Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."

Comments

Too much detail

[whiledo]

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals. Isn't this why NYCL has a blog? The posting of this minutae is actually making me care less about fighting the RIAA. Considering how much I dislike them, that's a pity.

I don't blame NYCL (and others) for submitting them (hey, most people are pretty narrowly focused on their own hobbies), but surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

Yes.

surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

What have you submitted lately?

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you submitted lately?

I like this guy.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.

It was very astute of that particular AC to figure out that the entire world is separated into either RIAA shills or those who care passionately about the daily motions and orders and findings of every court case the RIAA is currently involved in. I bow before such a gifted mind. Maybe we should put them in charge of the Precrime division.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

You can submit your own stories via your journal. No need to make you official around here. You seem kind of bitter anyways.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.

Yes, I have and I do. Turns out that's not all it takes to front page a story, though. Front paged stories get discussion. Hence, I would like more interesting front page stories in order to have more interesting discussions, rather than more and more anti-RIAA circle-jerks.

It's really not such a difficult concept.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's time for a Copyright section on here? If they just front paged the general information (lawsuit filed, case concluding, etc.) and filed the rest in the section, I bet that's a compromise that'd work for everybody.

I read it all, myself, but I can see where it gets annoying if you don't care about it.

Re:Too much detail

[moz25]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

Their irrelevant business model is built on artificial scarcity that could only work in a time where information carriers and distribution were the bottlenecks. Now with the internet and ridiculously large storage devices, this bottleneck has been eliminated entirely. So much in fact, that everyone can carry tens of thousands of songs - entire genres - in their pocket.

They need and deserve to fail. This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

It is a very important fight and one that needs to be won. I say: give us all the information there is!

Re:Too much detail

[ktappe]

These are cases that affect all of us. Your disinterest is not necessarily a reflection on the desires of the rest of us. Personally, if I never saw another MMORG post again I'd be happy as a clam, but you don't see me posting in those threads asking why they're so commonly approved. How about a little live-and-let-live?

Re:Too much detail

[tuxedobob]

So... Firehose? I know it's a new feature and all, but still.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?

That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.

Re:Too much detail

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Do you really need to be a baker to tell that a loaf of bread is stale?

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

Your uid is too high.

Re:Too much detail

[geekoid]

Yes, yes we do~

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

And ktappe is tired of the constant MMORPG stories.

To get straight to the point that ktappe was leading you to: Stop bitching, and just -not- read the story if you don't want to.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

In a word, "yes".

You can see from this article and the pressure that's being put on Professor Nesson to keep the proceedings secret that the RIAA has reasons to keep what it's doing out of the media.

That's the best reason I can think of for making sure it gets in the media at every opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system or corporate media, both of whom are heavily influenced by corporate money, to tell us what's going on.

Maybe you think the most important thing we can read about on Slashdot is the latest patches for the iPhone, but what's happening in our courts right now is going to have a much greater impact on our lives and use of technology for years to come.

Re:Too much detail

[causality]

This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.

I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.

Re:Too much detail

[Hurricane78]

Well you know, the RIAAs crimes do not go away, just because you find them less interesting with time.

I bet when the Nazis rose in Germany, you would also stated that there would be too much stories about the NSDAP in the news.

Ooh, it bores you? Well, then we must stop. Because your entertainment is the most important thing on the planet! Nothing can come between you and it.
How rude of some people, to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom and of the Internet as we know it.

Stop whining! If you want to stop those stories, DO SOMETHING against the RIAA!

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it?
Ok the news is stale. Who's the baker?

Re:Too much detail

[ground.zero.612]

Want some cheese too?

Re:Too much detail

[ground.zero.612]

I have no mod points but I'd like to see a +5 Redundant for the rest of this guys whines in this thread.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.

Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts. I've been around and posting comments since a few months after slashdot was created. Abandoned it about the time I decided I didn't want my boss knowing how much I was slacking off posting to slashdot (I had my name on my sig for a while and all it takes is one google search for my name to link me to it).

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

Try reading my post. I didn't complain about coverage of the trails, but about the level of detail. Hell, it was right there in the TITLE.

My post was no more self-centered than your little rant here, and if I do say so myself it was quite a bit less petulant. Time to take your own advice about whining.

Re:Too much detail

[eln]

How is it that everyone on this site with a 7-digit UID is actually an old-timer with a single-digit UID who forgot his password? It's uncanny.

Re:Too much detail

[sbeckstead]

Yes! you may go!

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone mod this guy +5 Whiner and add a filter for Whiners?

... said the guy, who, in an off topic post, whines about moderation of off topic posts.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

But it's not being posted in "the media." It's being posted on slashdot, a site where the great majority of us are already on-board the "RIAA is evil" bandwagon. It's not changing any minds having the legal minutiae posted here.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

I see somebody has called you a shill already.

The person who called whiledo (1515553) a "shill" after his first comment on this thread did accuse him too quickly.

However, his subsequent posts, and his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners, do bolster the accusation, and indicate a shill-like nature, if not outright shill-dom.

Re:Too much detail

[SheeEttin]

surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

Clearly, you haven't seen what the stories in the Firehose are like...

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe it's time for a Copyright section on here?

Considering that intellectual "property" affects practically every area of interest covered on Slashdot, it seems appropriate to discuss it when it comes up, no matter the section.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

An even better question is: do we really need copyright?

Re:Too much detail

[Starlon]

Don't /. readers have a say in what makes it to the front page? Maybe your beef is with the community. I for one like keeping up on this topic, and I'll continue supporting it, as it has the potential to really affect the internet as a whole, which as you know it is very important to our daily lives.

Re:Too much detail

[causality]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?

That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.

I consider that, so far as I know, no one has forced you to read this story. I consider as well that you have probably made more posts in this story than any other single poster. Further, there are stories here on the Slashdot main page which really don't interest me; you won't see me posting in them.

In light of that, I believe that what you're doing here is like going into a Mexican restaurant and then complaining to the staff that you really don't like Mexican food. Further, you're getting outraged that said restaurant won't accommodate you when they point out that another restaurant serving food that you do like is across the street. It's something of an entitlement mentality. Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.

A more constructive approach would be to write to the Slashdot staff and ask for more flexible story categories, that way you can just set up your own preferences so that you don't have to be so bothered by headlines that don't interest you. I've written them on a couple of things myself and have found them to be quite reasonable and accommodating. That's even though I am not a paid subscriber. I have no idea if they'd help you with this since I cannot speak for them, but coming from a paid subscriber like you it would definitely be worth a shot.

Re:Too much detail

[sbeckstead]

If you are tired of reading them why must you read them just to post that you are tired of reading them. Have some compassion for those of us that are not tired of them and just cease and desist! Stop reading go away and shut the f*** up.

Re:Too much detail

[phantomfive]

Hey, at least it's not SCO!

Re:Too much detail

[jimhill]

It sure is. Or something.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

Can't speak to how often it happens, as I've never seen anyone claim it before. In my case, I wouldn't actually want the account back unless I did get a job at slashdot (yeah, right) or was self-employed and didn't need to look for a job again. It has my initials as the username and I signed some of my earliest posts with my full name (yeah, stupid in retrospect but I was still a bit of a young-un at the time). Even after I had that account, I started mostly posting AC because I was getting paranoid.

Since then, I've went through a couple of different accounts because I realize that being such a slacker at work and leaving a nicer trail of bread crumbs showing frequent posting on slashdot might be an unwise career decision. I plan on sticking with the current account for a while, though, since I telecommute now and all my traffic goes out my own router.

Yes, far more information than you wanted to know in response to what was basically a rhetorical question so you could take a pot-shot at me. Sorry, but that's how I roll. If it makes you feel any better, you beat my original uid by over 7k. ;)

Re:Too much detail

[rts008]

What's your point with all this irritating self pity?

You click on a story that is minutiae overload for you, then whine and complain about the overload.

You can just not click on the story and spare yourself the heartache, so quit your childish whining.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming the AC knows about any of those previous threads, which if they did, they didn't mention, let alone describe, so it's quite possible you interpret things in a way that I wouldn't. So it's still a problem.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge is disinterested in this case, presumably. You are uninterested in this case, presumably.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners

[citation needed]
Seriously. Post some links rather than just making accusations. This should be fun.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their irrelevant business model"

What is so irrelevant about actually expecting people to pay for the product that they produce?

Re:Too much detail

[agbinfo]

You remember your uid but not the password?

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

It's funny that you're not the first to follow this line. Complain about me because I complain about something else. I have a lot of posts in this thread, but they're all in response to people responding to me. It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.

Re:Too much detail

[notarockstar1979]

Can you put that in the form of a car analogy?

Re:Too much detail

[Artuir]

You don't even need to be a musician to make music nowadays!

Re:Too much detail

[just_another_sean]

Aagh! I just can't help it!

Nope, not bitter, just like to have discussions about something interesting, rather than rehash the same old arguments every time.

You *must* be new here.

Re:Too much detail

[eln]

No worries, I understand...my original UID was CmdrTaco until some jackass hijacked it.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts.

And my other car is a Ferrari.

Re:Too much detail

[Kingrames]

If someone keeps poisoning the bread, should we stop telling everyone that the bread is poisoned, because it's boring news?

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

I remember my username. It's rather easy, considering it's my initials.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it! You're all talk. "Oh I'm better than you think I am!" "I'm the Original wtf" "Lookit me, I have a bitter complex. And my other UID is a fighter jet."

Re:Too much detail

[bennomatic]

That "jackass" was me, you insensitive clod!

Re:Too much detail

[Jane Q. Public]

You might not find this interesting, but a lot of us do. This is a major occurrence in an import trial. If you don't want to read about it, fine. Don't read it. Buy why try to deprive the rest of us who do?

Re:Too much detail

[zotz]

"That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders."

You would need to exempt the major shareholders from the pay back... ones with people on the board at least? Some top people would need to suffer some personally for the deed as well I would guess...

all the best,

drew

Re:Too much detail

[bennomatic]

An even better question is: do we really need copyright?

Fair question, but I think the short answer is yes. But the point of copyright protection was once to protect creators from abuses by big business. In the time of Goethe, for instance, if he did not have family money and wealthy patrons, his writing would not have supported him. When he finished a book, it would get one good printing, and then all the feeder-level publishers would buy one copy each, and make copies themselves. All works would immediately become commodities.

A little more recently, you can look to artists like Little Richard, whose songs were used in Disney films, commercials, TV shows, over and over and over, without any payment to him, because ASCAP wasn't there to enforce copyright protections.

Metallica aside, most artists aren't worried about individuals pirating their music. Hell, I'd be thrilled if someone decided that my old band's music was awesome and it hit number one on the torrents. That would mean that my art touched people. But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.

My feeling is that copyright is necessary, but it's being abused, and the abusers are working hard to limit--even destroy--any "fair use" cases that we've taken for granted.

Re:Too much detail

[Mister Whirly]

How dare you speak to me like that. After all, I am the original # 3, I just forgot my password. And I would like to point out that my current UID is only 6 digits smartypants!

Re:Too much detail

[bennomatic]

Now you're just being shilly. OK, that was bad, even for a pun, but I couldn't resist.

Re:Too much detail

[causality]

It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.

There's one thing critical to this discussion, so far as it concerns me, that you are missing. I was not complaining. I was telling you what I believe to be the truth of the matter, the actual underlying thing behind the otherwise superficial and uninteresting subject of whether or not you are enjoying Slashdot's editorial decisions.

I was trying to make you aware of something that I consider to be far more important than which story Slashdot decides to put on the front page. That's because I don't think Slashdot's editorial decisions have much of an impact on your well-being. However, I have never seen that entitlement mentality displayed by a happy person whose attitude towards life can be described as "joyous." Occasionally I encounter people who aren't satisfied with that and are grateful to learn that the decisions they make can change it. I am perceptive but I am not a mind-reader, so I don't know if you are such a person until after I try and show you what you are doing.

So, I am following my own logic. It just wasn't the logic you were expecting. I did tell you what that logic was, however. To quote myself:

Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.

If you think I have something to gain by deceiving you, then I celebrate your right to go on believing that I am a hypocrite who is obtuse enough to complain about your complaining as you have indicated. If someone wanted to take that right away from you, I would be against that person and would explain to them why they are wrong for wanting to do so. That's easy for me, however, because whether you see my point or not is entirely your gain or your loss. The people who need you to agree with them are not coming from a position that could possibly hope to show you much of anything that you didn't already see yourself.

Re:Too much detail

[johnsonav]

The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).

You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.

Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.

Re:Too much detail

[Ethanol-fueled]

The problem is in the selection of the submissions.

I like the submissions and I have no problem with frequent status updates with regard to YRO type-stuff.

That said, I notice that many of the chosen submitters are known Slashdot toadies. I think there may be an affirmative-action type thing going on where, if a toady and a non-toady submit the same article and the non-toady's summary is slightly better, the toadie's submission will usually be accepted.

Also keep in mind that some users may or may not have personal and/or special relationships with one or more of the editors. Anyway, no point in whining about it. It's their forum and they can post whatever the hell they want. If it hurts you that badly then become a professional troll out of protest. Reading your posts, though, I don't think you have what it takes ;)

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

quit yer whining

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

It will be a major occurrence if he actually gets sanctioned. If he doesn't, it will just be another blip. So why not wait until he actually gets sanctioned to post about it? Does anyone think that somehow we can change the judge's mind on this issue?

Having the minutiae ("someone is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet") left to blogs like NYCL's excellent one isn't depriving anyone. As far as the "don't read it" argument goes, the problem is that I am interested in the cases. I can't tell it's minutiae that has no effect on the case yet (again, when she decides to sanction him, then it will have had an effect) until after I've read it. So I read post after post, each time rolling my eyes afterwards thinking "damn, I thought something had actually happened." This time I just decided to post about it.

Sorry you didn't find my post interesting. I suggest to fix this that you don't read it. ;)

Re:Too much detail

[ArsonSmith]

Three cars are jumping rope when one breaks down, the other two look at each other; shrug; and then Tuesday starts.

Re:Too much detail

[forty_two]

How dare you speak to me like that. After all, I am the original # 3, I just forgot my password. And I would like to point out that my current UID is only 6 digits smartypants!

So is mine, but it's a pretty big difference, eh? :P

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.

I understand where you're coming from on feeling like you need to control your own music in such a way, but in reality I think you'd be far better off if they used it and didn't get a dime. It'd promote you far beyond anything you could do on your own, assuming people like the music. It's really only when bands get huge, like Metallica, that it makes more financial sense for them to be more restrictive with the music being played outside of their concerts.

Sorry, I accidentally posted something on-topic. My fan club will be terribly disappointed.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasted to much time on this but here are some links pointing to "shil-dom"

I

LOVE

THE

RIAA

ALOT

ALOT

.

.

.

Also having to look thru whiledo's comments was aggrivating. This guy really thinks "differently" then me. If I ever met him I think I would HATE him but then again I always enjoy a good argument so maybe we could be friends or something.... no? maybe not...

Re:Too much detail

[Jane Q. Public]

I disagree. This is a major issue, whether he gets sanctioned or not. At stake is whether the Judge can legally prevent him from posting a recording of a public proceeding.

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

I: Did you ever bother to read this? I didn't post anything agreeing with the RIAA. My post was how NYCL's post made it sound like the RIAA was gonna get smacked down, and the complete opposite happened. I was disappointed.

LOVE: This was basically the same thing, only the first time it was a general comment and the second time it was directed at Ray, who responded. It's funny you can take a comment where I say I don't like the verdict that Jammie Thomas is guilty and claim that's RIAA shill.

THE: Saying it would help her to have an alibi is being a shill and supporting DRM? If I said it would help Hans Reiser if he had an alibi, would that mean I'm a murder shill?

RIAA: Again, saying that we need to change the pro-RIAA laws before we can get the judges to follow them is being an RIAA shill? I'm beginning to understand why you think I think so differently from you. You take my comments and read them to mean the exact opposite.

ALOT #1: Okay, now this is just getting silly. That was a thread about gun control. Which part of that is "support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners"? You're really grasping here, buddy.

ALOT #2: Responding to a post claiming the GPL is pro-(software)copyright by stating that the GPL uses copyright against itself and would be unnecessary if we got rid of copyrights altogether is now pro-copyright?

Did you just decide to hate me first and then read my old posts to fit your mindset, or have you really misread my posts so badly?

Re:Too much detail

[whiledo]

Oh, I agree the issue is major, but won't that issue be decided when the judge rules and not be this order?

That's what I mean. If this had been a story about the ruling, I wouldn't have complained. But this boils down to "the judge is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet."

Re:Too much detail

[causality]

The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).

You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.

Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.

What I am proposing is in the spirit of no one but the common person being able to lobby the government. Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant. What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)

In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively). Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns. That way, the politicians would care about one thing and only one thing: our vote and how to obtain it. Right now they care about two things, money and votes, and the former can be used to buy the latter so they care much more about the money. Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Why submit? If you're not in love with Ponca City, it ain't gonna be posted......

Re:Too much detail

[Sj0]

I'd love for you to be a shill. I really would. Shills are fun because of their lack of standing in reality. Listening to a Darl McBride or a Craig Mundie contort facts so they can somehow not sound like jackasses is like watching a beautiful ballerina getting shot with a tommy gun, beautiful and tragic and darkly hilarious.

Sadly, after reading the posts, they don't paint you as a shill. Bastard. Why not shill a little, so I can have more fun?

Re:Too much detail

[selven]

And there are no individually wealthy people at the top of the RIAA, right? No people who are running the show while also running a facade that this is about the common people who want their voices heard?

Re:Too much detail

[jacquesm]

so what you're saying is that you have been wasting the better part of an hour in order to complain about the topic of conversation on a site that you shouldn't even be reading on your bosses time ?

Amazing.

Re:Too much detail

[X0563511]

Interesting how being a shill and realizing the other side may have it's points, is the same thing to many people.

It's not always an "US OR THEM!" situation.

Re:Too much detail

[Lumpy]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

no. no we dont. there is not a single artist that has been helped in any way by the RIAA over the past 15 years. the RIAA used to be a place to find recording standards and good information. They got infiltrated with bean counters and lawyers and honestly are useless to everyone.

the RIAA is not needed. in fact the world would be better without them.

Re:Too much detail

[QuantumG]

No, the problem is that the cake is a lie.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't produce the product, they are just middlemen.

Re:Too much detail

[registrar]

to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom

I suspect that a systematic deconstruction of our freedom would actually be quite boring.

Re:Too much detail

[Sj0]

Metallica is a difficult example to use, because they broke the cardinal rule that requires abuse of copyright by large entities: They fucked over their fanbase.

I paid 30 dollars for Saint Anger. 30. Back at the time, I made minimum wage, and it was much lower than it was today, so we're looking at 6 hours of work to pay for their CD. The CD was a fucking joke. It was written by a five year old and played by a couple ten year olds who broke into their parents studio.

They took my 30 dollars and have the gall to bitch that it's napster's fault they're not making the money they expected? They won't be seeing another dollar from me. I spent the 30 dollars on an indie band that doesn't pull that bullshit on the fanbase.

Re:Too much detail

[moz25]

What makes their business model irrelevant is that the advancements in technology makes them redundant middlemen.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Cowpat]

being on the board when the corporate charter gets revoked gets you barred from being on the board of any other company for 10 years. That's largely how it works in the UK (except that it's 5 years, and is the regulation for a limited company going bankrupt rather than being hypothetically shut down).

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system ...

Correction:

Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our legal system ...

Justice may have been the intent when the system was created, but today it's all about enforcing laws. Frequently unjust laws, but laws nevertheless.
__________
The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws.
    -- Cornelius Tacitus

Re:Too much detail

[Repossessed]

Those aren't corporations.

Re:Too much detail

[LurkerXD]

Godwin'd.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your beef is with the community.

That could be the case. When /. editors continuously accept biased submissions and /. moderators squelch out unpopular comments, moderate members of the /. community become discourage and stop participating (i.e., submitting/rating stories and posting). As moderate members become discouraged, the ratio of radical to moderate members becomes greater. This means that the biased stories and comments become more popular and visible, discouraging even more moderate /. members.

So yes, the beef may be with a community---a community that is tilting further and further to a strongly anti-IP subset of the greater nerd community. Perhaps the motto of /. should be revised to "News for RIAA-haters. Stuff that even bores lawyers."

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

The really old timers, who shun the use of cookies and measures to track our habits, keep on keeping on as anonymous cowards and the public is none the wiser. It's better that way. We've learnt from the USENet flame wars that it is often better to not be able to be associated with something (even if under the guise of another login.)

Re:Too much detail

[geekoid]

sure, sure.

Clue for you: No one can know if you have older account so don't jump down their throats when they comment on your new account.

Re:Too much detail

[geekoid]

No, but you need to be a baker to tell if the bread is barely stale.

Re:Too much detail

[TheoMurpse]

I'm actually so elite that I have the only Slashdot UID that has a fractional component thanks to some Y2K hackery. However, due to shitty CSS on the site (designed by me, because I'm that 1337), my UID is multipled by 100,000 in the display. I don't fix the CSS now because I like my 6-digit UID. It allows me to hang out with you commoners, sort of like a celebrity who wears a big-ass fedora and Wayfarers.

Re:Too much detail

[jeffliott]

In all seriousness, I abandoned a login after a major change in the status of my education and personal philosophy. I just didn't want to be associated with that person anymore.

Re:Too much detail

[palegray.net]

Well played, sir, well played. I think I'll try to get ahold of the court transcripts and record myself reading them aloud, then release them into the public domain.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose an addition to the Rules of the Internet:

Anyone who, while on a US-dominated website, claims to be a moderate, isn't.

Perhaps the explanation for what you're seeing is that there are many more arguments to be made against the RIAA than for them. Even if that's the case, what are you doing to change the situation here? Isn't this thread all about what you can do to influence this community?

Also, do note that denigrating your opponents is not actually a good substitute for an argument. It's also pretty silly to claim that there's a majority viewpoint of radicals.

Re:Too much detail

[hedwards]

Yes, because only an idiot would still be eating bread. The appropriate action would wait until there's a method in place to demonstrate the safety then tell people it's safe.

Saying it's poisoned over and over again tends to have a diminishing effect on people's interest.

Re:Too much detail

[johnsonav]

Those aren't corporations.

Non-profit corporations, are still corporations.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining! If you want to stop those stories, DO SOMETHING against the RIAA!

Yeah! I'm going to use BT right now to download this week's top-40! That'll show the RIAA how much they suck!

Re:Too much detail

[johnsonav]

And there are no individually wealthy people at the top of the RIAA, right?

I'm not saying that there isn't. But, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. If you get rid of the ability for common people to band together to promote their agenda, the only agendas we'll hear of will be from the individually wealthy.

Re:Too much detail

[johnsonav]

Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant.

The rich are already greatly outnumbered.

What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)

Are so many people against the RIAA? I would imagine that a large percentage of Americans have never heard of it.

Now, maybe if there was some way for us non-rich people to band together to get the word out... You know, pool our money together, buy some ads on TV, conduct research to bolster our claims, and help shape the political discussion on the issue... Kind of--well not "kind of"--like a corporation of some kind. A non-profit, perhaps?

In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively).

So, I shouldn't be allowed to let my representatives know how I feel about an issue?

Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns.

If I'm pro-choice, my tax dollars will help get pro-lifers elected, or vise versa? No thanks.

What if I want to start a new political party? The government can't fund every party; and without private contributions, how will anyone even know we exist?

Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.

I think the scarier, and more accurate observation is that they represent us disturbingly well. If campaign contributions are enough to buy votes, what does that say about our national character? Until that changes, regardless of what campaign finance laws we pass, it'll just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

How is an opinion "radical" if it's the most common opinion, dumbfuck?

Suck my cock.

Re:Too much detail

[hairyfeet]

I think the reason the *.A.As get so much coverage is because thanks to their treasonous bribery...err I mean lobbying, any pretense of having functional copyrights and patents have long been replaced by illegal laws written in backrooms with bribes trading hands to ensure that the top 4% get even more truckloads o' cash.

I mean for Pete's sake, Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! Is it encouraging the "arts and sciences" to be cutting checks for something made when planes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream? Hell no! The laws have gotten so corrupt they are a joke! There is pretty nobody out there now that "isn't a criminal" thanks to asshats like the RIAA saying ripping you CD to your iPod should be criminal since you didn't cut them a check first, and you watch, they'll pull some more treasonous bribery...err I mean lobbying and that will become the law of the land. I mean is there anybody that thinks 1.9+ million verdicts are fair? Meanwhile these same thieves use a little scam called Hollywood Accounting to fuck the actual creators of the works out of the pittance that they get compared to the blood sucking leech multinational corps.

So if you want to know why the RIAA stories keep getting played, it is because they are proof that our courts are broken and our laws are corrupt. After all, in a sane and just society nobody would even be able to keep a straight face while arguing that 150 year+ copyrights are fair or benefit the artist. Yeah, and I'm sure that those checks to Disney are keeping Zombie Walt in fresh paints so he can work on "The Little Mermaid 27" which of course is an excellent example in hypocrisy, as Disney and their pals kill the Public Domain while robbing it of ideas as fast as their thieving hands can grab. Sadly short of violent revolution I simply see no way we will take back the country or even the planet from the super corps. After all, what use is your vote if they can walk in five minutes after the election with their checkbook and buy the politicians vote, and legally I might add?

Re:Too much detail

[rhathar]

And my other UID is a fighter jet.

Mod parent up!

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations cannot make donations. Individuals make them, and then, they are limited to $25,000. It's also illegal to donate in somebody else's name, though whether this is actually thoroughly audited is beyond me. There are ways around it--a company bonus with the person's promise to donate most of that bonus to a certain politician--but that's not really necessary. There are a lot of wealthy people out there, all with the certain unified interest of staying wealthy and becoming even wealthier. In order to maintain their wealth, they know they must manipulate the political process.

It's not actually manipulation per se. Being heard by many representatives is necessary to get things done in the system. So these wealthy individuals donate the maximum $25,000 to every politician running, in both parties. They make these donations to get the politician's ear. For the ones they really like, they set up fundraisers where they'll call their wealthy friends who have the same interests, and get their friends to donate $25,000.

The other way of getting heard is to build up a critical mass. If there's enough public response, then no amount of money is going to persuade a politician otherwise. However, that public response has to exist. It has to be loud. And quite frankly, the weighted (with money) number of people interested in strengthening intellectual property dwarfs the weighted number of people interested in weakening intellectual property significantly. What this means is that for those of us who have little or no money, our voice has to be even louder. For us non-wealthy people, campaign contributions isn't enough to get a politician's ear. Campaign contributions and a handwritten letter, however, will help. Rallies and protests will help.

But who here is going to do that? We'd rather sit in our computer chairs in front of our monitors and lament through our keyboards on the state of the union on Slashdot. Because, you know, protests, rallies, heck, even mailing out a handwritten letter would require us to get up off our asses and go outside.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. This is a major issue, whether he gets sanctioned or not. At stake is whether the Judge can legally prevent him from posting a recording of a public proceeding.

But that was decided long ago: Courts routinely restrict recordings of public proceedings, and it's quite legal. This is why courtroom sketch artists have such a long tradition.

There's not some broad principle at stake. Whatever decision is made will be made specific to this one case.

Re:Too much detail

[Atario]

In other words, your well-reasoned and clearly-articulated arguments were falling on deaf ears when people saw the username "AwSumDood69"?

Re:Too much detail

[richlv]

that sounds a lot like what swedish pirateparty is doing in eu right now - their stance is that personal use is not subject to copyright restrictions, among other things (which, i'm sure, you already were aware of :) )

Re:Too much detail

[corsec67]

Yeah, well my other car also doesn't exist.

Re:Too much detail

[Jimmy_Slimmy]

Well, I like you too.

But, who are you?  "Anonymous Cowardon"?  What kind of name is that?

(viewed on firefox 3.0.11.  Please try Internet Exploder of version near 6.0.2900 and report any javascript problems in viewing or posting...)

Re:Too much detail

[intheshelter]

No. I want to see these submissions from NYCL. If it wasn't for his submissions I wouldn't hear much about these cases at all and I wouldn't even know he had a blog (negating your first point). Keep it up NYCL, people need to be reminded of the crap the RIAA is trying to pull.

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, do note that denigrating your opponents is not actually a good substitute for an argument.

No disagreement here. But was there really anything said that was particularly denigrating? What is radical today might be mainstream tomorrow. To point out that a group is outside the mainstream is not inherently denegrating. To point out that a radical group is alienating those with other views is not inherently denigrating either as those with other views may be deserving of alienation (e.g., making a forum unfriendly for people espousing racist views is not a bad thing).

It's also pretty silly to claim that there's a majority viewpoint of radicals.

Both you and the less eloquent AC that followed miss the point: by alienating those who are not radically opposed to intellectual property, the /. community (or at least the vocal subset of the /. community) is becoming more radical in comparison with the greater nerd community or the general population at large.

Any community is vulnerable to some form of radicalization. Structure to minimize such risk can help (e.g., not having a "disagree" moderation), but can only go so far (e.g., people who disagree or just don't like what they hear moderate downward anyway, discouraging future participation).

Re:Too much detail

[saleenS281]

Or we should just ban lobbying entirely, and set a very small limit on individual campaign donations.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

The major record labels need the RIAA. The question is, do we need the major record labels?

In years past it cost a tremendous amount of money to record, a tremendous amount of money to manufacture, and a tremendous amount of money to market the records. I met a fellow in late 1974 or early 1975 named Dwayne Mahoney; I was stationed with his girlfriend's brother, and we went down to SF for a visit (Joe didn't have a car). Dwayne had played his guitar for a record producer, who'd told him that if he cut a demo he'd be famous (the producer was right, but Dwayne had to change his name). It cost him $200 to record a single song. That was back when gasoline and milk was about fifty cents a gallon.

A few years back I hung around with local musicians here in Springfield (see the old K5 Paxil Diaries), and there are several recording studios in this small city alone. It only costs $5,000 to record and have a few thousand CDs professionally duplicated. At $5 per CD the band was making money selling them at their shows.

The artists no longer need the record companies, meaning nobody does.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.

And so long as you can "donate" to both major party candidates in any election regardless of whether you are eligible to vote for them, that's the way it will stay. It seems to me to be an intractable problem; people with power aren't going to give it up.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

If you remember what email address you had back then, write the /. staff.

Re:Too much detail

[Just Some Guy]

We're old and prone to forgetfulness.

Re:Too much detail

[neomunk]

*raises hand*

I'm a 6 digit UID with an old 5 digit UID floating around somewhere, in the 40ks IIRC, back from when I used to live in Ypsilanti. Some theme on The Reaper (my BBS handle back in the day) or Mister Grimm or something like that... good times, good times.

Re:Too much detail

[Jane Q. Public]

Perhaps. IANAL. But this is not a murder trial, it is a civil proceeding, in which the public has a great deal of interest. In order to keep it away from the public, doesn't the judge need some kind of valid justification? A "compelling interest" as it were?

Re:Too much detail

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

We? We never did, the recording industry (believed it) did.

Their irrelevant business model is built on artificial scarcity

Business model? Here I was thinking that the RIAA is an association, not a business... Am I mistaken?
(note: I am not claiming they don't act as if they're a business, I'm just saying they ain't.)

They need and deserve to fail.

Do they? Why? I don't like 'em, but, you know, watch a few episodes of Jerry Springer reruns and I'll feel the same way.

This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

You know, I am not intricately familiar with the trappings of the US law creation process, but I'd venture a guess that you could do similar. Sure, you don't have the lobbying power (aka deep pockets) to get the attention of those in charge. Here's an idea: start an Association! Gather your fellows around, and make your voice heard! It works for others, for example, euh... euh.... euuh... can't think of any successful lobbying association right now.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

It says a lot about just how empty and meaningless your life is that you think mundane court proceedings are worth your time.

Considering the last time any comment by you was NOT modded -1 was last January, you might not be the best person to judge anyone's life as "empty and meaningless".

Of course, you might just be misunderstood...

Re:Too much detail

[f16c]

You new guys are such clowns. Is this really better than Compuserve?

Re:Too much detail

[f16c]

They produce nothing. If the money that I paid for the CD actually went to the artist I'd really have to buy more CDs (for my wife as, with a cochlear implant I don't hear music any more) and feel right about it. The "music industry" and the RIAA are making outrageous profits as a marketing company. That is all they know. The worst thing about it is they've lost their touch and are frantic to restore the social and creative relevance they had just a decade or so ago. The RIAA would rather bring in the lawyers than do what they used to be good at: selling culture. Those who were once the gods of cool are now yesterdays news.

Re:Too much detail

[mcgrew]

Much better. Compuserve's only good point was that I could get on it with my TRS-80 and a 300 baud modem.

Re:Too much detail

[PopeRatzo]

My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts.

My oldest Slashdot account was made the day before you made yours. I just choose not to use it because I was in grammar school then and had to give up that email address when I invented SMTP.

I'm deeply concerned

[gubers33]

With the RIAA's blatant disregard for sanity with its imaginary damages. My imaginary friend Drop Dead Fred was more real.

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

My imaginary friend Drop Dead Fred was more real.

Its just a shame you cant split the fines between your imaginary friends.

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

People with power really don't like to be disobeyed.

Whether or not Nesson can come up with some good reasons for his actions, the fact remains that he pissed off a powerful person. He has definitely picked a fight, and better be ready to start swinging, because he is looking at a pretty severe beat-down.

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[macraig]

If you change that to Right Said Fred, then you can finally say you have some real non-imaginary friends.

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[TheRealMindChild]

Apparently, making a Ghost Busters reference is funny, but don't quote DROP DEAD FRED!

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[gubers33]

I guess someone with Mod points doesn't think Drop Dead Fred was a very good movie.

Re:I'm deeply concerned

[Just Some Guy]

I guess someone with Mod points doesn't think Drop Dead Fred was a very good movie.

They weren't in the minority.

Seriously . . .

[arizwebfoot]

'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard" of her order.'

When you cut off your nose to spite your face, you never look better.

Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war.

Re:Seriously . . .

[wjousts]

I don't know what it is about these cases that seem to make people want to act like dicks in the court room and then act surprised when they lose the case. Here's a tip when you're in court, no matter how unfair you think the case against you is, don't treat the judge and the court with the same contempt you have for the case. It's not going to help.

Re:Seriously . . .

[Evanisincontrol]

'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard" of her order.'

When you cut off your nose to spite your face, you never look better.

Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war.

I agree. If we can just hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Maybe

[Hognoxious]

Maybe the court copyrighted them?

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we all should be " 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."

Appeal the order? Take your chances and defy the order? I don't really know, but once an order is given by the court, that order becomes the issue - if defied. It's not about the original issue anymore, from the court's perspective.

There is an old joke.
Criminal before judge: Your honor, can I be punished for what I think?"
Judge: No.
Criminal before judge: I'm glad your honor, because I think your a fucking asshole".

Try it in court. Tell me how you do.

To be fair...

[WiiVault]

...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights against the RIAA/MPAA and their ilk.

Re:To be fair...

[i.r.id10t]

...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights.

There, fixed that for ya - just 6 words too many....

Re:To be fair...

[JCSoRocks]

What rights? You are the property of the government. Be glad we haven't drafted you yet and are content milking you for money. ~

Re:To be fair...

[Cowmonaut]

Not in this country, though the powers that be see determined to change that and are very patient. The entire *idea* behind the US (once everyone was properly motivated by unjust taxation and show of force) is that the People are more powerful than the Government, and that the Government is the People's play thing. This is dangerous (see "mob rule") and attempts have been made to mitigate that.

Re:To be fair...

[The End Of Days]

Hey, that's the tradeoff for making the gov't your nanny. Or did you think you somehow get the benefits without the bullshit?

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you could point out where in the case law, the US Code, or the Constitution you find your entitlement to free media?

Re:To be fair...

[Starlon]

So it's ok for powerful politicians to claim ownership over the masses? That's what is happening. Self ownership is an endangered concept, and will only lose its weight more as government claims more control over health care. Fast food? Too bad, government will ban it (they've already started in parts of the U.S.), claiming it raises health care costs. Black market food will become a reality.

Democracy is not a bad concept, and a true Republic where representatives actually represent the people, only improves on the concept. If you had your way, there would be one ruling party, no elections, no democracy. Kinda like Iran. That's where this so called mitigation leads, and guess what? The people won't stand for that (again, pointing towards Iran). Yeah, they're hard to get rid of. This is The People's Republic, and don't you forget that. This is our country, not just the politicians' corrupt or not. "Don't tread on me!" "A government which can give everything can take everything away." If the Republicans won't represent these concepts any longer, you can bet the people will. Freedom is very popular. No amount of government control will change that.

You claim 51% pissing on the corn flakes of the other 49% is a bad thing, while disregarding that it's much easier for a handful of politicians to be corrupt than the full 51%. Maybe your ideas would work if people didn't have the potential to be corrupt, but that's the way life works. The people keep the government in check, and for good reason. Today's expanding government is not maintainable. The future of America is less government, by attrition. We simply can't afford to keep going like this. We're about to lose our credit rating, which is a great step towards the true future of our children and grand-children. Government will be forced to shrink. We can't keep surviving these financial bubbles with a quick fix every time they're about to pop. More spending, and expanding government is not the answer. But it's the answer to your idea of government. Your idea of government can not be maintained indefinitely. The People's Republic can be.

Re:To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

the judge should be held in contempt ... or at the very least ...FIRED!

Re:To be fair...

[Mr. Slippery]

Self ownership is an endangered concept

Self-ownership is a nonsensical concept. My relationship with myself is not one of property or ownership. Self-determination, the ability to make private choices, is a fundamental human need; but confusing it with the idea of property leads to all sorts of problems.

Fast food? Too bad, government will ban it (they've already started in parts of the U.S.)

Citation needed. Where is fast food banned?

Yes, government regulations have kept toxic crap from being served in restaurants as food. Since purporting that something not fit for human consumption is "food" is a form of fraud, that's fine. But there's a world of difference between banning restaurants from putting lead, botulism, or trans fats in their dishes, and banning fast food.

Today's expanding government is not maintainable. The future of America is less government, by attrition.

There's nothing new about expanding government, indeed over the past few decades it's expanded more (measured by government spending as a fraction of GDP) under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones.

If that expanding government means further bloating the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes, I'm against it. If expanding government means better funding for education, housing, and health care, I'm not opposed.

After a few decades of neglect by the magical thinking of pseudo-free market fundamentalists, we're going to incur high costs over the next few years to fix our fiscal and physical infrastructure. Relax. It worked during the New Deal, it'll work now.

Re:To be fair...

[Starlon]

Well, there are clear laws in place stating that no person is to be owned by another. That includes, but is not limited to, the government owning the people. Self-ownership may not be the perfect term to refer to my refusal to be apart of mandatory flu vaccines (Which many in government now support, including Obama, in the wake of the over-hyped H1N1 flu), but it's a lot clearer what I mean than when I say self-determination.

Los Angeles has been discussing banning fast food restaurants for a few years. Here's an older article. And here's some push back. The only reason I chose that as an example is I recently saw an article about the ban's latest progress. (I thought it was on Opposing Views, but I can't find it.) And it illustrates how the cost of American health care is turning into a battle over what I personally choose to consume -- my two points being mandatory (potentially deadly, poorly tested) vaccines, and a potential for mandatory abstinence from trans-fat, which I do choose to consume lightly.

Health freedom is almost as popular as freedom itself. Maybe I'll make this my sig.

Re:To be fair...

[WiiVault]

Wtf are you talking about?

Re:To be fair...

[f16c]

Why not since the bullshit is all that we've had for the last eight years...

Hey, I'm deeply concerned too

[Trailer Trash]

I'm deeply concerned that the court is being the RIAA's pawn and making orders that have no other purpose than to protect a slimy group of companies' public image...

Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[Steve1952]

To me, Nesson's conduct is right on the line between brilliant tactics, and just plain nuts. I can see it either way.

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[SterlingSylver]

As much as I love the general principal of pissing off judges...why is this idiot pissing off the judge???

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[davecb]

I think he's deeply involved in a worldview where pretty much everyone looks evil. This means he'll be tempted to treat opposing council, grumpy judges and uppity clients like they're evil. That's a bad thing.

The test for crazy as a fox vs just crazy is to see if he's still got a sense of humor. If he's willing to make fun of himself, assume fox. If not, crazy.

--dave

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[CorporateSuit]

As much as I love the general principal of pissing off judges...why is this idiot pissing off the judge???

Because there's no reason this proceeding should be kept private. It's about copyright infringement, where enforcement should be a public issue -- especially when damages are being issued at those who break copyrights. Can you IMAGINE living in a world where you can get sued for copyright infringement and not let anyone know what you infringed, how you infringed, or what the reasoning was behind the order? How is there sanity in that?

Lawyer: Sir, we have 13 recorded attempts of you singing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging. These are blatant copyright infringements and for each of these public performances, you face a fine of $80,000.
You: Lots of people sing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging, and they don't get sued!
Lawyer: Oh, thousands are getting sued for it. Now you'll have to agree not to discuss your case with anyone but your lawyer or you'll be spending jail time as well. We're willing to settle for $5,000. We take credit cards!

Copyright enforcement should never, ever be held behind closed doors unless at the request of the prosecuted in order to preserve their reputation if found innocent. I, personally, would be willing to spend jail time in order to make this point, if I had to. I would hope anyone who thinks themself an honest American would at least consider it.

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[causality]

I think he's deeply involved in a worldview where pretty much everyone looks evil. This means he'll be tempted to treat opposing council, grumpy judges and uppity clients like they're evil. That's a bad thing.

Pretty much everyone DOES look evil, and properly so. Mostly because they care more about the approval of others than their own integrity, are petty, easily upset, manipulative, domineering towards those who are weaker than they but meek towards those who are stronger, and make excuses for doing things that they know are wrong if they want to do them badly enough. You can file all of that away under "not really leading your own life but instead being far too subject to outside influences which do not have your best interests at heart." It's evil, though it's not malicious as most people don't understand why this is wrong or the tremendous suffering it leads to and they think it's normal because it is common.

The way you said "treating opposing council, grumpy judges, and uppity clients like they're evil" reveals how normal people think this is. If you are not part of the problem I just summarized, then you treat everyone by the same standard. That standard is simple and also hard to explain but the basic idea is "if they force you to defend yourself in some way (i.e. legally in this case), then do it reasonably, without hesitation or malice, while regretting that things had to be that way. Otherwise, treat them with compassion and loving-kindness not because they do or don't deserve it, but because of who you are." The reason why returning evil for evil does not work is that it only increases the amount of evil in the world. The problem is that people can see how self-evident that is, and then they go and get the idea that being "good" means being a push-over or a doormat. There's a right way to stand up for yourself. You can do it while taking on none of the negative traits of those who made you do so.

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not take it one step further? If and when they take you to court for infringement, submit every .mp3 you possibly can as evidence so that it's a matter of public record and freely available to everyone. That'd be great, thanks.

Listen to the MP3's

[module0000]

Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.

It's a horrible attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark about this whole ordeal.

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[nine-times]

Listening now, but given that you have a strong opinion on the matter, do you care to explain? In fact, does anyone knowledgeable care to explain what arguments were made about these recordings, why they should or shouldn't be public, etc.? I scanned the linked articles and nothing caught my eye as a clear explanation of what's going on.

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[morgan_greywolf]

Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.

I've got the pitchforks, NYCL has the torches. Care to join us? ;)

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[biryokumaru]

I use trackballs. They're much nicer to use than regular mice, requiring no smooth surface (I don't have a desk) and can be corded without the cord interfering with their mobility.

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[Lumpy]

Hell with lynching plaintiffs. Time to lynch judges.

More judges will stop being asshats if they realize the public will rise up and burn them in the courtyard.

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I checked out the mp3s...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DLrKK_gtc

Re:Listen to the MP3's

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand, the court flip-flopped on it. It had some discretion to allow recordings, or maybe not, depending on how you read the law. It chose to bar them from putting those up. They did it anyway. Now the judge is asking why.

I don't know what to make of this tactic. Doing something you can get sanctioned for is dangerous. VERY dangerous. They could just say that you should have appealed the order somehow and so the sanctions will stand, even if the ruling was wrong. Judges don't like being ignored. I think there had to be a better way to do this, but IANAL.

Like someone else said, I don't know if he's crazy like a fox or just plain crazy. I don't honestly think this will taint the jury pool. And if it was, sanctions are a backwards way to go about it due to the Streisand Effect. People are listening to these now just because of the order... If they want to taint the jury pool, there are better ways to do it. I don't think that letting people interested in a case hear the recordings should be that big a deal. It's public information, after all! I know the courts have lots of crazy rules, but barring people from putting up copies of a recording is just silly.

Then again, I might be the wrong person to ask, because I also think that's still the case when it infringes upon various imaginary rights, because I don't believe in imaginary property.

Kind of expected

[xbytor]

The professor had to expect something like this. It's like playing chess. He'll respond with his next move, etc...

It's interesting to watch this and the Camara case unfold. Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.

Re:Kind of expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.

Possibly they even affect you.

Re:Kind of expected

[DaveV1.0]

His next move could be to pull out his checkbook to pay a fine and/or go to jail.

Re:Kind of expected

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they 'affect' you?

Eccentricities will get you no where

[Anonymous Coward]

These professors (this one and the city of heroes professor) are bypassing rules to basically focus on the x,y, or z. There are rules for engaging 2 or more people, societies and most definitely the judicial systems. Trying to focus on the abstract with out playing by the rules gets you kicked out of the game. It's no real loss when you get kicked out of an MMO by the player base you can move on.

However, when you mess up a court case you start setting precedents, and screwing a lot more people than yourself and your client. Pissing off a judge which this Prof. has done before is not going to bode well. Maybe he should stick to academia.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

The problem here is "pissing off" the judge. Why should that be possible? I know the judge is only human after all, but for fuck's sake, now we have to worry the judge "doesn't like you" in a case? Justice indeed.

I am not excusing the professor(s) conduct in this matter, but I am not excusing a judge who should be putting his/her bias in the closet next to the raincoats either. Judges who act with willful contempt for either party (or favor... take the DeCSS case as an example) in a case should be thrown off the bench (preferably from a great distance up...) Bias has no purpose in black robes... Justice is blind.... and it should be a Vulcan. :) The trouble is, this sort of thing is difficult to prove... and even more difficult to get anything done about when you do have evidence... *sigh* I need a beer. :)

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Calithulu]

You are absolutely correct, a judge disliking the defendant has no place in legal proceedings. On the other hand, the blatant disregard of court orders does need to have a deleterious effect on the individual breaking that court order.

In this case the Professor doesn't appear to be obeying a court order. That is not conducive to getting this trial underway and it hurts the defendant since the judge now has to take issue with everything the defendant's lawyer does.

What should happen is that a new judge, impartial to the ongoing trial, weighs in and decides what penalty, if any, is appropriate. That would get us as close to "Vulcans" as we're likely to see.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Lumpy]

now we have to worry the judge "doesn't like you" in a case? Justice indeed.

Welcome to reality. it has been this way for the past 10,000 years.

ASK any black man who has been in front of a Judge in the south. The world is unfair, this is a solid fact, please get used to it.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[sabt-pestnu]

In this case, attorneys for both sides have acted abnormally, and sometimes out of bounds of what is expected of the legal profession. Even a judge who starts a case unbiased against either side (or against the attorneys for either side) can become so watching this sort of thing go on.

"You two behave, or I'm going to pull these proceedings over and give you both spankings!"

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

Like I said, it SHOULDN'T be that way. I'm well aware it _is_ that way. I wasn't born yesterday. And the South hasn't been that way since they allowed black judges. But it exists EVERYWHERE for those who happen to be the opposite color of the man behind the podium... Let's not kid ourselves and resort to blanket statements that apply to the entire justice system....

Imploring the Justice System to uphold its ideals is a solid fact I am not going to keep mum about, so please get used to it....

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

It would be nice if the judge could objectively smell bullshit from a mile off, too. But the bigger picture is, of course, the interjection of a sort of godlike dominion over the proceedings. That is something I have an extreme distaste for. I don't know if the order itself is the nonsense we have to put up with when judges think they're our mommies and daddies in black robes, but I suspect these sorts of things are the byproduct of a culture of godlike superiority judges feel when behind the bench (for some reason... not all judges do, but most have a smug air about them that does not belong in a court of law.) There's a difference between enforcing the rules of law and the courts themselves and simply acting like a spoiled child with a gavel.... I know there are judges who do not, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bushel.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

Now there's something to think about. Having another judge examine the court order of the original judge would get us near to a bias-free zone... so that judges wouldn't feel empowered to lean on either party if the parties did (or appeared to) scoff at a court order regarding procedure, mention of evidence, that sort of thing... Very good insight. :)

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[jackbird]

We could call it something like an "appeal" to another court. Let's get right on that...

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is the words "pissing off" came from a Slashdot post, not from the actual article. The article itself reveals the judge to be (as the summary quotes) "deeply concerned" about disregarding an order from the judge, and a request to show cause or suffer sanctions as a result.

So why are you drumming up ideological attacks on the judge that aren't there? Agenda much?

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[BradleyAndersen]

Have you ever been to court? The Judge is the Emperor, and (s)he says whatever the hell comes to his/her mind at any given time, often expressing great emotion. It can be pretty funny to watch, especially if your opponent in the matter is the object of the Judge's wrath.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

Most don't, and most can't... (I blame lawyers) You've spent a lot of time in court, I see....

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it? Probably not. Reason much?

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

Nope. Because I don't fuck up. But thanks for asking. I said it wasn't right... just because I'm correct in that it actually OCCURS underscores the problem. It shouldn't happen to EITHER side. Emotion and justice should be mutually exclusive. However, it isn't and that, my court-familiar friend, is a travesty. It's not hollywood... and judges aren't "stars". Though some think they are. And they don't hide it well at all.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Abcd1234]

Well, not to feed the trolls Mr. AC, but "deeply concerned" is a judge's way of saying "I'm not happy." Judges shouldn't be "happy" "sad" "pissed" "livid".... get it?

So when a judge issues an order, and that order is violated, they're, what, supposed to be pleased with the lawyer's conduct? Have you never heard the phrase "contempt of course"? Because that's what this lawyer is flirting with.

In short: this has nothing to do with "pleasing" the judge, and everything to do with following their instructions, which is something the lawyers are legally bound to do lest they wish to be sanctioned.

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Abcd1234]

Huh, even I haven't heard of the phrase "contempt of course". "Contempt of court", on the other hand...

Re:Eccentricities will get you no where

[Doctor_Jest]

And the word "pleased" should never occur. It's not the sanctions, punishment, or contempt of court. It's the bloody godlike smugness that should have NO part in court. EMOTION... should be barred at the door. The Law is not about emotion... That's all I'm saying.

End It

[Anonymous Coward]

Disconnect from the RIAA.
- Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly.
- Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.

As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

Re:End It

[Asclepius99]

Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.

Re:End It

[causality]

Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.

Radiohead made some good sales despite the option of downloading that album ("In Rainbows") for free. If that proved anything, it proved that when you offer to give away free music, many people will not pay but more than enough will decide to support you. By "more than enough" I mean that it was definitely a profitable venture for them, by any standard. You may find this an interesting read.

Re:End It

[Asclepius99]

According to Radiohead most people paid nothing for the CD and that seems to be directly from them, so that doesn't take into account all the people that pirated it.

Re:End It

[Anonymous Coward]

Every person who bought a PS3 helped make this happen.

Re:End It

[Daengbo]

According to an Internet survey conducted by Record of the Day of 3,000 people, about one-third of people who downloaded the album paid nothing, with the average price paid being £4. -- Wikipedia

...so that doesn't take into account all the people that pirated it.

You can't pirate an album if it's legally available for download for free. What are you talking about?

 

Pre-release sales were more profitable than the total money from sales of Hail to the Thief. The week of its retail release, In Rainbows peaked at number one on the UK Album Chart, with first week sales of 44,602 copies. The record sold 122,000 copies in the United States in its first week of official release.In October 2008, the band's publisher Warner Chappell Music Publishing revealed that the album had sold three million copies (including digital and physical format sales) since the album's physical release in January. The vinyl edition of In Rainbows was the top selling vinyl album of 2008.

The Radiohead experiment taught us that large numbers of people will pay for a physical copy even if the download is legally available for free. There are also a large number of people who will pay a reasonable price for the download even when paying isn't required.

We learned that a large number of people wanted this experiment to succeed, indicating that they care about the RIAA's business tactics.

Re:End It

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Except that I doubt enough people will do this to become effective. So essentially, you'll be losing the ability to obtain certain music for naught. In fact, the RIAA will probably argue those loss in sales are from piracy, instead of people boycotting them - and probably up the ante in their lawsuits.

Re:End It

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually use http://www.riaaradar.com/ to check if the label is in the RIAA before buying a CD/music. If it's sold by an RIAA member, my money goes to another artist.

Re:End It

[bkpark]

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Well, if you are going to say that, at least provide a few places where you can either buy music from artists directly or donate to them directly.

At the moment, I mostly get my music from Jamendo, and I guess before that, I used to buy music from Magnatune, but I'm sure there are other good places as well.

I love how...

[selven]

this process is so clean and efficient when the RIAA's the victim but when the RIAA lawyers break rules this stuff, if it happens, gets dragged on and on until it's forgotten.

Me too, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm deeply concerned that the court is deeply concerned that the people are deeply concerned about this case.

Do we need another half-assed complaint from you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, do we REALLY need another restatement of how you don't like the number of anti-RIAA postings on slashdot?

Cupid stunt.

Re:Hey AC Troll

[grub]

Holy fuck, did you tell him!

.

Please Mod Parent Up!

[causality]

Disconnect from the RIAA. - Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly. - Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.

As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[causality]

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"

I was tempted to ask if you even read the comment, but I suppose that isn't very reasonable. So I'll ask you an alternate question: why do you think the part about "not using ("consuming") their products, neither legally nor illegally" would fail to address that? It would help me to understand you if you can be as specific as possible.

So far, the fact that piracy does occur and is taking place has been the main excuse behind many of these bad laws. Personally, I think their failure to handle digital distribution in a way that people like is responsible for every last problem they are having and that their current business model deserves to fail. The problem is that piracy therefore does benefit them in a way because it gives them an easy excuse, something they can blame other than themselves. What I would like is for them to either take responsibility for their own failures or go bankrupt. I think at least one of those, possibly both, is what needs to happen. What I do not understand is why you believe that making them as irrelevant as possible in a perfectly legal fashion would be counterproductive towards either goal.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[nine-times]

Yeah, given the attitude you hear from some congressmen, I wouldn't be surprised if they just taxed us all and fed the money to record labels without regard to whether they earned the money. And somehow the action will be praised as a defense of "free market ideals", since it's believed to be a god-given right for large companies to make huge profits.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[The End Of Days]

But we can't just stop consuming their products. The RIAA does nothing but produce horrible music that no one wants and that I just can't stop downloading because I'm entitled to it for free because... I don't remember but I'm sure you already know the reason so it's cool. I deserve happiness and the only way I can get it is free entertainment and I'm gonna bitch on the Internet until the whole world agrees with me and copyright is abolished and the only people who make music or movies die by age 20 of horrific malnutrition because I can't be bothered to reach into my wallet for a buck to thank them for their effort. My listening is thanks enough, because I say it is.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[Yvanhoe]

Which is good as well. The Pirate Party needs to get a two-digits score in the polls...

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[causality]

But we can't just stop consuming their products. The RIAA does nothing but produce horrible music that no one wants and that I just can't stop downloading because I'm entitled to it for free because... I don't remember but I'm sure you already know the reason so it's cool. I deserve happiness and the only way I can get it is free entertainment and I'm gonna bitch on the Internet until the whole world agrees with me and copyright is abolished and the only people who make music or movies die by age 20 of horrific malnutrition because I can't be bothered to reach into my wallet for a buck to thank them for their effort. My listening is thanks enough, because I say it is.

I do think the question of whether copyright itself is outdated is much more interesting. My bet is that this would not kill off music and movies, only commercial music and movies. What that would actually mean is an open question. I think it would be much more viable for music than it would be for movies, because with music you can now do things with a home PC that once required a full studio and extremely expensive equipment. It is now technologically feasible for a band to handle their own production and distribution, which is something that the older "middleman" system did not anticipate (or anticipated and doesn't like). For movies this is starting to happen but not nearly to the same degree, for the obvious reason that they are more complex to make.

It makes me wish that we could just try it out and see how it works, maybe in a single US state or something. I know copyright is a federal law but what I wish for can be quite different from what's realistic :-).

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[Pranadevil2k]

You are correct. The RIAA does indeed have at least some argument on the grounds that music piracy does actually happen, and that is why they have pursued legal action against so many people. The thing you might not have come to understand when you made your comment was that the RIAA will continue to blame piracy for all of their problems whether it really is happening or not. They have brought people to court that never used a computer, let alone downloaded anything. They can't seem to decide how much money they are losing every year from piracy, and every number I've ever seen looks outlandish and impossible; probably due to the fact that their model for determining damages involves things like 'possible downloads' as opposed to 'actual' ones. If every music file on the internet miraculously disappeared today, I can guarantee you tomorrow there will be a press release about how the RIAA believes music piracy has cost them trillions in revenue tomorrow, and now the pirates have moved to sneakernet which is something they can't track and they'll pay the media to demonize it as the next big piracy network without explaining what it actually is.
Simply put, they had a successful business model for decades and it fell apart completely but they believe they still have the right to receive all the money, and they won't stop at lying to the government or anyone else as long as it gets what they want.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[richlv]

don't you already have tax on blank media, portable and non-portable music players and other things ?
at least over here in europe we have such taxes and all icnome goes to a private, greedy, non-transparent and monopolistic organisation. oh, recently they threatened users who included youtube videos in their blog postings. and they say that countryside motels must pay them for every tv set and radio that could be available to guests.
so yeah, taxing on content they don't have even stood close to produce and giving that money to private entities is common already...

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, given the attitude you hear from some congressmen, I wouldn't be surprised if they just taxed us all and fed the money to record labels without regard to whether they earned the money.

Actually, this is already being done. Blank cassette tapes and "Audio" CD-R's have this now, and have for decades.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the correct response to your post is "shut the FUCK UP, you whiny little bitch".

And as a side note, that response is equally valid when used against whatever vapid and unrealistic imaginary poster who would actually say the things in your post and yourself, being equally vapid and unrealistic, and just as fucking whiny (the fact that you used sarcasm didn't hide the butthurt).

Re: Copyright Chess!

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes! Slashdot's new game!

RIAA on White, Sanity on Black

It's an Alekhine's Defense to the mark!

1. RIAA-e4, Jammie Thomas - f6
2. RIAA-e5, Jammie Thomas -d5
3. RIAA-d4, Prof Nesson- d6
4. RIAA-c4, Jammie Thomas gets kicked to b6 with the 1.92Mil verdict.
5. RIAA-f4 , ____

We have only about 3 moves left before they get a total lock. Our move.

Re:Hey AC Troll

[sbeckstead]

No, you may go too!

Caroling DDoS the Courts

[ground.zero.612]

I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly.

DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[Rene S. Hollan]

I think a public performance of "Happy Birthday" on the 4th of July would have been fitting.

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[causality]

I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly. DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...

What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the actual unemployment rate in the US is around 12-15% I would think that a lot of people would prefer an easy way to ensure a warm meal and roof over their heads.

And you'd be creating jobs in the prison industry. It's a win win.

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

And both had marvelous singing voices.

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. If I was walking down the street and I heard a copyrighted song being used as a ring tone, I'd have a civil obligation to report it. NOT reporting it would be civil disobedience.

(U.S.) Citizens have a legal obligation to report criminal activity (which is what the RIAA has been trying to establish these past few years.)

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts

[ground.zero.612]

It's interesting to note that while we US citizens supposedly have a legal obligation to report criminal activity; not even the most educated lawyers and judges among us are completely versed in US criminal law.

cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[S7urm]

I concur with your thought process, and also, in reading the thread down through, think it is a good idea to give the RIAA it's own section. Then you can allow the RIAA-phites to get their daily fix, while keeping the front page diverse.

I understand the whys of how it is always being reported on, but don't understand the thought process behind the editors of this site frequently populating the front page with articles related to an agency that is well known/hated on this site, and promotes the same conversations, from the same people, promoting the same ideals and moralities, through almost identicle threads with the same monotony of names sprouting the same party line b.s that was spouted 6 stories back.

YOU.....ARE.....PREACHING.........TO......THE......CHOIR!

We get it, and we all understand the importance of fighting against the RIAA, but to verbally attack whiledo for simply stating that this dead horse has been flogged enough, well, I thought we were supposed to be intellectuals (thus the "News for NERDS" byline) who discussed a wide variety of ("STUFF THAT MATTERS")

It reminds me of when I first started coming here, and the M$ (nostalgia is the only reason for the "$" sign btw) bashing was going full force! then shifted gears to fights over KDE vs. GNOME, then bashings over the 2000 and 2004 elections (which was awesome)....but one thing happened, those discussions were had, and then STOPPED. However I'm pretty sure discussions regarding the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/software piracy was still talked about a lot THEN......how can you not see the Parent's point?

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[whiledo]

Thanks for the word of support, mate. I think part of the problem is that many people read my post complaining about posting too often about legal minutiae and instead interpreted it as complaining about posting about the RIAA at all. That's why I wouldn't actually be all that interested in having a category that I can exclude. I want to know about how the trial turns out. I just understand that all this stuff has very little to do with it. I was also rooting for Jammie Thomas and you would thought she was a lock to win from the breathless daily updates posted to slashdot, but then she didn't. I'm not sure what purpose that served other than to show us that maybe we're not the most objective bunch when it comes to separating what we'd like to see from what is actually happening. I also think it's distracting people by leaving them with the impression that the courtroom is where they'll win, when I think that's unlikely until we actually get some of the laws changed.

Oh, and sorry about this, but be prepared to be accused of being me posting on another account (one of many I have no doubt!), and RIAA shill, and/or part of the 9/11 inside job.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[S7urm]

AN RIAA shill! ha

And 9/11, well I've been accused of it before.... :)

I just don't understand why these things happen here now, there USED to be integrity in regards to people's opinions and thoughts, there used to be thoughful discussion and if someone disagreed with your view, they would debate you, not flame you and get their buddies with MOD points to mod you into -10 hell, but that was long ago, now a new generation of knuckleheads are flaming/trolling this site, or incorrectly modding people they disagree with into oblivion, and everyone somehow thinks that is OKAY, because instead of you being "RA RA I HATES THE RIAAS TOO AND WANT THEM TO SUX IT AND ALSO OMG PONIES!!!" you merely mention that the mundane minuate detail reporting on this subject being splased all over the front page becomes meddlesome, you get called a "shill" and berated, I had to step up for that, and to say to all the kiddies who type before they think, there is always going to be more KOOl-AID for you to drink, so just keep chugging!

I find it interesting to be kept abreast of this issue as well, but to see it being soooo readily picked apart, and studied, and discussed, while there are other MAJOR things going on, well it just seems a bit silly, I mean FARK outdid SLASHDOT in regards to discussions on how the Internet was making an impact on the IRAN conflict....well that's just whacked........

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Starlon]

You're not proving your point. Just give it up. Some people want to read this -- me for instance. Complain to the site admins, not the site readers. You've thrown this discussion way off course. I saw you claim "If you don't like what I've written, don't complain to me, lest you're a hypocrite." Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[S7urm]

You're not proving your point. Just give it up. Some people want to read this -- me for instance. Complain to the site admins, not the site readers. You've thrown this discussion way off course. I saw you claim "If you don't like what I've written, don't complain to me, lest you're a hypocrite." Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.

you mean kinda like the frontpage of Slashdot has become about the RIAA, and the RIAA alone?

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Starlon]

Don't be so absolutely ridiculous.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[S7urm]

Don't be so absolutely ridiculous.

you're ridiculous

shall we venture further into childishness or can we stop now?

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[whiledo]

Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.

The reason this thread is taking up most of the discussion is that there's nothing to discuss. This story is almost identical to yesterday's story that garnered a whopping 123 comments (including all the down-moderated ones). Today's "news" is just that the judge took the next step and asked Nesson to respond. Then they'll be a step after that when she rules based on his response. Couldn't we have just waited until the ruling, because you'd have the same thing to talk about, only then it would actually not be hypothetical. And if the previous story was worthy of posting and this one is, too, wouldn't it be logical that when she rules one way or the other, then that'd be worthy of posting? Can you see what I mean by minutiae?

I'm not really trying to prove my point anymore. Either people get it or they don't. I just have the unfortunate character weakness that when someone addresses a comment to me, I respond. If people stopped doing that, took their own advice and ignored things they aren't interested in, this would have been over long, long ago.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Starlon]

No, let's take it to the other RIAA topics which are so ridiculously inundating all of Slashdot. Oh wait.

Not about RIAA

Not about RIAA

Not about RIAA

In fact, only ONE topic about RIAA on the front page. This particular page about RIAA is, however, almost entirely about this one person's gripe with the admins. Your comparison was absolutely ridiculous, and "childish" since you're wanting to go in that direction.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Starlon]

So you're blaming your shortcoming on others? That's a fair discussion.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Sj0]

Don't blame the people, blame the companies for breaking the social contract.

Hiring people to pretend there was grassroots support broke the contract, so now all grassroots support is suspected. What exactly did they THINK was going to happen?

They poisoned the water coming from their own river. don't get mad that nobody's drinking anymore.

Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point

[Anonymous Coward]

So you run out of coherent arguments and resort to lunacy in hopes I might off myself? Well, I have news for you, it doesn't work like that. Try as hard as you want, but name calling only ever back fires. Now, I'll return you to your low, negative karma that you most obviously deserve. And I did this anonymous just to keep you guessing. You're not worth a face-to-face encounter. You're not worthy of my presence.

'Cause I wanted to.

[Culture20]

It's enough for any professor.

Shooting yourself in the foot

[westlake]

The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."

The many woes of the geek in court:

1 The lawyer who tells him what only what he wants to hear.

2 The pro bono lawyer with an axe to grind:
"You too can become a poster child for the EFF!"

3 The law professor who thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.

4 The defendant who also thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.

5 The lawyer with an unholy gift for pissing off a judge.

6 The defendant who takes the stand.
Only a geek could unleash such a steaming pile of shit - and never catch a whiff of it. "Tar and feathers ain't good enough for him, boys!"

7 The lawyer who ups the stakes each time he loses a round. The defendant who comes along for the ride.

The Supreme Court accepts perhaps 150 cases a year for oral argument. You just might make the cut.
  You might also be the big winner in the tri-state lotto.

Re:Shooting yourself in the foot

[Rogerborg]

50 points for Gryffindor! Still, I when the law is against you, and the facts - on the balance of probability - are against you, then all you've got left is to throw a hissy fit.

Re:Shooting yourself in the foot

[westlake]

Still, I when the law is against you, and the facts - on the balance of probability - are against you, then all you've got left is to throw a hissy fit.

When the facts are against you, bang the law.
When the law is against you, bang the facts.
When the facts and the law are against you, bang the table.

--- and when your client insists on taking the stand, bang his head.

I'm really curious ...

[ScrewMaster]

Ray, can you provide any insight into what Professor Nesson is trying to accomplish? On the face of it, he seems to be shooting himself in both feet.

What an idiot!

[Locke2005]

This guy doesn't have enough sense to anonymously leak the recordings to the web so he can't be sanctioned for them, and he has the nerve to call himself a professor? Dude, put it up on Bittorent, not your own website!

Re:What an idiot!

[westlake]

This guy doesn't have enough sense to anonymously leak the recordings to the web so he can't be sanctioned for them, and he has the nerve to call himself a professor?

Congratulations.

You have now upped the ante to the point where you risk doing time for contempt of court -

your tenured professorship at Harvard Law is at stake -

and your license to practice is at stake.

You will also very likely have made such a wreckage of your client's case that he will have no option but to settle out of court.

Re:What an idiot!

[L4t3r4lu5]

Consider; This man is willing to put his name to the disobedient act because he believes the law against it is wrong, and is willing to pay the price for that belief in order to get the reasoning behind his action heard, and presedent set. Right or wrong, I admire his audacity.

When did you last put your neck on the line for justice?

Godwin's law!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking out against covering the story of a judge trying to enforce a direct ruling that a deposition recording not be made available online. Speaking out against coverage of the rise of one of the most sinister war/death machines of the 20th century. Do you seriously think that these are within the same moral ballpark?

Like a torrent?

[mangu]

I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly.

What you propose is more or less what torrents do, we are making thousands of copies of whatever music and films the people are interested in.

If the media companies are interested in doing business, let them come forward and offer good quality copies in convenient formats at reasonable prices. As long as they insist on maintaining their old and tired business models, they'll keep failing.

Re:Like a torrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "As long as they continue to think their product deserves to be paid for, they will keep failing." The media companies are at war with just about everyone under 30. They aren't going to get paid by this group - vs. the majority of the folks over 30 (or so) today that are still paying.

They can sue all they want - they still aren't getting paid by anyone that understands the concept of downloading.

In 20 years when it is the people over 50-60 years old that are paying and everyone else freeloading, you are going to see real change. Mostly, any organized business involving entertainment will just collapse unless it is ad-supported or cheats people out of money some other way.

So it won't be Sony publishing music and movies. Maybe it will be Google with a continuous strip of ad text scrolling scross the bottom of the screen. Most likely though you will be seeing the ShayTards on DVD because Mr. ShayTard thinks he is cool and everyone deserves to see his antics. And everyone else that (a) can afford it and (b) has an ego slightly larger than a 2-car garage.

Re:Like a torrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

the majority of the folks over 30 (or so) today that are still paying
People over 30 are used to getting films and music without paying, from advertisement-paid radio and TV. And it wasn't like some websites that put ads over 75% of every page, there were many radio stations that had programs of one hour without commercials.

Harvard lawyers

[saihung]

The lesson here is that if you want massive law review articles, the kind of people who use the word "modality" in every sentence, then go to Harvard. If you want a LAWYER, go to a law school and not a a place with its head in the clouds. I suspect the defendant would've been better off with a professor from Suffolk...

RIAA = ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA is a front for:

• Warner Music Group
• Universal Music Group
• Sony Music Entertainment
• EMI
• and about 1600 smaller corporations

In the interests of honesty, we should quit using the term RIAA and refer to the group as "Warner, Universal, Sony, EMI, and others." Or perhaps WUSE (rhymes with "wussy?"). Spend your money as you will. Convince 2 others to do the same.

RE: Uh -- Oh! -- Palin Ethics Lurking About

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Sarah-Of-Alaska, just when she announcened quiting ... offed at taxpayer-Alaska expense on a fishing trip - with brood in tow -- only to turn up -- to sign a "fate accompli" bill -- so she gets to charge Alaska's tax payers full per diem for she and all her brood -- boarding and food -- in her little "a-hole" -- "gone fish'n" explaiation of he mental melt-down.

She did repeat her current behavior in her past -- four universities -- one BS.

Slam them with email ...

[Anonymous Coward]

USDC-BostonWebmaster@mad.uscourts.gov

Clerk of the court: maryellen_molloy@mad.uscourts.gov

Snort.

[Anonymous Coward]

> What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.

Ghandi, yes. Thoreau? No way in hell. Thoreau's wonderful and his essay on Civil Disobedience is one of the best in history, the formation of the movement, and the writing that influenced Gandi and King. But the man's portrayal of himself as a sort of hero-martyr was silly. He spent one night in jail (for refusing to pay his taxes) and wrote a wonderful essay. It's probably the most productive night in jail anyone's ever had, and Oscar Wilde's De Profundis is the only other great jailhouse writing I can think of.

But the next morning Thoreau was bailed out by Emerson.

Similarly, his "Walden Pond" stories are beautiful and worth reading, but he didn't just randomly walk into the mountains and borrow an axe--he squatted on land belonging to Emerson. And it took place over two years, not one.

Thoreau handled injustice by writing about it. It was some of the most effective writing in modern world history, but his civil disobedience didn't rise anywhere near to the level of Gandhi. (Or King.)

The have been learing how to do it from SCO vs IBM

[RotateLeftByte]

Just look at the legal tactics employed in the various cases.
SCO (like the RIAA) needs to be put out of its misery but they refise to lie down & die.
The RIAA tactics to delay & avoid giving real evidence especially about the real damages incurred is (IMHO) straight out of the SCO textbook.

I wish judges had the nerve to standup to this obvious bullshit & lies and tell them to stop wasting the courts time and get to the nitty gritty. But judges (in the USA) are AFAIK, elected and have to run campaigns so they risk cutting off the source of funding if they do.
I prefer the totally independent judiciary we have here in the UK. I'm not saying it is without fault but judges can give the Government a real boody nose (read Lord Scarman's works) without fear of retaliation.

IMHO, the US civil legal system as shown to the world by the RIAA & SCO cases is horribly broken and it is far too obvious that the only people who benefit are the lawyers who created it in the first place (when they become law makers).
Ok, Rant over, I can get back to breakfast.

Simple

[kenp2002]

The public should have a right to view the proceedings of the court. As risk of judicial bias, due to party affiliation and political contributions; in addition to the high profile nature of the case, the additional access and disclousure is necessary to secure the confidence of the population at large.

Re:Simple

[bluefoxlucid]

The paper that gives the judge authority to do what she's doing does not give her the god damn authority to mandate secret trials, and for good fucking reason. It's not a 'should' question here.

Re:Simple

[DragonTHC]

agreed. I don't think a judge should be able to gag a civil proceeding unless that judge can show cause it will affect the outcome drastically.

Nesson is a Harvard law professor, I think he knows a thing or two about law the judge should learn.

Just a (stupid) question...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but would this only affect uploaders or those who downloaded the file(s) in question as well?

I love their logic

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php

Quite a laugh, have a read.