on there today, I hope she yells at them." That's not the purpose of a courtroom, and the fact that this behavior is covered with a veneer of "telling it like it is" is incredibly hypocritical of her.

She's a showboat. I could go on. I won't. The fact that you think she represents something positive about or legal system tells me all I need to know.

As an aside, I'd never heard of estoppel. I went to the wikipedia page to find out more, and I'm still not much clearer. It seems a perfect example of how the feedback loop in the legal system has made the system too closed to the layman.

You read something, didn't understand it, and your immediate reaction was that the legal system's precision is in fact a conspiracy to stop people from valuing honesty. Estoppel is not based on a specific circumstance, just as a fork is not used in a specific circumstance merely because it is not a spoon. You're just more willing to condemn an entire profession than you are to read and absorb an encyclopedia article.

And if you think I'm mean...call up Judge Judy and tell her you think estoppel is bullshit. Lower the volume on your phone first.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The damages also amounted to McDonald's coffee sales for TWO DAYS. wow. Punitive.

Re:Surprising

[zippthorne]

There is a very good reason for that. People like hot coffee, not lukewarm coffee. Even people that don't really like coffee. Like, say, the kind of people who would get their coffee from a discount hamburger chain, and molest it with cream and sugar amounting to half the original volume.

If McDonalds employees were aloud to face-punch anyone who complained about lukewarm beverages after adding eight creams, they wouldn't have had the problem to begin with.

Re:Surprising

[IamGarageGuy 2]

OK, I'm perplexed now. The fix would be to eradicate all of the laws and rebuild from the start. This has been done throughout history. The difference now is that the general population is now able to look up information and respond on a moments notice without thinking. Historically a handful of indiviuals have got together and tried their best to come out a solution. Now it would be almost impossible to do this without a huge amount of peoples' input, therefore "noise". ...... we are too far gone. ....gonna go build a bunker in the middle of the woods

Re:Surprising

[pudro]

Oh yeah, a casual styled site run by a lawyer that doesn't cite any of it's sources. (It doesn't mention any sources, let alone link to them.) Great link. [/sarcasm]

The majority of the major chains serve coffee at that temperature, because they know how coffee works. The "National Coffee Association" and the "Specialty Coffee Association" both agree that coffee should be served at that temperature. They all understand that this is hot enough to burn you. None of them think people should be pouring 190 degree coffee down their throats. That isn't what you do when you are served coffee.

There is nothing wrong with serving something dangerously hot when that is how it is meant to be served. Package it properly and put a warning on it, sure, but serve it at the desired temperature. Millions of people every day demonstrate the level of responsibility required to perform the oh so dangerous task of consuming coffee served to them at this temperature. Millions. Every day. Just because a few people can't handle the same task is no reason to run to Big Brother for help. (Or if the packaging and/or warning are insufficient, that is no reason to bitch about how hot the coffee is. If you are going to run to Big Brother, at least do it with a sensible complaint.)

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them.

Um, you just described the current situation. That army of assholes, they're called lawyers.

Re:Surprising

[T Murphy]

Simple. Make it illegal to be an asshole.

Re:Surprising

[DownWithMedia1.0]

No kidding. Initiating a lawsuit is distinct from filing a lawsuit. The clown congressman who were told this knew the difference, but did they speak up? No. Their clown show trial went the way they wanted - they appease us lowly ones, while letting their RIAA buddies off the hook. The Congressman having show trials? Who saw that one coming?

Re:Surprising

[AxemRed]

The only people that bitch about "cold" coffee at McDonald's, or any restaurant, are the ones who buy their coffee in the drive-through and don't drink it they arrive at their destination a while later. Unless a careless employee pours a cup and then leaves it sitting out for a while they give it to you, I can't imagine anyone thinking that their coffee is too cold when they initially receive it.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers created the need for lawyers.

That's why people hate lawyers.

And lawyers with an arrogant attitude like yours feed the hate,
your sorry douche bag.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I were to say that we should do the same for programming, engineering or open heart surgery, what would you think about it? If you can't see why law needs people who specialize in it, then you are a fool."

You are apparently unable or unwilling to discern the difference between a set of man-made rules ( the law ) and a set of knowledge which exists independent of man's whims
( engineering or medicine ).

The law _creates_ the need for the people who specialize in it. It is self-perpetuating, and this makes it fundamentally different from engineering or medicine.

And you, sir, are what we here in the southern US call a dumbass.

Re:Surprising

[socsoc]

Well, they sometimes do serve a few of their McCafe offerings at a temperature that is way too cold. Hell, there's freaking solid ice crystals in it!

Re:Surprising

[LordLimecat]

Theres plenty of equally ridiculous cases if that one doesnt do it for you, wasnt some homeowner sued for mental trauma after a burglar managed to lock himself in the garage for some period of time?

Re:Surprising

[LordLimecat]

The solution is to make laws as airtight as possible so that you can actually have a chance of punishing people, rather than everyone being able to get out via loopholes. Its sort of like arguing "democracy doesnt work"--thats all well and good, but what do you propose we replace it with?

Re:Surprising

[fredklein]

Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

Right there is the whole case- she mis-handled the coffee. The spill was her fault.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

What this conveniently leaves out is that those 700 burns (of all types, only "some" were serious) were NATIONWIDE, over TEN YEARS. When you consider the number of cups that they sold in that time, only one in 24,000,000 burned anyone.

One burn for every 24 million cups.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste.

That also matches the National Coffee Association's recommendations. And why would the NCA give bad directions for preparing their product??

    He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

That's simply not true. For example:

http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200 degrees ."

http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html
" We recommend a quick brew time, using a brewer that keeps water at 200 degrees Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature) and mixes the grounds for full flavor extraction. "

http://www.cuisinart.com/share/man/29_man.pdf
After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180 degrees -185 degrees F."

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

Also not true. "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 degrees C (176-194 degrees F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee."
As an example. see http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_huntingdon/displayarticle.asp?id=180135 from 2007.
"McDonald's says its black coffee should be served at 85C, plus or minus five degrees."

And you were saying we needed to find out the facts??

Re:Surprising

[Ekimus]

How is driving drunk and running over some other person not murder?

Personally I see 2 things:

a) One is not allowed to drive under the influence of any drugs (drugs == simple list)
b) A drunk person has murdered another person

The question alone of "Is 'manslaughter' by drunk driving murder?" implies that you deal with the existing cornercases of the law. Drop that and you will see that after all it's simply murder.

Killing in self-defense is also murder, people with integrity should be able to decide wether one can get away with that (Very roughly speaking: "Either die yourself or kill the other person" Is something you get away with if you didn't start the physical attack in the first place.)

Re:Surprising

[Ekimus]

So you order a hot drink and the company should be responsible for switching your brain on to simply feel how hot it is by softly touching the cup or bringing your nose and lips close to it so that you will feel it's to hot for immediate consumption?

Oh right you order about 0.3l of hot coffee and immediately pour it down your throat in about 0.2secs, just like you do it with the coffee in the morning...yeah right...

Re:Surprising

[Ekimus]

idealistic totalitary.

Read: People in charge of something _can_ decide to do it a certain way. On the other hand they have enough integrity to remove themselves from the job if they see someone better. (Note this implies that the person in charge can effectively decide about his/her successor, but it would also imply that the successor would immediately remove him/herself if he thinks he's not the right person for the job)

Yeah I know dreaming away....that would actually require people (including me) to be honest with themselves...

Re:Surprising

[Ksevio]

Water only can get so hot - I get annoyed when I ask for tea and it's less than boiling

Re:Surprising

[pmarini]

Unless it's your plan to eradicate all of humanity?

No, just of the assholes that you refer to... most of which are _ _ Y _ _ S

Re:Surprising

[SausageOfDoom]

Spot on with Judge Judy - I meant the way there are no lawyers and the people just present the facts, rather than the way she shouts them down and makes a seemingly arbitrary decision based on little more than whether she likes the person or not. I was certainly not suggesting we clone her in order to restock the legal system :)

No, my immediate reaction to the wikipedia article was that this could have been written a lot more clearly. The legal profession tends to use excessively verbose language to explain things, and unless you're used to dealing with it (ie a lawyer), it is difficult to decode the true meaning. I stand by my comment that the wikipedia page is a perfect example of how the constant need for the syntax of law to tie down the semantic meaning has led to legal documents being difficult for the layman to understand.

As for estoppel, my understanding based on my initial reads of the wikipedia article was that it's for the specific circumstance where Person A says something to Person B, and Person B makes a decision based on that; Person A was wrong or changes their mind, and holds Person B responsible. That would certainly seem to be covered by "Be honest" and "Honour your promises" under wealthychef's system - and those are a hell of lot easier for people to understand.

I think we've got away from the main point, which was that by writing incredibly detailed and verbose documents you cannot reliably stop people without integrity breaking the spirit of the law while you rule by the letter of the law.

There are plenty of cases where people get away with a crime due to a legal technicality. Although clearly not without issues, you can solve a lot of problems by writing relatively high-level moral guidelines and then using the integrity of a panel of impartial laymen to pass judgement, rather than by tying their hands with specific legal rules that allow someone who is clearly guilty to walk free.

Re:Surprising

[sFurbo]

Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.

But they are ALSO people, and not allowing them politcal free speach will not make them apolitical.

Of course, we should strive to make sure that their political agenda doesn't affect their judgements. I think a great step in insuring that would be to stop making the naming of judges a political process.

Re:Surprising

[mac1235]

NYCL is that you?

Re:Surprising

[nicobigsby]

This is a laugh, it's not really possible for even boiling water to cause third degree burns in under five seconds. I've seen two third degree burns in my ten years of working in food service. Both were caused by accidents involving 350 degree plus deep friar oil. I've seen many people get second degree burns from scalding and boiling water but not third. Third degree burns require all three layers of skin to have been completely killed and nerve endings fried to be classified in that way. Coffee is generally served at a temperature of 160-175 degrees for full flavor, for the temperature to have been sixty degrees higher than that, it would have had to have been hotter than boiling point. Also the claim in the lawsuit that water this hot can cause third degree burns in under two seconds seems inaccurate to me as today I splashed myself with boiling water this morning and have not incurred third degree burns or anything like them.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL and I'm not trying to point fingers here, but in the EU we have such a legal system based on Non-precedence (which you probably know).

Maybe that's just me, but to pass a verdict based on a legal case from, say, 50 years ago (with highly different social/ political/ etc. circumstances) and to apply the opinion of a judge back then to a case today with our current circumstances seems MORE arbitrary to me than having a judge rationalize the verdicts anew as they occur, from a perspective of the respective present time's discourses and issues and so on, collaboratively with a jury or whatever.

Of course, as has been mentioned, there will always be cheaters in every system. You cannot stop this without violent force anyway, so we might as well just accept that fact.

Re:Surprising

[TheTurtlesMoves]

more xml is *never* the answer...

Re:Surprising

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The difference is that non specialists are expected to follow those laws. I don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car. I don't need to be electrical engineer to use a xbox. I need to understand the law in order to obey or understand the consequence of lack of compliance.

So either provide free lawyers so that it is reasonable to expect us to know what the legal interpretation of the laws. Or make the laws understandable to those who are not specialists.

It should be pointed out that in many countries the later idea is implemented to varying degrees.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

But it sure helps if you belong to the right party! (nudge nudge, wink wink)

Re:Surprising

[eldorel]

Except the the whole "jury of your peers" is supposed to handle these edge cases.

If you can't convince 12 peers that it was self defense, then it probably wasn't.
Involuntary manslaughter (not directly related to negligence on the part of the "murderer") is usually pretty obvious.
          If you jump out in front of my car, then it's not my fault.
          If I ran off of the road and hit you, then it probably is my fault.

If you were drunk and killed someone, then you were drunk and killed someone, period.

Most people I know agree with this last example until someone they know is the drunk, then they usually change their minds and say "it was just a mistake".
  That's why a jury is supposed to be made up of impartial strangers.

The main issue we have now is that the peers chosen are usually babbling idiots with no idea how this is supposed to work.
Most juries seem to just take whatever crap is spoon fed to them by whichever lawyer is the better showman. (at least where I live, ymmv. But I doubt it.)

When you do have an intelligent person pulled for jury duty, the lawyers cull them from the pool very quickly.

  Why is that?

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

you guys are not very smart, are you? you can't quite see that you created this monster and are still arguing that the monster 'needs' to continue living.

so that the monster can continue.

circular, huh?

Wow, you're an idiot.

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

Social problems such as individualism, crime, or free thought for example? Because any of those can sink "simple" laws.

Re:Surprising

[eldorel]

I'm not going to touch judge judy (ick, get it away), but I am going to go after your comments on estoppel.

Estoppel is actually an excellent example of why the layman is completely at the mercy of the lawyer.

Imagine for a moment that you have a girlfriend, who turns up pregnant. At the time, you have been dating exclusively for a year, and she breaks up with you for some reason around 8 months into the pregnancy.

After the child is born she demands child support, which you agree to in court. (This includes a paternity judgment in most jurisdictions I know of)

Three months later you find out that she was having sex with your roommate the entire time you were dating, and the child looks remarkably like the said roomate.
Heck, lets assume that you and the mother are both blond haired, blue eyed Caucasians, and that the roommate is a dark Italian. The baby was born rather fair, but has darkened remarkably.

Now, Most men would at this point be rather upset at having to pay child support for someone else's son, However, by the rules of estoppel, you cannot challenge the child support case on the grounds of mistaken paternity, due to the previous ruling against you.

Most laymen do not know this, as estoppel is not in any way common knowledge.
However, it is likely that if she notified her lawyer that you might not be the father, he would advise her not to mention that fact to anyone until after the judgment, as estoppel is basic knowledge for a lawyer.

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm pretty sure the guy was referring to a sweet spot.

On one hand, it is absolutely vital that the everyday person knows enough of the law to ensure he is confident that he won't be caught doing anything illegal. On the other hand, it is also vital that the law actually do its job, and do its job with a minimum of false positives. Overly complex laws fail the former, and simple laws fail the latter. As the parent was saying, simplifying laws to the extent of eliminating lawyers would be harmful to our social order.

Re:Surprising

[Golddess]

How is driving drunk and running over some other person not murder?

It's still murder, I don't think Thinboy00 was implying that any of those circumstances isn't murder. But just as an extreme example, I do not think the death penalty would be a reasonable punishment for murder via drunk driving, whereas with premeditated murder it would be. That is what I believe Thinboy00 was getting at.

Re:Surprising

[Dog-Cow]

I agree. The correct course of action is to outlaw political parties. There's nothing wrong or illegal with having an opinion. But abusing the legislative process to keep your "party" in power should be a Constitutional violation.

It is 100% illegal for a party other than the Democratic-Republican party to gain power in the United States.

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Would that really simplify the law? Instead of having to learn the ins and outs of many years of cumulative documentation, we would have to be adept at reading 12 stranger's minds. We would never know if we were operating in or outside the law.

And, not that I don't condone free thought, but has anyone here actually considered that a lot of very intelligent people have already pondered this problem, both throughout history and the present day? What we have is largely the result of many years of careful consideration and thought, and any radical changes you have proposed have not been successfully implemented in any legal system so far. What are the chances, seriously, that they were all wrong, and you are right?

Re:Surprising

[huge]

A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties.
[...]
A political party does a lot in the way of telling people who operate under their banner to behave.

Membership card isn't really a magical mind control device that allows you to manipulate the actions of the party member.

Do you also think that racism will disappear as soon as you outlaw KKK?

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Libertarians think they're the only ones that *are* thinking people

Wait. Think about what you just said...

Re:Surprising

[dwarfking]

What you appear to be describing is not so much what I think of as simplification but more reduction. It is possible to simplify the laws but still cover all the same points, just make the laws clearer and in more readily understandable language.

But that aside, a bigger change we could make (at least in the US) is tort-reform to a loser-pays system. Lawsuit-lottery exists in the US simply because the lawyers know they can keep dragging it out because if their client loses, they aren't stuck with the law bills for the other side.

In the US system the lawyers always get paid, regardless of outcome. In a loser-pays model, a lawyer weighs the actual merits of a case before taking it because if his/her client loses, he/she runs the risk of not getting paid.

Of course every time tort-reform is introduced it gets defeated by the lobbying might of the trial lawyers (which many members of Congress are) and the late-night TV class action lawsuit-mill lawyers ("Were you denied Vanilla ice-cream with your birthday meal at Joe's Pizza Parlor? Well call us, we can help").

Re:Surprising

[intheshelter]

I disagree. Everyone hates lawyers, even when they need one. They hate them for litigating everything they can find so they can be wealthy. They hate them for serving them the complaint in the first place. They hate having to use them to defend against a complaint filed by anther lawyer. They hate them for the chronic overbilling that seems to be the norm. I could go on, but you get the idea. A world without lawyers would be a nice start.

Re:Surprising

[geminidomino]

more xml is *never* the answer...

XML is the *question.*

The answer, of course, is "no"

Re:Surprising

[zhrike]

And ... McD's patently refused to pay for her hospital bills, which is why the suit was initiated. I was thinking the exact same thing "it's basically the hallmark of people who refuse to fucking pay attention," so thank you for speaking.

Re:Surprising

[The Grim Reefer2]

Broke into someone's house and tripped over something they left out? Technically, you're in a legal grey area regarding trespassing, and besides, there's nothing in the trespassing law saying you don't have to clean up your junk, so sue the homeowner!

This is one I just don't understand. If you're there illegally, then that's just too bad for you. If the police seize evidence w/o a warrant or improperly, then it is inadmissible. I don't see why self injury while knowingly committing a crime should be any different.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

"Move that to the real world, where things matter."

Since When???

Re:Surprising

[KC7JHO]

I have always found it interesting the regional differences regarding tea. If I ask for tea It should be in a large glass with plenty of ice! If served hot I would simply say "No, I ordered tea not Coffey." as to get hot tea you would have to specifically order it that way and may be told it is not available. Personally I like it either way, as long as it is not in the middle.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, non-asshole lawyers (and judges, and politicians, and just about everyone else) are the answer.

Let me know when you find one.

Re:Surprising

[Dan541]

She sued because she is a clumsy moron.

Re:Surprising

[Dan541]

Where the hell do you get common sense from these days?!?!

Re:Surprising

[kthejoker]

The problem there is actually the term 'estoppel', which is just a fancy way of saying "no takesies-backsies."

If all legalese were converted into playground slang, we'd all be a lot better off.

Re:Surprising

[eldorel]

The system that you describe...trial by a jury of your peers, clear rules, people expected to keep their word. It sounds nice, but are you sure that we don't have it already?

Absolutely CERTAIN.
....However, just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.

Allow my to explain my perspective, and lets see if anyone can show me my errors or assumptions.

Your first condition, "trial by a jury of your peers" depends largely on your definition of "peer".
According to Legal definition

"A peer is a person's equal. The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a "jury of one's peers," which means an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives."

Let's break this down further.
"A peer is a person's equal": I am a college educated male, between the ages of 25-35. I am fairly well versed in current events, active in the local community, and own my own business.
I think that it's safe to say that my equal would be best defined by these same demographics.
If it was possible, I would prefer to be judged by people with an equivalent intelligence level as well, but lets not get picky.

"an impartial group of citizens from the judicial district (e.g. county) in which the defendant lives": I live in the state capital of Louisiana (southern usa). According to Wikipedia "As of the census of 2000" "The per capita income for the city was $18,512. About 18.0% of families and 24.0% of the population were below the poverty line"
Since 2000, these numbers have worsened, the current poverty rate is above 25% according to the 2007 census. link
Also, better than 20% of our local population never finished high school. Census data
Additionally, I have been called for jury duty, as have many of my friends and associates. As a rule, the people who are educated, intelligent, and successful are removed from the jury pool in the first or second round. I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, but it's fairly common to wind up with a jury of the lowest common denominator. Intelligent, educated people are hard to convince, and hard to manipulate, which makes a lawyers job harder. Unfortunately out legal system doesn't weigh issues on thier own merits, but on the ability of the lawyers to argue instead.

So, what do you think the chances are of my having a jury of my equals?

Your second condition, "clear rules" is easier to define.
Clear rules would mean that the average American could read and understand exactly what was expected of them, the punishments involved, and how the legal system operated, in enough detail as to be able to successfully sue or defend themselves in court.

Or to make things even simpler, simply define the rules in such a way that the average American can at least understand what is going on in court, and participate in their own defense.

According to many different research groups, the US has a deplorable literacy rate. I'm not going to write a full analysis here, but there is a fairly good one Here
To summarize, 50% of our population reads at less than a 7th grade level.
So, what in the world makes people think that the average American can read, parse, and cross reference 1000's of obscure words, hundreds of referenced precedents, and actually understand it?

As for your last requirement, "people expected to keep their word" this is subjective, and the parent was referring to people with "integrity" not just honesty.
Unfortu

Re:Surprising

[neomunk]

The coffee was so hot that the lid THEY PROVIDED for her softened enough to not hold onto the cup that they provided. It was equipment failure due to exceeding product specifications.

To me, that says all I need to know, and my conclusion is the exact opposite of yours. There was much negligence in offering a consumer equipment operating so far beyond specifications that it had a hardware failure. How in the world can you figure that she is at fault for that incident? Should every consumer be aware of the operating limits of every product they receive, before they are given it? Is every consumer expected to carry around at all times the necessary sensory and metric equipment to ensure that said product is within tolerances?

The company (or an agent thereof) made a mistake that led to her being injured. I don't know how much more simple this can get, and it always amazes me that people are so cocky as to think that it couldn't have happened to them.

The only option she had and I can think of that people like you would have accepted was for her to psychically INTUIT that the coffee was above the operating temperature of the holding device and ask the clerk to wait before it was handed to her. Seems quite unreasonable to me, but then again I don't think X-Men is a documentary.

Re:Surprising

[flyneye]

Let me focus your perspective a bit so you aren't as cross-eyed.
        Firstly the desire to control others behaviour is neurotic. People are capable of controlling themselves. Several philosophies reflect the need for simplified laws. "Do what thou wilt and harm no one" "Love thy neighbor as thyself is the whole of the law".
            Federal laws need pared down to reflect only the constitutional duties assigned the fed. This can eliminate soooo much need for legislation that much of any lawyers legal library could stoke a winter fire. Entire programs and other moneypits could be eliminated,taxes lowered or done away with altogether. Put the power back in the state and local hands for all other laws not dealing DIRECTLY with inter-state commerce, the post office or the external borders.
            All will run as it is supposed to if you delete these unnecessary additions and replace the power where it was originally intended.
Federal legislation for the last century or so suffers from a disease known as "social conscience". This is a ruse for tactical posturing of big business and governmental greed for power. Eliminate this,change our business models, let the chaos from change settle and we'll be right back on track. Lawyers will still work, prisons will fill with the violent and truly threatening and the people will be back in charge with the government as a servant instead of a master as intended.
        Eliminate the bulk of regulations the fed has no business with and put the power back locally. People will even be able to find a place to be that agrees with them legally and prosperity,happiness and liberty will follow.
          Continue on this path we're on and a bloody revolution will follow when the pressure exceeds the point of tolerance. There is no doubt in my mind that the people will rid themselves of perceived "crooked lawyers" along with the socialist elements of government at that time.

Re:Surprising

[Archangel Michael]

You know what happens in any game, be it online, tabletop, sport, or whatnot? You lay down a simple rule, it will get abused.

Actually, the same applies to "complex" rules as well. More rules DON'T improve the game, when assholes are hell bent on pushing the boundries of the rules. BTW, Assholes are the ones that push the rules to the breaking point, using rules against those that follow them.

You know when an asshole appears, it usually is followed by "there ought to be a law(or rule)". And thus, there usually IS a new law (or rule), often named for either a victim, or the asshole himself.

In Poker, there is a Havad Khan Rule. You guessed it, named after the asshole that spurred the rule. And as much as I despise what Mr Khan did in the WSOP in 2007, I don't believe it needed a "rule".

Megan's law is another case, as is all the "hate crime" legislation. We don't need additional legislation to add additional punishment because you "hate". We just need the punishment for the actual "crime" to fit in the first place.

More laws don't make us behave any better, and end up being selectively enforced, and often for political gain, and finacial gain by the rule makers. Lawyers making laws, can anyone say conflict of interest?

Why do we allow lawyers in either of the other branches of government is beyond my understanding. You want to fix the system? Keep lawyers from the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government, except as legal counsel and prosecuting attorneys.

Re:Surprising

[neomunk]

And you think about the manner in which it was said.

The literary term we use for such a statement is called "sarcasm". I would ask you to look it up, but we both know that you're already highly adept at that particular form of communication. In fact (you can talk this as a compliment if you want, I would if I were you) you're IMHO one of the most adept users of sarcasm on slashdot.

Don't lower your normal standard of troll just for a cheap shot like this, your trolling should be (and usually is) of a much higher quality. Anything less lowers the quality of the legendary slashdot trolling community, and when that happens people will suddenly think that goatse links are actually effective trolls. Please, consider the consequences, as you ARE the bar these young lemonparty-linkers strive to attain. :-)

Re:Surprising

[Locke2005]

There is really only one law: "Do no harm, except to prevent a greater harm." Everything else is merely a codification of what constitutes "harm" and of the consequences for doing different types of harm.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

Which lawyers are you talking about specifically?

The ones who verify that a law was broken, and how it was broken, in order for the court to file charges?

The ones who make sure that the prosecution does not play fast & loose with the rules so you get a fair trial if accused?

The ones who read the laws and give advice to businesses on what may or may not be legal?

The ones who look over laws and tell government agencies what they can or cannot do?

There are a lot of different types of lawyers.
The reason we need them is because laws are complex.
Laws are complex because society is complex.

If you can come up with a better system for keeping order in society, and ensuring that justice applies equally to all, and that the rules we live under are fair, then please inform us.

What's that I hear, crickets again? I thought so.

Final note- the laws aren't created by the lawyers, they are created because people like you bitch & moan about every little thing and demand someone pass a law to fix it, which is the root of the problem.
Let me repeat that- it is the CITIZENS of this county who are to blame for our current mess of a legal system.

Re:Surprising

[Jaazaniah]

Modern society wants to categorize everything, even the various minutia of a given category have names for everything. As such, even if we take a single point (murder) and decide that some cases warrant different punishment (sentence scaling) then we've turned a simple thing like m^0 into m^1, and even if society can avoid breaking m^1 down into a calculus problem to assign punishments, there will inevitably be someone who looks at direction of intent to harm and the interplay between it. Even if we can accept that this turns m^1 into m^2 by virtue of this still-analogous system, people will want to break analog into digital, as a 'fuzzy' line can get people into more (or less!) trouble than should be if there is bias in the judge(s).

That's how a 'simple' act such as murder can be analyzed and go from a single point (biblical thou shalt not kill) to a graphical plane that's still imprecise to measure. Not so simple, even if many of these dimensions were interchangeable to other crimes, do we argue for hard-line sentence modification on the intent scale, or should the scale be relative to the perceived 'severity' of the crime? (there's m^3 - emotional responses to 'gruesome' murders) People, in general, think better with explicit rules than with multiple dimensions in their heads, so the current system of writing laws explicitly is the best they can come up with.

Also, it should be noted that overcoming individual bias is easy, overcoming social bias within a social system is nearly impossible in the context of a society. If the society has access to affect change in laws, laws will reflect the bias of the people making those changes. (but not everyone - abstinence-only-education anyone?) Overcoming social bias in a jury might happen if you can somehow systematically get 12 people to discuss and agree on verdict without facilitating groupthink. Something this current system is terrible at doing.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Manslaughter while driving drunk, is first degree murder, and should be considered premeditated at that!

Re:Surprising

[NotBornYesterday]

If you put a squishy cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving and hurt yourself in an extremely predictable manner, you do not deserve $millions. It's that simple. The cup top has nothing to do with it. She used this case like a winning lottery ticket.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

Or up to the point they need one, past that point, and then most especially when they tally the cost.

My mom was a lawyer, and some of her attitudes and things she did were distasteful to me.

I do, however, acknowledge there are some who are quite reputable and decent human beings. NYCL appears to be so. But the only instance where I can see someone appreciating a lawyer is where they render a service the person voluntarily decided they needed and were aware and satisfied of the cost of up front.

Otherwise, it's kind of like colonoscopy doctors. I doubt anyone likes them either.

Re:Surprising

[terrymr]

Hmmm killing by estoppel, how does that work ?

Re:Surprising

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I do... acknowledge there are some [lawyers] who are quite reputable and decent human beings. NYCL appears to be so. But the only instance where I can see someone appreciating a lawyer is where they render a service the person voluntarily decided they needed and were aware and satisfied of the cost of up front. Otherwise, it's kind of like colonoscopy doctors. I doubt anyone likes them either.

I love my colonoscopy doctor. His goal is to save my life, and he may well do that for me one of these days.

One of the best things about my doctors is that the bulk of their fee is paid by a third party, a health insurer. Our society would probably be a lot better off if something like that existed for legal needs as well. There are some prepaid legal plans, but not enough. And people who cannot afford legal representation should, at least in certain areas, have free lawyers appointed for them.

Re:Surprising

[terrymr]

The "industry standard" claim is still as crap as the first time somebody made it. If the water was 60F above the recommended temp for brewing coffee it would have been steam.

Re:Surprising

[Miseph]

No, I see the difference, I just don't see why it matters. Unless you honestly believe that a large and extremely complex society can persist without sufficient law, it stands to reason that in such a society the law is going to be fairly large and complex.

And bravo on ignoring the programming... I wonder if you feel that trained professionals don't need to exist for this absolutely fabricated task, or if you just couldn't think of an appropriate response.

Re:Surprising

[Miseph]

Believe it or not, we do both.

Free or extremely low cost legal assistance is available here for those unable to pay (granted, there is some hit on quality and personal attention, but still), for people involved with criminal proceedings a public defender must be provided free of charge* upon request, and for most other legal procedures there are a wide variety of charities and legal associations (including many state bars) which either cover the cost or provide lawyers operating pro bono to those lacking the money to pay.

Additionally, most people are quite able to have at least a basic understanding of the law due to various efforts by many agencies to promote awareness and understanding of it. This ranges from the offices of local legislators releasing abbreviated versions of the law to news organizations reporting new and widely applicable laws in words that require no greater than an 8th grade education. you car analogy is actually quite apt, you merely underestimate the amount of knowledge it takes for a person to actually operate one far any period of time... you might not know exactly why your oil needs to be changed, or how turning the steering wheel translates to the car turning, but you at least have a rough idea of the causality behind it: failing to change your oil will result in a breakdown, and turning the wheel causes the car to move in a different direction. You might not know off-hand what the penalties for shoplifting are, but you sure as hell know that you shouldn't be doing it.

Your assertion that everybody must be able to instantly understand the law in its entirety without sufficient education (and corresponding opportunity loss, every moment spent learning one thing robs you of the chance to learn something else) in order to abide by it is absurd on its face, as demonstrated by the fact that most people can and do abide by it without such an education.

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I... I simply do not know how to respond to this.

Except, of course, to say that it was a joke. Notice that I made reference to thinking while... er, never mind. I'm sure with all your experience with sarcasm, you might have met sarcasm's plainer cousin irony once or twice. God knows I've used both a lot in all the time you've been stalking me. Also, I have been known to make cheap and sometimes ineffectual shots at certain opinions, even when spoken in jest.

Sorry, but I find this very weird. I have never once had a freak give me a smiley face (again, even in jest).

Re:Surprising

[wealthychef]

The law might be the pinnacle of reason that you claim, or it might not be. IANAL so I cannot comment on that. But the thing is, human beings are not machines, and there is no system of law that is going to make up for that fact. From where I sit, the law is plainly becoming more and more unjust, and it's plainly because the human element is being squeezed out. You have the viewpoint that my system would involve reading 12 peoples' minds, which it would if it were about gaming the system for marginal benefit. But that's my point. You are assuming that it's all a game to be manipulated cynically. I'm talking about a completely different paradigm, in which the presumption is that men act in accordance with their agreements, and the word "honor" is not laughed out of court. The purpose of the 12 is to judge whether an agreement was broken, nothing more or less. The purpose of the court is not to provide a venue for the plaintiff and defendant to posture and play a game for advantage, although they might and even probably will do so. Laws are just agreements made between human beings, and no system of logic will ever suffice. The law must be understandable to be followed. Men act according to the context they have for their actions. If the context of the court is not to deliver justice according to a clear ruling of one's peers, then the whole point is lost, IMHO.

Re:Surprising

[wealthychef]

No, I was not saying what you claim I said at all (nor its opposite, actually). I was saying, inside a system where a lack of integrity is the assumption, there can be no workability. The system must be founded on a notion of integrity. When people cheat, it doesn't work. Period. I know it sucks, but that's the way it is. You cannot make a system of rules that prevents cheating, by definition! So if the jury is cheating, and the lawyers are cheating, and the defendant and the plaintiff are cheating, and only the judge is expected to not cheat, which is basically what we are moving towards in my view, then how can you say you have a system that works? So you might as well design a straightforward system that all understand, and let a jury sort out who has integrity and who doesn't. The point is, our system of government actually and really depends on the citizens to make it work. If we give up on the idea that we can agree honorably on a set of proper behaviors, then chaos will follow, again by definition. The consequence of utter lack of integrity is utter lack of workability, synonymous with a lack of power. Ironically, the only recourse in that case is a totalitarian leadership to keep us all in line. So as people become less responsible in court, the judge must assume more and more power to keep things workable. Lack of responsibility by individuals leads inexorably to a need for centralized power.

Re:Surprising

[neomunk]

I don't automatically hate those I mark as foes, some of you I just think are trolls and/or assholes. In fact, I find myself agreeing with some of the stuff you say seriously.

Just because I have you marked as a foe (I happen to think you're an asshole, which is your right) doesn't mean I cannot think you're a reasonably intelligent person. I usually get a chuckle out of your trolls and thought this one was weak, so I commented on it. Calm down and put down the pepper spray, I'm not stalking you.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

I was unnecessarily harsh, I think.

The problem with having overly general laws is that it places more of a burden on the interpreter. The judgment becomes more "arbitrary"...we are basically talking rule of law vs. rule of man.

Right now there is an ad for Extenze on tv. We have truth in advertising laws. Yet they still run this ad that says:

(a) they have a pill (also a soda!) that will enlarge a penis...yeah, sure thing
(b) they will let you try it for free.

In reality, I'm sure it's a complete waste of time, and if you read the legal copy at the bottom, the free trial is an enrollment in a monthly shipping program. Like Columbia House, but for penis pills. Imagine what they could get away with if the only upfront restriction on them was "be honest". They clearly don't give a crap about honesty!

On the other hand, look at Nutrition Facts on food...the FDA has clear guidelines on what constitutes a claim like "fat free" or "excellent source of fiber". It's annoying because, as with legalese, words take on extra meanings that the layperson does not expect. Excellent might mean something like "16g or more". And it's limiting, because not everyone will agree that 16g is excellent. It also creates a barrier to entry, since there's also a good amount of research that you have to do before designing a Nutrition Facts label (as I often do in my work).

I posted a quote from A Man for All Seasons somewhere else on the page. More (in the play) basically says he would not cut a path through the law to get at the devil, because then there would be nowhere to hide when the devil turned round on him. Law doesn't just protect us from crooks, it protects us from vigilantes as well.

Despite all this, I do not doubt that there is a good chunk of legal procedure that exists just to give lawyers something to charge people for.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

"Any driver making more than 2 lane changes within a 1 mile range shall be issued a ticket for reckless driving"

I thought everyone was saying that the laws need to be more general, more it is what it is?

Regardless, I'm all for clearer definitions of things like reckless driving, since the more general the charge, the more likely the police will use it to threaten or punish you, which is not their job.

The fact that we can go back and forth on what constitutes speeding or reckless driving is exactly why the folks above who are just saying "let's have a system where everyone just has to be 'honest'" are blowing smoke. There is overhead to having clear legislation, but it's worth the abuse it prevents.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

Anybody who knows the law is going to end up on the bad side of either a prosecutor or a defense lawyer. Period. I've never served on a jury, despite wanting to, because I'm not an idiot.

They want people who don't know about hung juries, don't know how Bayes' theorem affects forensics tests, etc, etc...

Once you remove all those people, then you have to remove the majority of folks with jobs. I agree, it's terrible.

But having a jury of your peers means having a jury of regular folks, as opposed to having a jury packed with, say, cops.

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You know, I hate to break the "we share a secret, and we are better than the majority of slashdot" mood here, but you do know that I'm not trolling, right? These are (mostly) my opinions, although I have been known to play devil's advocate, and even outright troll opinions I do not hold, simply for the sake of diversifying the slashdot groupthink.

I feel like that if I don't respond, then someone is going to link to this discussion as "proof" that I am a troll. God knows, it's been tried before. I even had one guy metaphorically "give me a cookie" for successfully having people reply to my "trolling" while having my nickname for everyone to see.

But then again, you probably read that, didn't you? ;)

Re:Surprising

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Your assertion that everybody must be able to instantly understand the law in its entirety without sufficient education..

I never asserted any such thing. Shop lifting is a lame example. Yea I need a lawer to tell me I shouldn't shoot people right? WTF?

But I get a letter from the RIAA...Then what do i do? I have to pay a lawyer. I don't get legal aid or anything. Thus the RIAA can use the law for extortion because most cannot afford proper representation or even work out what their rights are.

Its not like that in most of the countries I have lived in. You get free help and big cooperations (or anyone else for that matter) are not allowed to put a bunch of people on the same suit. It seems to be more of a USA thing.

America, where justice is blind if you have the cash. By lawyers for lawyers.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that the laws need explanation. Any simple-minded person can see the differences between murder and accidental death by traffic collision. Explaining this just takes the position of belief that people are too stupid to decipher it's meaning.

There's no need for complexities. A jury of peers would work well enough in deciding the action taken, if any, in questionable cases.

Re:Surprising

[neomunk]

Look man, I was just poking a little fun at your lack of effort with your little joke, you're reading entirely too much into this. There is no emotional stake involved, I'm not looking to prove anything about you or pin you with any label. These posts aren't going to be used by me (or likely anybody) to "prove" anything about you. You're fine, no one is stalking you, and no one is going to pop out of your closet with a printout and an accusation or anything like that.

All it was was me seeing someone who usually has a witty remark drop a turd. That's it. You can safely walk away and live your life as if this never happened.

As far as you thinking that I'm "stalking" you or anything like that, well, either you're overly paranoid or you don't realize that you post of slashdot with a frequency (and name) that just might lead someone to remember the general nature of your posts, in addition to the fact that you're good at being a smart-ass, frequently eliciting (from me at least) a head-shaking chuckle. That's it, that's where your "special" ends as far as I'm concerned.

And finally, if you don't want to be known as a troll, you're going to have to stop dropping snide comments and start engaging in discussions properly (I'm not saying you never do, I'm saying you don't always), something I have nothing to do with or any control over. Read your original post that I replied to again and then point out the 'non-troll' content... The "too cool/smart for you" chic doesn't work as well on slashdot because MOST (well, traditionally most) of us are smart, and MOST of us get the clever witticisms, as contrasted with 'real life' people for whom understanding such humor is a hit-and-miss proposition. I don't even know where you're getting the "shared secret" thing, unless it's completely based on the fact that I acknowledged that you're witty, and if that's the case then you need to get out more. There are plenty of witty people out there, and if you think acknowledging that means we're in some special club, well, broaden your social circles.

Re:Surprising

[pudro]

Dude, reread what I wrote. I said I might be okay with that claim. But that isn't what the lawsuit claimed. They claimed it was too hot, which is BS.

Negligent packaging? Quite possibly. Coffee too hot? Not even close.

Re:Surprising

[pudro]

She wasn't driving. She was the passenger. And the car was stopped.

Re:Surprising

[pudro]

Also, there was no failure by the lid to hold onto the cup. It actually sounds like the lid was on too well for her to handle it. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

So on the negligent packaging claim, I'm going to say probably not.

Re:Surprising

[eldorel]

Frankly, I'd rather have a jury made of of cops than a jury of blathering idiots, as long as the cops weren't from the same jurisdiction that was charging me.

At least that way, I'd have a group of people with the brains/nuts to tell a lawyer to quit blowing smoke.

Re:Surprising

[eldorel]

Not more general, but more understandable. You can be plenty specific, but use english, not latin, french (my local area is still under napoleonic law) or other forms of obscure language.

When language changes, the laws should be updated and reviewed, not left in place... That would also prevent situations where obscure laws are still on the books, but never enforced. Like these

As for the honesty/integrity issue, I belive the above posters where referring to the judges/jury's having integrity, not expecting everyone to magically be honest.

Re:Surprising

[atraintocry]

In my state, there was at least one guy who didn't make the force because his IQ was too high. Police do have training in legal matters, at least on the enforcement side, and they know what the inside of a courtroom looks like. But it's not fair to assume that they're any more intelligent than the average individual. They're also obviously more likely to take another policeman's testimony over yours.

It's one thing to just rant about how broken the system is, it's another to think through the consequences of whatever you feel like replacing it with that week.

Re:Surprising

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

OK, OK. Calm down. You haven't offended me. I don't think you're stalking me. I was trying to make some idle conversation while keeping the mood light, but obviously it isn't working. You seem like a decent enough guy.

Relax! I can take criticism!

They've gone to the reverse psychology defense

[ravenspear]

Bainwol: Lying? Baseless. We merely "made available" to Congress our statement that we would stop. You have no proof that we actually had intention to do so.

Perhaps...

[rakslice]

... they discontinued initiating lawsuits on August 31st and started right up again on September 1st. Everyone needs a few hours off now and then. =)

Re:Perhaps...

[mysidia]

Seems plausible. After all, they didn't sign their name in blood promising they'd never again start a lawsuit over an individual, using the old tactics.

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can waive your right to sue _anyone_ ever again... just specific people in certain circumstances (like waiving liability against the stadium owner when you visit the ballpark).

Please

[Cheviot]

They didn't commit perjury. The RIAA stopped filing new lawsuits in August of 2008 nearly a year ago!

No. It CAN'T be true!

[hyades1]

So you're saying the RIAA lied? Is that possible? I thought they always told the truth, and only wanted to protect society from the evils of piracy. I believe they said something to that effect under oath, in court, didn't they?

Oh, god, please let some of those whiny thugs get caught perjuring themselves. They'd make such lovely prison bitches.

They were technically telling the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

While they were in front of Congress, they had stopped filing lawsuits... because their mobile broadband connection wasn't working. As soon as they returned to the office, they started again.

Re:They were technically telling the truth

[CarpetShark]

Nope. Believe it or not, they were telling the truth, and it still applies. This is possible due to a little-known law enacted in the summer of 1837, which states that lawsuits are not really considered to be lawsuits, if they're brought against defenseless pensioners who have no idea what the charge means, much less how to defend themselves against it.

Re:They were technically telling the truth

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Nope. Believe it or not, they were telling the truth, and it still applies. This is possible due to a little-known law enacted in the summer of 1837, which states that lawsuits are not really considered to be lawsuits, if they're brought against defenseless pensioners who have no idea what the charge means, much less how to defend themselves against it.

Thank you so much for the explanation; I never would have known.

And here I thought Mitch Bainwol was a lying, yellow bellied piece of garbage.

Boy did I have him wrong.

Re:They were technically telling the truth

[Killjoy_NL]

Come on Ray, don't hold back, tell them how you really feel ;)

Perjury

[Doug52392]

Perjury - n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

So sue the RIAA for perjury (actually, that would be a criminal matter).

Re:Perjury

[Trepidity]

In this case it was lying to Congress, so the body capable of enforcing sanctions would be Congress itself, which would have to cite the RIAA's representative for contempt of Congress. I'll let you guess what the chances of them doing so are.

Lying to Congress

[arizwebfoot]

Lying to congress is just the new sport - remember when the tobacco companies said smoking was "good" for your health and that they swore to congress that they've never put anything into the tobacco that would cause people to become addicted?

Lying to congress - Congress can't handle the truth.

Re:Lying to Congress

[Cillian]

Technically that is true. They didn't add nicotine to tobacco.

Re:Lying to Congress

[SydShamino]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html

Re:Lying to Congress

[Samah]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083001418.html

Interesting read, but how the hell is this part of the article even relevant?

Two-thirds of African American smokers use menthol brands.

Re:Lying to Congress

[LordLimecat]

Not to defend the tobacco companies, but theres this gem in the article:

Some of this may have been the result of an increase in the total amount of tobacco put in that brand's cigarettes, one expert said.

Theres also this:

the nicotine content measured by smoking machines can vary by up to 6 percent between individual cigarettes of the same brand, "we don't know" whether an entire brand's production could differ that much from year to year.

Again, not trying to say they did or didnt, but seriously, a minimum margin of error of 6% and the reported differences barely higher than that doesnt make much of an article.

No *new* lawsuits

[d_jedi]

Which means - and to my understanding, the RIAA was actually quite clear on this - they will still file lawsuits related to cases already in progress, but will not begin any new cases against new individuals.

And even still.. I believe the RIAA said they reserve the right to begin filing lawsuits again in the future.

Either way.. so long as the lawsuits they file are legitimate (ie. the person being sued actually broke the law) I, personally, have no problem with it..

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[plasmacutter]

Either way.. so long as the lawsuits they file are legitimate (ie. the person being sued actually broke the law) I, personally, have no problem with it..

Because the laws they bought are "legitimate"?

I hereby propose a law stating D_Jedi may never own a car, see his mother, or use the internet again.

Lawsuits against you will follow.

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[Shadow of Eternity]

And all the lawsuits are related because you never know who might have, at some point, sent a few bytes to someone they've already sued with a p2p program.

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[artor3]

I don't think you understand how laws work. Using the word "hereby" doesn't actually make something a law.

For that, you need to donate to a few congressmen.

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[RobertM1968]

With the shoddy "evidence" being allowed in most of these cases, how in the world are we to ever determine whether these lawsuits are legitimate?

Thus, I have a problem with it. I could care less if they started a new lawsuit every 10 seconds; as long as they had real evidence, legally obtained, followed proper legal methods for filing and continuing suit, and (the evidence was) legally used to fight their cases.

But of course, none of that is true.

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely, you don't comprehend sarcasm.

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[d_jedi]

*Some* of the laws they have bought (retroactive copyright extension is the one that immediately pops into mind) are objectionable and illegitimate (IMO).. but wholesale copying of copyright protected (taking into account my above distaste for retroactive copyright extension) songs? Yeah, that should be illegal, and those who choose to do it should be punished appropriately ($250K / song is disproportionate for noncommercial copying.. but $750.. I think that's reasonable).

Re:No *new* lawsuits

[LeafOnTheWind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Stop buying their music

[Anonymous Coward]

There are good independent bands in every major city. Seek them out and support them. And pass the word, make it undesirable for bands to sign on to any RIAA label.

Er...

[rakslice]

Just to get down to brass tacks, the representation in question in the letter seems to be:

"Also, during this past summer, we began discussions with New York Attorney General Cuomo, who suggested that now was the time to take our practice of last resort -- lawsuits -- and replace that form of deterrence with productive engagement by the ISP community in the form of graduated response programs. At his request, as an act of good faith in pursuing these alternatives, we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August."

Re:Er...

[rakslice]

So, when August of this year rolls around, we'll see what's what. =)

Re:Er...

[Cheviot]

Right, but they didn't say anything about new lawsuits in September or later :D

Re:Er...

[Achromatic1978]

I'm all for spanking the RIAA, but nowhere was it implied they would "never launch a lawsuit again". I think it's just as much FUD from this side to imply "OMG they lied to Congress". Nowhere did they claim they would not resume such activities after reviewing things (with as much of a grain of salt for such a review as you'd like), and nor were, and nor should they have been bound to.

This is a non-story.

Re:Er...

[RobertM1968]

we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August.

And it is not August. :-)

Re:Er...

[Thing 1]

"At his request, as an act of good faith in pursuing these alternatives, we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August."

Yes, and that they stated they beat their wives in earnest doesn't mean that they went to camp, or jail...

(Or, good God I didn't know they made so many, school, or africa, or splash mountain, or the window...)

Re:Er...

[kripkenstein]

I'm all for spanking the RIAA, but nowhere was it implied they would "never launch a lawsuit again". I think it's just as much FUD from this side to imply "OMG they lied to Congress". Nowhere did they claim they would not resume such activities after reviewing things (with as much of a grain of salt for such a review as you'd like), and nor were, and nor should they have been bound to.

This is a non-story.

You're 100% right except for the last line.

This is a story, not for the reasons you rightfully tore down, but simply because it's newsworthy that lots of new lawsuits are being filed.

Re:Er...

[NotBornYesterday]

At best, their testimony was disingenuous. They were purposely trying to create the impression that after years of ridiculous punitive lawsuits, they were abandoning them in favor of another approach.

They may be obnoxious, but they sure aren't stupid. They knew what the effect of their testimony would be, and they knew their future course of action would soon diverge from the false impression they gave.

Re:Er...

[Achromatic1978]

That's what you get when you have one group of lawyers and advocates (RIAA) talking to another group of mostly lawyers and advocates (Congress). Gasp, lawyers attempting to use language to their own advantage. If Congress had wanted, or required, something more concrete, one would have hoped that an elected body, consisting predominantly of lawyers, would have insisted on a more precise and tangible statement. I don't expect much from the RIAA, but I'd expect (perhaps naively) more from such committees.

Re:Er...

[NotBornYesterday]

I'd expect (perhaps naively) more from such committees

I salute your idealism. Frankly, if this issue had more to do with Congress's interests, I'm sure they would have been more aggressive/assertive in their questioning and the responses they were looking to hear. I believe their intentions were a) to appear concerned in front of voters, b) to make sure the economy isn't impacted, and by that I mean send a message like Hey, RIAA, don't sue so many people that you kill your own market, but by all means sue enough to keep the rest honest. You're going to need those contributions, I mean, ahem, revenues come next election.

Singularity?

[Sybert42]

Will these RIAA lawsuits slow down the Singularity?

Re:Singularity?

[Krneki]

Nah, they piss off so many people that they decide to do something, thus accelerating free file sharing.

Re:Singularity?

[oldhack]

Your trolls are even lamer than my attempts at joke.

Re:Singularity?

[Jesus_666]

No, as far as I know the Singularity kernel is not directly affected by random court cases. But then again I'm not an expert for Microsoft Research projects.

Maybe there is a greater purpose?

[Sybert42]

The RIAA could be engaged in Singularity-related research.

Re:Maybe there is a greater purpose?

[neomunk]

Can you imagine a Brittany Spears-like (or maybe the real thing) soundtrack for eternity? I think the rm_mysoul() function would be immensely popular after a few virtual centuries.

Isn't it time to reclassify RIAA..

[syousef]

...as a terrorist organisation? Membership punishable by vacation in Gitmo. Time to accuse them of possession of weapons of mass (ISP) destruction. Think about it. They're organised. They use sophisticated methods. They've proven they operate using terror tactics. They target grandmothers and children.

Or perhaps just charge RIAA officials with good old fashioned treason against the U.S.

Same with MPAA.

Come on, turn some of that new draconian legislation back on them.

Re:Isn't it time to reclassify RIAA..

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA was reclassified last November.

You Obama-believing dorks voted them to be the new government.

Don't think so? Where are a whole bunch of RIAA lawyers now working?

PS - How's that withdrawal from Iraq going? How about stopping those "illegal wiretaps"? Or no longer using military tribunals to try detainees?

And?

[Sybert42]

Well, free file sharing probably helps (math and science books for Singularity researchers).

Re:And?

[neomunk]

Well, that and the fact that filesharing is very close in concept to voluntary botnets.

We've all (well, most) seen articles describing some of the bigger botnets as some of the most powerful supercomputers on Earth. If you could break a neural-net down into discrete components (and you can, with some types of interconnectivity, like low synapse-density connections between high synapse-density clusters) you could build a quite large distributed net.

Program this neural net framework in generic C for high portability and you could have many devices being part of a big brain in their spare cycles. Port a compatible version to CUDA and watch those graphics chips shine in a familiar element. The ability of multiple instances of the program to communicate with each other (even if crudely at first, like over the localhost interface) takes care of any multi-threading or heterogeneous processor issues.

I don't think it would be too hard to build for a skilled programmer with even a basic understanding of neural nets, the biggest issue I see about the whole idea (besides, of course, getting it popular enough to be useful) would be to find a good way to balance between waiting for synapse data from a remote machine and firing without complete data, which may be a long time coming if the remote machine is being used for another purpose right now. I guess it's like designing a brain wherein any part may just shut off at random times, and (possibly) re-awaken later. I suppose with enough training (and enough nodes) the network itself could work out a redundancy path, but that would increase training time by a human-scale amount, meaning that the things WE do (like breaking network cables, saturating our bandwidth or processors with higher priority tasks, etc.) will determine how fast this thing can learn how to organize itself.

If built to establish its own redundancy the poor thing probably wouldn't be able to learn anything for years or longer, due to our randomness of resource allocation. After it did work out a scheme we could probably learn a lot about ourselves by studying its network structure, but I digress...

I think it's a neat idea with a couple of large hurdles, but it could work if people were patient enough.

Extra, Extra, Read All About It

[KwKSilver]

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because they don't do whatever NYCL and the anti-RIAA people tell them, and believe it's a lie when it's not?

Sure...I thought we didn't want Congress bending to the whims of folks with an agenda.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It

[PopeRatzo]

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Now how can this be modded "Troll"?

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It

[N3Roaster]

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Now how can this be modded "Troll"?

Congressional staffers with mod points?

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It

[Archangel Michael]

By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Surely you can't mean the current (D) congress. We all know that they are paragons of virtue and looking out for the little guy. I know, because Pelosi and Reid both say they are.

WE all know that you were directing your comments at the rat bastards in the (R) party.

Re:liars

[hachi-control]

You best be trollin'.

How is that lying?

[pclminion]

The RIAA might be a crew of pirates themselves, but it's not lying. I discountinued sleeping at approximately 8:00 AM this morning. That doesn't mean I won't be sleeping again later...

Relax...

[Sybert42]

It's probably not as detrimental to the Singularity as something like Religion.

The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Anita Coney]

The sentence "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August" really does not mean anything.

First, it doesn't say that the RIAA "stopped" doing anything. To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop," it means "to break the continuity of."

Second, anything it does say about the RIAA is limited to only the month of August. For example, if I say "Best Buy stopped having 10% off sales in August." That in no way means that Best Buy stopped having 10% off sales forever. It only means they stopped for a period, i.e., broke the continuity, for a single period of time, during the month of August.

Third, more ambiguity is added by the word "initiate." The use of "initiate" gives the RIAA a lot of wiggle room to start new lawsuits. If anyone complains, the RIAA can merely say, "this lawsuit was actually initiated sometime ago when we first started investigating it." And of course it gives the RIAA complete freedom to "initialize" new lawsuits after August.

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness. But when they're "initialized" in secret, that defeats the entire educational purpose. So what really is going on with these reinitialized lawsuits?

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[erroneus]

"That depends on what the definition of 'IS' is..."

A pissed off legislator isn't going to care about "precise meanings."

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode.

I'm guessing it's because they promised some politicians they would stop, but they can't get over their addiction to picking on defenseless people.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[khallow]

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness. But when they're "initialized" in secret, that defeats the entire educational purpose. So what really is going on with these reinitialized lawsuits?

I'd guess that they're hiding the lawsuit until they're sure it'll fall in their favor. You know, advertise the lawsuits that go the RIAA's way and which actually show considerable wrongdoing on the part of an unsympathetic defendant and don't emphasize the lawsuits against tech ignorant grannies.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Achromatic1978]

But where, Ray, did they promise they would stop such things in perpetuity? As far as I've read, they made a statement to Congress that they had "discontinued lawsuits in August 2008". Nowhere did they make a promise not to resume lawsuits, nor were they asked to. I'm no fan of the RIAA, but you're a lawyer. They're lawyers. Heck, most of the members of Congress they made that statement to are lawyers. If anyone should be on top of the issue of precision in use of language, it should be lawyers. That being said, demanding a promise to cease legal action against people committing torts against you (focusing for a moment on the principle, moreso than the RIAA's application thereof) would appear to me to be a dangerous precedent.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

You said "To 'discontinue' does not mean to 'stop,' it means 'to break the continuity of.'"

Uh, no. From the OED (and omitting senses marked as obsolete):

discontinue, v.
I. trans.
        1. To cause to cease; to cease from (an action or habit); to break off, put a stop to, give up.
        b. ellipt. To cease to take or receive, give or pay; to give up, leave off.
        3. Law. a. To dismiss or abandon (a suit, etc.).
II. intr.
        5. To cease to continue; to cease, stop.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[PopeRatzo]

To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop,"

Really?

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[PopeRatzo]

..people committing torts..

I thought we were talking about people downloading music.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The story isn't about them continuing to bring lawsuits. That would be like the Saturday Night Live bit with Chevy Chase where he would announce that Francisco Franco is "still dead".

The story is about them lying to Congress.

They represented to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that they had "discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". That was a flat out, bald faced, lie.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness.

Might just be for money. Their lawyers may need to extort several hundred grand a month from people just to pay themselves. If they're getting only a few thousand from each victim, then they're going to need quite a few for it to add up.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[twidarkling]

Technically, stopping an action implies permanence. If you're stopping beating on someone, you probably aren't going to start up again unless the situation changes.

If you discontinue, you're halting. Halting is a temporary action with a contingency allowing for a permanent stoppage.

The issue arises from the sloppy manner in which the majority of English speakers use vocabulary. There are many nuances and degrees in the language, but people either don't know or don't care about more precise meanings, and in most communication, you can elaborate if it's not immediately understood, so precision can be expounded upon. This situation perpetuates the cycle, as people can make themselves understood eventually, so they feel it is unnecessary to clarify initial meanings.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Swanktastic]

First, it doesn't say that the RIAA "stopped" doing anything. To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop," it means "to break the continuity of."

Quickly! We need to repaint all the octagonal red signs in this country to say "DISCONTINUE MOTION."

Otherwise I predict severe, permanent traffic problems.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Anita Coney]

Oh yes, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

discontinue: transitive verb: 1 "to break the continuity of"

Could "discontinue" be used as a replacement for "stop"? Sure. But does it necessarily mean "stop"? Nope.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[ring-eldest]

You just have to get more familiar with the lingo, Ray. They have discontinued the practice of bringing "new" lawsuits, but will indeed continue in the finely honed craft of suing the living shit out of John Doe.

Or it could be that they will no longer initiate lawsuits in August. Company vacation time and whatnot.

Besides, does anyone REALLY want to argue that the definition of those words are really all that concrete? Those are GOOD words. Good words are like good whores--just don't think they won't put on a completely different show for the next customer at the same price.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Darundal]

What I think is going on with the new lawsuits is the same thing that I think was going on with the old lawsuits: extortion.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You just have to get more familiar with the lingo, Ray. They have discontinued the practice of bringing "new" lawsuits, but will indeed continue in the finely honed craft of suing the living shit out of John Doe.

So i.e. they're still working on perfecting the "old" one, which had never been well crafted in its inception?

Or it could be that they will no longer initiate lawsuits in August. Company vacation time and whatnot.

I see, they discontinued suing in August, but will continue suing September through July?

Besides, does anyone REALLY want to argue that the definition of those words are really all that concrete? Those are GOOD words. Good words are like good whores--just don't think they won't put on a completely different show for the next customer at the same price.

I see that your time here at Slashdot has been productive, and served you well, and that you have learned the wisdom of the ancient ones. Thank you for sharing. I think I understand now.

Cowboy Neal is writing their press releases.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Kuroji]

No, no, they discontinued filing any further suits in August of that year. Surely you don't expect that they will skip August of next year?

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[ring-eldest]

The RIAA refuses to comment on the possibility that they will no long engage in legal proceedings whilst "in" 8-year-old August Jennings of San Antonio, Texas in the hopes that they won't be mistaken for litigious, boy loving pederasts.

All other names, likenesses, locations, and periods of time associated with the term "August" are completely and wholeheartedly reserved, however.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything...

[Drakkenmensch]

First, it doesn't say that the RIAA "stopped" doing anything. To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop," it means "to break the continuity of."

Oh, I get it now! The RIAA means that they want to break the continuity of the lawsuits, so that instead of going opening arguments, then statements, then evidence, then verdict, they skip straight to the part where the defendant gives them money, and do away with all this due process nonsense.

Well, who saw that coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

"propose a law stating D_Jedi"

I hereby propose that anybody over the age of 18 who uses a moniker of "D_Jedi" has to slink away from normal people.

Re:Well, who saw that coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>>> I hereby propose that anybody over the age of 18 who uses a moniker of "D_Jedi" has to slink away from normal people.

Already done- That's why he's on Slashdot...

Re:Well, who saw that coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it ever sting when you realize that you're posting stuff like that on slashdot?

The geek in overdrive

[westlake]

They target grandmothers and children.

So do countless other lawsuits. But that doesn't make headlines on Slashdot.

Re:The geek in overdrive

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Some don't even have a computer. They are trawling and they are getting a bunch of false positives, and then use there size to abuse the letter of law....

I support copyright. But not what they are doing. I think a reasonable fine is the retail price of the items. ie caught with 100 mp3 --that 100 dollars and you have to delete them. But trying to make it a criminal charge or trying to fine people 100000 + dollars is stupid.

Re:The geek in overdrive

[Fafnir43]

Most lawsuits against people without serious money don't have a few million in potential damages at stake. Or an army of lawyers backing the plaintiff, with the accompanying promise that even if grandma is innocent the case is going to be dragged out until she's bankrupt. Or the "generous" immediate settlement offer of "only" ten thousand or so. And the justifications tend to pass the laugh test. And I suspect most people would stop at suing one helpless target.

In short, most lawsuits aren't naked extortion on a massive scale. These are.

(Disclaimer: I neither download nor buy, although I find the idea of piracy far more moral than the idea of giving these scumbags a single penny.)

Everyone does it

[Demonantis]

There is not really any severe penalty to lie in front of congress. The RIAA aren't required to do anything they say to congress. Tonnes of businesses have done it. And Presidents

Re:Everyone does it

[PopeRatzo]

There is not really any severe penalty to lie in front of congress.

Unless it's about a blow-job.

Re:Everyone does it

[Triv]

There is not really any severe penalty to lie in front of congress.

The penalty for perjury is 5 years in jail per offense. That sounds pretty severe to me. Whether that penalty is handed down or not is a different question.

Re:Everyone does it

[DNS-and-BIND]

There is a penalty if you lie and get caught. Sexually abusing interns is another issue entirely.

Re:Everyone does it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexually abusing interns is another issue entirely.

She kept the soiled dress! How was it sexual abuse?

No complaint or reason for one.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I can think I would need a lawyer is lawyers and their guild actually. I mind my own business and avoid entanglement with law courts and "law enforcement".

We need to knock this mandarin class down several notches and get their tentacles out of everything. Hitting the reset button on it all may be a good idea.

Wheat germ and chessboard.

[xigxag]

Poor innocent RIAA-tan will never catch all the piracy scofflaws using this time-consuming serial approach. Hasn't she ever heard of multi-level marketing? Or the classic wheat and chessboard problem? It's simple.

They need to sue the bejeesus out of someone, and offer to settle by forcing the person to buy the rights to a minor song, and then requiring that that person protect their rights by suing two other people. And those two other people will have to settle by each suing two other people, and so on, and so on.

Eventually everyone will wind up being sued, but at least having nice smelling hair.

Re:Wheat germ and chessboard.

[Anonymous Coward]

>headphone_girl_23.jpg
Associating Yuno with the RIAA? Get the fuck off my internets.

What Winston Said..sort of.

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA Filed 62 New Cases In April Alone

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the Internet,
we shall fight on Demonoid,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on The Pirate Bay, we shall defend our culture, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on our iPods,
we shall fight with uTorrent,
we shall fight on usenet and in the streets of Mumbai, New York and London,
we shall fight in the Scene;
we shall never surrender

They have banned Pit Bulls many places.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have had the sense to ban Pit Bulls many places. I keep a gun for vicious dogs and the like. If they come in my yard I'll deal with them if necessary. Less laws and less lawyers is a good idea.

Is Bainwol a lawyer?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Is Bainwol -- the guy who lied to Congress -- a lawyer? This brief biographical sketch shows him to be a Republican party operative, but doesn't mention any work as a lawyer.

Bainwol not a lawyer

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Here is Bainwol's bio; he's not a lawyer.

Re:Bainwol not a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

HINAL!

Terrorism

[portnux]

The actions of the RIAA are nothing short of terrorism focused on those people that enjoy music and financed by those people that pay for music. Just like Al-Qaeda being financed by the buyers of opium and other related drugs. As long as some people are still paying for music these attacks will continue. We need to wipe out RIAA's financing!

Re:Terrorism

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

We need to wipe out RIAA's financing!

The best way I know of to do that is before buying any cd or mp3 go to RIAA Radar and make sure that the label is not a member of the RIAA... and of course to (a) spread awareness of the site, and (b) help the site out financially.

Re:Terrorism

[justinlee37]

Just like Al-Qaeda being financed by the buyers of opium and other related drugs

That's why we should grow those things here instead.

Re:Terrorism

[man_ls]

That's an amazing site. A few years ago, I hosted a special about appreciating "indie" music from the legal perspective -- right about the time the litigation campaign really started -- and shared that web site with the listeners of a prime-time show on WREK-FM Atlanta, and mentioned how people could look up if their IP addresses were among those on the lawsuit lists based on data I found on PACER.

Obviously, it's not an exact science the IP correlation, but the first round of lawsuits was against some fellow students at my college at the time and all had static IPs and knew it so it proved effective enough.

I haven't really thought about that for a while, so thanks for the cool throwback!

Re:Terrorism

[justinlee37]

Whoever modded this offtopic is a total drag. I suggested a viable solution to the problem that the GP brought up as a parallel to the RIAA problem. The drug war is one of our biggest economic wastes ... kind of like the music industry!

Lawyers with Mod points

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the Lawyers and their Guild don't like my post.

Okay, Time for KINDERGARTEN

[MarkvW]

We have lawyers because rich people want their property preserved in an orderly fashion and they are willing to pay the overhead. All the other lawyer shenanigans, like PI lawyers, have evolved from that simple basic premise.

Your "simple laws" idea is not new. It hasn't been adopted because it introduces too much uncertainty into the process (everything would depend too much on the sense (or bribability) of the particular judge.

How are you going to have "simple laws" when you have powerful complex interest groups aggressively advocating for competing law? You can't.

. . . and Child Support is a GOOD thing!!!!!

Lazy and stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they could have changed their minds. Ever thought of that?

Earth to idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

The simple fact is that she should have the common sense NOT to put something hot in or next to her crotch! She should not have gotten in the door of the courthouse. You do not have the right to sue someone just because you do something stupid!

Refactoring Works

[ardle]

Even if refactored code doesn't arrange itself into a beautiful "model", it still is more manageable than code that is altered solely by local "patches".
It is not difficult to imagine that the same applies to laws (since code is expected to implement the "laws" of the programming language).
It is the responsibility of lawmakers to make laws manageable; unfortunately, most changes are "patches".

Err, where was the confusion again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he's trying to point out that the laws the RIAA bought aren't very legitimate with a silly example.

I don't think plasmacutter actually thinks that he can pass what amounts to an unconstitutional bill of attainder by saying "I hereby propose" it.

Sorry, I don't hate "lawyers"

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's popular to do so but that doesn't mean I have to follow that trend.

Maybe I have been lucky, or maybe I have taken the time to see what lawyers do, but most of the ones I deal with are articulate, intelligent and some have a positively brilliant sense of humour.

This affinity may be partly fueled by the fact that I work in security, and lawyers and security people appear to require an almost identical talent to spot omissions in facts that are usually buried in a sea of rubbish. The difference is that they have two possible outcomes: if the gap is in the other parties' reasoning they can use it for their client.

My work is restricted to finding remedies only :-).

I'm in general not into "hating" a group of people. Even with politicians you can find individuals that have retained a sense of ethics.

Even if that is sometimes hard work :-)

nobody ever won a war with their customers

[Presto Vivace]

but the RIAA keeps hoping to be the first. Sigh.

Hot Coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

STRONGLY suggest you do a bit more research into what actually occurred in that particular lawsuit. Skin grafts and coffee too hot despite multiple previous lawsuits and complaints are hardly what I'd call "taking advantage" of a situation. Also note that contrary to popular belief the woman was a passenger in the vehicle and it was STOPPED when she was burned. She only asked that her medical bills be paid, it was the jury, in disbelief of the negligence that asked for more - which was later reduced. Your example here is quite weak and doesn't support your argument at all...

Hero Worship

[Anonymous Coward]

NYCL is my hero.

That is all.

Grannies in mp3 space is something different...

[freaker_TuC]

I don't see that many grannies sued, for technological tools they didn't even know it existed before... Let stand, use all this new p2p technology!

I'm glad my mom started to jump on the informatics-bandwagon; but we're just not there yet for everyone..

One of the reasons I'd propose an Apple for anyone who doesn't know informatics, let them focus on the tools they use, instead of on the OS they need to install and manage..

Define Initiating

[harl]

Define Initiating. Pacer is only going to list the date that they entered the court system.

What if they were already working on them before August 31st and took them to court in December.

They were filed after the given date but were initiated before the given date?

Lolwut?

[Sybert42]

As long as the Singularity happens!