Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging

xander_zone_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed. In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA. (We discussed the claims and counters a year back.) "An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions. Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday."

Comments

Yay for Ray

[gavron]

He knows his stuff. In the long run truth will prevail!

Way To Go Ray!

E

Re:Yay for Ray

[mcgrew]

Mr. Beckerman is my 3rd favorite lwayer, right after the lady who handled my divorce and the gentleman who handled my bankrupcy.

My fourth favorite lawyer is Lawrence Lessig. Too bad he lost that Eldred case, or most songs would be legal to share. But at least he tried.

Re:Yay for Ray

[noundi]

He knows his stuff. In the long run truth will prevail!

Way To Go Ray!

E

A big leap for humanity, a small step back for the thieves of your culture.

Re:Yay for Ray

[omega_dk]

Methinks you either greatly overestimate the number of songs that were prevented from being entered into the public domain, underestimated the number of songs in the public domain/that would still be under copyright had he won, or completely misunderstand the Eldred case.

Re:Yay for Ray

[Coren22]

You must work for the RIAA...

Re:Yay for Ray

[commodore64_love]

My favorite lawyer is Judge Napolitano.

I love his daily show and how he explains the laws - http://freedomwatchonfox.com/

Re:Yay for Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

He belongs on the Supreme Court

Re:Yay for Ray

[mcgrew]

Methinks you either greatly overestimate the number of songs that were prevented from being entered into the public domain, underestimated the number of songs in the public domain/that would still be under copyright had he won, or completely misunderstand the Eldred case

There is NO recorded music I know of in the public domain except songs that were placed there by their copyright holders. However, even with a still excessive 50 year copyright term, almost half of all recorded music would be in the public domain; there was a lot of music recorded prior to 1959, but afaik none before 1909.

Re:Yay for Ray

[Teun]

there was a lot of music recorded prior to 1959, but afaik none before 1909.

Duh!

There is a lot older recording:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1315449/experts_uncover_worlds_oldest_recording/
OK, that's really odd but this was mainstream:
http://www.otrcat.com/cylinders-18801890s-p-48720.html

Re:Yay for Ray

[MrKaos]

However, even with a still excessive 50 year copyright term, almost half of all recorded music would be in the public domain

From my understanding Disney made *a lot* of money by getting stories from Europe that were in the public domain, translating them and animating them.

Re:Yay for Ray

[mcgrew]

That was a pretty short list on the orcat site. There were thousands of songs recorded after the Gramaphone came along, and those are nearly all under copyright. My point still stands; copyright lengths are insanelty long, and had Lessig won in the Eldred case there would be thousands of recordings in the public domain, whare they should be by now.

Re:Yay for Ray

[mcgrew]

Exactly, and that's why the copyright period is way too long. Art, like technology, builds on what has come before. If patents lasted as long as copyrights technological innovation would come to a virtual standstill.

vexatious litigant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the RIAA were thinking it takes one to know one.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[Hal_Porter]

Actually the Judge ruled that the RIAA was not a vexatious litigant either

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/magistrate-clears-blogger-riaa-of-vexatious-charges/

Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman's counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents. "Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part," Levy wrote.

Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea. It means that an RIAA staffer will now be reading every post he made looking for a sentence they can use against him.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[Shakrai]

Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea.

He outed himself a long time ago as I recall. All of his posts have his webpage in his signature line. His webpage has his name on it.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[interkin3tic]

Indeed, parts of the judge's statement sounds familiar.

“...took an unusually aggressive stance and, at times, veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole...”

Take out the "the recording industry" and put in "music fans" and it applies to the the RIAA. Actually, that would be an understatement.

The RIAAs statement:

The RIAA, in seeking sanctions, said Beckerman “has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs,” the RIAA wrote in court briefs. “Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions.”

If they were talking about their anti-consumer lobbying instead of anti-recording industry blog and abusive lawsuits instead of blog postings, it would apply to them. Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings? Jesus, they're using them to try to bully people to keep supporting their exploitative buisiness practices. A blog post, even if it were -actually- just plain mean and biased, does nothing to cheapen our courts compared to suing individuals because you haven't adapted to current technology.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[Tubal-Cain]

It's even in his description about himself in his user page (right side).

Re:vexatious litigant?

[gordguide]

" ... Mind you, I do wonder if outing NewYorkCountryLawyer's identity here might be a bad idea. ..."

HIs identity wasn't a secret; I learned it by casual reading on /. and it came out from time to time.

He just didn't throw it around in every single post, just the same as you, me, and everyone else here.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[DarthVain]

lol!

Ya, way to cheapen extortion! Whenever I hear about this stuff, I always think about these guys as mafia, selling "protection"...

"Hey momma mia, myself and my two esteemed compatriots here are part of the firm "Knuckles, Icepick, and Hammer", capiche?"

"Youse gotta pay us 5g's now, or we be coming back, and den we might not be so reasonable... mabbe den we take all you money..."

"So do the smart thing and just give us the money, OK?"

Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings? What a joke.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He outed himself a long time ago as I recall. All of his posts have his webpage in his signature line. His webpage has his name on it.

Correct. I have never been anonymous on Slashdot.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[shentino]

The sad part is that it's exactly that. Whereas "5gs" is the settlement they demand, and "all your money" is how fast you'll go bankrupt keeping a lawyer on the clock.

Even sadder is that, unlike "true extortion", doing it with lawyers is completely legal.

Re:vexatious litigant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or have I?

Re:vexatious litigant?

[Donkey_Hotey]

That's a pretty fancy iPod you have, there. It'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it...

I am shocked!

[Locke2005]

the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' What?!? RIAA lawyers exagerating? That is certainly a first!

Re:I am shocked!

[sumdumass]

Isn't the exaggeration by RIAA's lawyers what got Ray to start the blog in the first place? I think this is a situation of life imitating art gone full circle with the bonus of proving the starting point in the end.

who's vexatious?

[quercus.aeternam]

Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman’s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents.

As is not unusual, the editors seem to have missed the fact that NewYorkCountryLawyer is not a litigant - though they are correct in stating that the complaints against him have been dropped.

Re:who's vexatious?

[quercus.aeternam]

For those who dared not taint their eyes with a quote from TFA, I will further clarify: NewYorkCountryLawyer was not accused of being vexatious.

Also, my statement that the complaints against him were dropped is not entirely accurate, as the judge dismissed both sides' complaints.

Re:who's vexatious?

[RIAAShill]

For those who dared not taint their eyes with a quote from TFA, I will further clarify: NewYorkCountryLawyer was not accused of being vexatious.

The decision said that, "[a]ccording to plaintiffs . . . counsel 'intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect Plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue,' unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying this litigation and severely prejudicing plaintiffs' ability to learn the critical facts." The complaint sought monetary sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927, which only allows for sanctions if the accused attorney "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously ."

Re:who's vexatious?

[quercus.aeternam]

Oh, going and doing some independent research, huh? Well, umm... thanks ;)

Re:who's vexatious?

[RIAAShill]

Oh, going and doing some independent research, huh? Well, umm... thanks ;)

Well, not that independent. The decision was the first link in the article. Instead of reading the article, I just read the decision. When I saw your post, I went back to it and searched for vexatious to see if you what you said was accurate.

It seems like a decent opinion. The decision to levy sanctions should not be taken lightly. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants should be discouraged from exercising their legal rights.

Re:who's vexatious?

[bughunter]

Interesting. According to Wired, motion to sanction was filed a year ago and has been awaiting a decision the entire time.

The last line of the linked article reads, "Expect a ruling on the RIAA's motion for sanctions soon."

OK. [checks watch] For future reference, Soon = 11 months in legalese.

Re:who's vexatious?

[RIAAShill]

The last line of the linked article reads, "Expect a ruling on the RIAA's motion for sanctions soon."

Judge Trager did act on the plaintiff and defendant motions quickly. In December he referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Levy. You don't think that saying "my decision is . . . probably whatever this guy decides" counts as a decision?

Re:who's vexatious?

[Volante3192]

Still, that's faster than a Soon(tm) from Blizzard.

Re:who's vexatious?

[Coren22]

or 3D Realms...I've been waiting Forever for their new game...

Re:who's vexatious?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

the judge dismissed both sides' complaints

Not so. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the RIAA's motion for "discovery sanctions". He did not rule on Ms. Lindor's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA lawyers. That motion is still pending.

Re:who's vexatious?

[micheas]

In California there seem to be three judges assigned to most civil cases.

The Trial judge that will issue the ruling about the case and so on.

The Law and motion judge that will make rulings on most of the motions filed by the parties.

And a third judge that has the sole job of trying to keep the case moving forward and eventually leaving litigation.

Re:who's vexatious?

[nomadic]

Huh?? I've never heard that. Frequently, in a federal trial, you have a trial judge but also a magistrate judge who handles low-level disputes and keeps the case moving on; sort of a subordinate judge. Obviously the trial judge has ultimate authority. There is no third judge involved, though.

Or are you thinking of three judge panels that make rulings at the appellate level?

Re:who's vexatious?

[quercus.aeternam]

Oh, man... corrected by the expert himself...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

So, a Rule 11 motion simply means that the opponent may be sanctioned for breaking any other rule, if deemed appropriate, correct?

If so, what exactly was the sanction for, and if it goes through, what implications might it have outside of this case?

Re:who's vexatious?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Oh, man... corrected by the expert himself... http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm [cornell.edu] So, a Rule 11 motion simply means that the opponent may be sanctioned for breaking any other rule, if deemed appropriate, correct? If so, what exactly was the sanction for, and if it goes through, what implications might it have outside of this case?

The Rule 11 motion was based on the deliberate false statements of fact contained in the RIAA's motion. My Declaration of Ray Beckerman in opposition enumerates, in detail, the false statements, and the true facts.

Kettle/Pot

[StormReaver]

The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue."

In other words, the RIAA accuses an opposing attorney of doing the very things that the RIAA does all the time. Shocking.

Re:Kettle/Pot

[bughunter]

FTfA: New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote, "Although defendant's counsel took an unusually aggressive stance and, at times, veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole, I do not find clear evidence of bad faith on counsel's part."

But yet,

Marie Lindor, Beckerman's client, ...was accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing program. After five depositions and three years of legal maneuvering, the RIAA has dropped the case against the woman whom Beckerman said has "never turned on a computer.

Let me get this straight. Who's providing "false information," "misdirecting... relevant facts and events," and concealing "critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue" again?

JFC. The arrogance and hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

Re:Kettle/Pot

[RIAAShill]

Marie Lindor, Beckerman's client, ...was accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing program. After five depositions and three years of legal maneuvering, the RIAA has dropped the case against the woman whom Beckerman said has "never turned on a computer.

Let me get this straight. Who's providing "false information," "misdirecting... relevant facts and events," and concealing "critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue" again?

According to the decision, "plaintiffs' counsel requested leave to file this motion, having learned less than one month earlier , at the deposition of Yanick Raymond-Wright, that defendant's daughter had brought a desktop computer into her mother's home and had connected it to the Internet in the summer of 2004" (emphasis added). The decision goes on to day that "[d]efendant does not suggest that plaintiffs could have discovered this information sooner, as neither defendant nor the other deponents in this case recalled Ms. Raymond-Wright's 2004 visit or the presence of her computer in her mother's home."

It sounds like they sued Ms. Lindor because of alleged infringement activities that were traced to her internet account. Then they kept the suit open while trying to find out who might have used her account. It looks like it just took several years before they could identify the right defendant. It also looks like the defendant's incomplete testimony is one of the reasons why the plaintiffs did not identify the right defendant earlier.

JFC. The arrogance and hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

The Magistrate Judge probably reviewed the evidence presented pretty closely and with an open mind. The opinion seems well-reasoned and balanced on its face. I personally would not second-guess the opinion without taking some time to review the evidence at least as closely.

Re:Kettle/Pot

[Hurricane78]

In psychology, that's called "projection". It's a sign that the person itself can not let any thought of his own failure into his mind, despite him knowing and hating it, for fear of breakdown of the own reality. So he/she/it starts to project his repressed self-hatred onto others, to be able to let it out.

Basically they are beyond the point of no return where they hate their own stupid decision, far into the land of fear of total breakdown on confrontation, where all you can do is run with it until the bitter end, or hope you or someone else finds a rhetoric on tactic method that lets you get out without losing all self-respect.

It's a very human thing. Nobody can stand the total loss of the own reality. Most people would rather die. Seriously. You and me most likely too.

So I guess the best thing to do here, is offer the RIAA this way out. Something where they can go "We were in panic and forced to act that way. In reality we're good, kind, and right. And look how now we're even better for changing our ways." while the rest of the world goes "Yes little RIAA, I'm proud of you for becoming even better!" while secretly smiling because we all would know what really happened, and how we were the kind-hearted ones.

Re:Kettle/Pot

[eggnoglatte]

Marie Lindor, Beckerman's client, ...was accused of making copyrighted music available on the Kazaa file sharing program. After five depositions and three years of legal maneuvering, the RIAA has dropped the case against the woman whom Beckerman said has "never turned on a computer.

Let me get this straight. Who's providing "false information," "misdirecting... relevant facts and events," and concealing "critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue" again?

Look, with all due respect to NYCL, he is her lawyer. Do you really think the other side should drop a law suit just because her lawyer says she didn't do it? Really?

If they thought they had a case then it was within their right to go to court. That is what the courts are for: to resolve legal disputes. Now, if they just sued because they thought she would cave in and pay despite not having done anything wrong, then that would be an abuse of the legal system. But you'd have to prove that. And simply asserting that the RIAA can't be trusted won't do the job (although I personally agree).

Keep it cool

[4D6963]

Yay for him, but may he beware of being too passionate and involved into what he defends/attacks. Lawyering is best served cold.

Re:Keep it cool

[TheSpoom]

Meh. As long as he's not slandering or libeling anyone, or breaking case confidentiality, I say freedom of speech is more important.

Re:Keep it cool

[Aladrin]

I disagree. This is not a single case, but rather a rash of cases that affects nearly everyone age 12-30, and many that are older as well. It's going to be changing laws and attitudes, and Ray is making sure the information is out there to everyone who will listen.

He is going far beyond the duties of a simple lawyer and is actively working to make this a better country.

Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either... -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.

That's an admirable thing.

Re:Keep it cool

[chill]

Uh, what? Are you a lawyer? More specifically, have you argued cases in front of juries? I'll bet that class of lawyers would have a difference of opinion on the use of passion, rhetoric and emotional appeal.

Re:Keep it cool

[sumdumass]

I think the parents point was more along the lines of why a lawyer generally doesn't represent himself as well as he could others not that there is no place for passion.

It's difficult to convey a complete thought when you are heavily invested in the outcome. What happens a lot of times is that key facts get over looked because emotions either already assume that others know it or you place emphasis on the effects without clearly demonstrating the causes.

It happens quite often even here when people start getting passionately involved with what they are writing about. With a certain amount of disconnect, a more complete story can be told and the chances of the jury or judge or other people can understand the position being argued much better.

This is often why even though a lawyer is capable of defending or prosecuting something for himself, they will often seek outside counsel to do it. They generally know their involvement jeopardizes their ability to do what they normally do.

Re:Keep it cool

[drspliff]

> Lawyering is best served cold.

I whole heatedly agree, the best lawyers are dead ones.

Re:Keep it cool

[b4dc0d3r]

I think his focus has been all of the bad evidence, illegal third party investigators, and continuing to prosecute when the evidence suggests they are wrong.

Beckerman's job seems to be defense, not prosecutorial. So if a client comes to him with court action in progress, I'd sure as hell prefer someone who has been watching the cases and knows what dirty tricks to expect. Also, which cases have come before and how they turned out.

Better to watch copyright cases than be an ambulance chaser, or advertise "have you or a loved one been hurt by $DRUG?" I think in some places lawyers are not allowed to specialize, but it pays to focus on something and be good at it.

In this case, it does look like he overstepped his bounds a little, but if you look at past cases, RIAA members constantly overstep in their pursuit of a headline-grabbing conviction. I don't see a problem with fighting with whatever tools are available, especially when the cost of losing is financial ruin.

Re:Keep it cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware how this is applied. Although tongue-in-cheek and dramatic, the statement that the KKK are 'bettering the country' is a subjective truth, also.

There is more to mull before accepting this.

Re:Keep it cool

[4D6963]

None of these things require to actually feel them. It's just an act, and something a good lawyer has to master. Let me guess, you probably think that Keith Olbermann is always genuinely as outraged as he acts?

Re:Keep it cool

[4D6963]

It's not about freedom of speech, it's about being dispassionate, pragmatic and cool-headed vs. getting heated up and doing things that don't best serve your cause/case.

If your ranting on a blog serves your cause, then good, but if you do that only because you're pissed, frustrated and you need to vent and rant, then it does you no good and you need to cool off.

Re:Keep it cool

[Anarchduke]

Depends, passion can be important to juries.

Overstated, not completely false, though.

[Valdrax]

I'm interesting in that statement because it suggests that their complaints had some merit. The comment about him being "less than forthcoming" also makes me wonder. I haven't actually read really anything about the case background, so I wonder what those complaints are and whether the magistrate's recognition is one of "bad but not bad enough" or just "true but nothing to feel admonished about."

Anyone got some more info on their claims and the merits behind them?

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[eldavojohn]

Well, via Wired's PDF of their claims:

Here, Defendant’s counsel should be sanctioned for forcing Plaintiffs to take many unnecessary steps to obtain basic information, for making misleading statements, and for making baseless discovery objections and frivolous motions which he posted on his anti-recording industry blog. Specifically, as demonstrated above, Defendant’s counsel consistently forced Plaintiffs to seek Court intervention for routine discovery requests and engaged in a pattern of filing frivolous motions. For example, Plaintiffs were forced to seek the Court’s assistance to inspect Defendant’s computer, to serve deposition subpoenas on basic fact witnesses like Woody Raymond, Junior Lindor, and Yannick Raymond-Wright, and to compel Defendant and her son to produce the missing hard drive. As the Court held, each of these requests was a good faith effort to uncover evidence of copyright infringement. Similarly, Defendant’s counsel filed frivolous motions seeking, among other things, to preclude evidence (Doc. No. 69), to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony (Doc. No. 165), and to compel production of a proprietary contract with MediaSentry (Doc. Nos. 62 and 201). Defendant’s counsel’s refusal to cooperate in good faith and repeated frivolous motions designed to thwart Plaintiffs’ discovery resulted in an unreasonable multiplication of these proceedings. Defendant’s counsel also made misleading statements to Plaintiffs. His assertions that there was no computer in the home at the time of infringement and that Defendant had no way of contacting her nephew Junior Lindor were both false, and both materially prolonged and complicated these proceedings unnecessarily. Finally, as this Court is aware, Defendant’s counsel has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass Plaintiffs. Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions. See Galonsky, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19570, at *18-19.

Now I can't find the court case cited here (Galonsky v. Williams in 1997?) because my judicial system here likes to be the only ones able to speak latin so I rely on them to tell me what's been established and what hasn't. Otherwise, I'd give you my honest opinion of their claims from a non-lawyer perspective, of course.

Essentially they seem to be upset with him discussing this case on his blog ... if you read Slashdot regularly you'd be familiar with Ray's ability to say something along the lines of: so then I asked for this and they ruled it as frivolous and here's my documents asking for it! Which I guess is the kind of actions the RIAA was appealing to the judge to find 'vexatious' as the judge is the utmost authority in these cases about what is and isn't frivolous. Not Ray's blog, not the people who read Ray's blog and not the internet. People read his blog and get upset then the RIAA (and they were hoping the judge) get upset because they feel Ray spun the material to suite his arguments. Unfortunately for the RIAA the judge seemed to react along the lines of "Yeah, that's what I did, so what? I understand how this upsets you but he's free to run for office on his free time if he wants ... let alone run a political campaign against you or I. Now both of you act like adults and stop calling each other 'vexatious.'" So I'm guessing what Ray did was vexatious but apparently being vexatious isn't illegal (maybe being 'overly vexatious' is?).

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[sumdumass]

So I'm guessing what Ray did was vexatious but apparently being vexatious isn't illegal (maybe being 'overly vexatious' is?).

If I remember right, vexatious means intending to harass. I think the proper interpretation of what the judge meant was that the effects of actions do not indicate the purpose or intent of the actions. RIAA's lawyers attempted to make the connection from what some would consider due diligence and the blog as harassment and then attempted to infer the intention. If the judge saw the connections as informative sort of like news reporting or as you mentioned posturing for political campaigns, then while the effect of the actions could have been harassment, no "intent to harass" was found and the extent of harassment was exaggerated.

That would clear up the distinctions between "vexatious" and 'overly vexatious' because without the intent, it doesn't really exist.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[commodore64_love]

Whatever.

It just sounds like RIAA's lawyers are whining like babies. I read about a similar case where a private individual created a "fan website" for a local mall that was being built. It included preliminary maps, list of future stores, et cetera. When the mall was finished the owners demanded the fan website be yanked, and the ISP complied. The mall's lawyers acted in a manner that I certainly consider "vexatious" such as providing *thousands* of pages in documents, when the individual simply asked for ONE piece of paper during the discovery phase of the trial. He was forced to try to sort through all this trash, and eventually turned to the ACLU for help.

The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred.

To this day they still haven't paid.

Why? They claim since the ACLU represented the individual he has no costs (which is flat wrong - he incurred about $1000 prior to the ACLU arrivng to help). This is the way lawyers act - like toadies - not even bothering to follow a clear directive from the Supreme Court. RIAA's whining is nothing more than two-year-olds throwing temper tantrums. What NYCL did was represent his plaintiff, as he's *required* to do per the law, and he acted no differently than how RIAA's own lawyers act in their vigorous defenses of copyright for their clients (including mailing-out vexatious "Pay us $5000 or else" letter to citizens).

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[dangitman]

I'm interesting...

Not as much as you think you are.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[Valdrax]

I'm interesting...

Not as much as you think you are.

Well played, dangitman. Well played.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[Nefarious Wheel]

The comment about him being "less than forthcoming" also makes me wonder

Heh... Translation: They haven't found anything in his background they could use for blackmail.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Essentially they seem to be upset with him discussing this case on his blog

I don't think that was necessarily their primary source of upset.

It's worth reading some of Ray's discussions on RIAA strategy - you'll pick up just how the RIAA was bundling up dozens of John Doe discovery sessions in a fishing expedition, then throwing them at the court in a lump and engineering things such that individual defendants didn't have time to respond in court. Kind of like a class action suit in reverse, I think. Anyway you can't do that, and should't be allowed to get away with that. They're upset because Ray effectively put a marlinspike in their wheels by dismantling RIAA's attempts to judge a large group people as a group, and I think they were rather stung by his article in one of the well-read journals of the legal profession.

And when you have rule of law, you can't judge people as groups - you can only pin infractions or grievances on individuals. "Group Justice" went out of favour as a legal principle in WWII.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[bane2571]

Wow, from reading that the "vexatious" actions Ray was taking was demanding that a court order be issued before the RIAA seized a private citizen's property and that a court appointed obseerver be present before the RIAA access said property. Curse him for forcing good manners upon the poor RIAA.
Jeez, he also tried to exclude evidence that may have been false and get further information proving said evidence's falibility. Is there no end to Ray's depravity.

Did this kind of BS from the RIAA even have a chance of working or were they just being vexatious themselves?

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[gowanus]

whoa buddy....

maybe you haven't seen the bad end of an idiot judge who hands out costs judgements like candies.

i am involved in a case where the judge got all worked up because one side(mine unfortunately) hinted that that judge didn't have a clue with regard to the law at hand and maybe it was time for her to get that clue.

a couple of motions later my side was hit with a few thousand in costs. it was more than the lawyers actually showed were related to the motion the costs were awarded for.

trust me i wont be paying that one anytime soon.

p.s. if you want a real ride, raise a subject matter jurisdicion issue in the civil court of new york city. the gruntings, pontifications and obfuscations the judge will raise will defy all belief.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[Quothz]

The case eventually reached the SCOTUS who sided with the fan's right to free speech and owning a personal fan website. They also ordered the mall's lawyers to pay the bills incurred. To this day they still haven't paid.

I have trouble believing this story; it's relatively easy to collect a judgment, especially from a company, if they have enough to pay it. You don't really need their cooperation to collect, although it makes it easier. An award for costs of litigation will always be for a specific amount, so unless they've appealed it there's simply no argument to be made about what costs are involved. I don't see anything about the story from a bit of Googlery, either. I think you, or whomever you heard it from, got the details mixed up a bit somewhere.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Did this kind of BS from the RIAA even have a chance of working

No.

or were they just being vexatious themselves?

Absolutely, which is why I made a Rule 11 motion. I can only remember 1 other time, in 30+ years of practicing law, that I have filed a Rule 11 motion against a fellow attorney.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[commodore64_love]

Yes I'm sure there are bad judges, but if the United States Supreme Court orders you to pay the website owner's approximately $1000 in costs, don't you think you ought to obey? Especially after the Supreme Justices tell you it was falt-wrong to yank his page off the web? I'd certainly pay up.

Re:Overstated, not completely false, though.

[dorque_wrench]

Here, Defendant’s counsel should be sanctioned for forcing Plaintiffs to take many unnecessary steps to obtain basic information, for making misleading statements, and for making baseless discovery objections and frivolous motions which he posted on his anti-recording industry blog. Specifically, as demonstrated above, Defendant’s counsel consistently forced Plaintiffs to seek Court intervention for routine discovery requests and engaged in a pattern of filing frivolous motions. For example, Plaintiffs were forced to seek the Court’s assistance to inspect Defendant’s computer, to serve deposition subpoenas on basic fact witnesses like Woody Raymond, Junior Lindor, and Yannick Raymond-Wright, and to compel Defendant and her son to produce the missing hard drive. As the Court held, each of these requests was a good faith effort to uncover evidence of copyright infringement. Similarly, Defendant’s counsel filed frivolous motions seeking, among other things, to preclude evidence (Doc. No. 69), to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony (Doc. No. 165), and to compel production of a proprietary contract with MediaSentry (Doc. Nos. 62 and 201). [...]

So basically they wanted him to be sanctioned for aggressively defending his client, i.e. doing his frakking jaaaaahb. Priceless.

Wow, freedom of expression?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed this one. The RIAA really requested monetary sanctions for a piracy defense lawyer who blogged about disliking the RIAA?

Holy shit, recording industry, this is getting out of control. You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.

Re:Wow, freedom of expression?

[Xeleema]

...supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.
Wow I just LoL'd coffee all over the place. Where's my mod points?

Re:Wow, freedom of expression?

[Coren22]

If only the post wasn't AC, it would be well worth modding up to +5 funny.

Re:Wow, freedom of expression?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.

The word you're looking for is either "Machiavellian" or "Draconian".

Re:Wow, freedom of expression?

[Nefarious Wheel]

The word you're looking for is either "Machiavellian" or "Draconian".

Or, considering how they're trying to make the world of today's sound technology fit exactly into the format of a round thing with a hole in it, "Procrustean".

Just chop off the bits that don't fit...

Re:Wow, freedom of expression?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they may be "frothing tyrannical dictator evil", but they're not CTHULHU evil. Though I'm sure they REALLY wish they could be that evil.

At best all they can do is offer blood sacrifices and chant "My blood for you!"

Layman's terminology?

[NoYob]

FTFA:

“I’m gratified that the motion was denied. It was based on gross misstatements of fact. I would have preferred for the judge’s language to be stronger. But the result is the same,” Beckerman said during a brief telephone interview.

I see. So in layman's terms, "gross misstatements of fact" means - "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

Re:Layman's terminology?

[Hal_Porter]

In the UK if you said "liar, liar, pants on fire" to an RIAA like organisation they could sue you for libel unless you could prove that every single employee had burning pants. OK, I'm exaggerating but UK libel law absolutely sucks. It basically allows the rich and powerful to stop the poor and powerless from criticizing them. And of course that is exactly what it is designed for.

In fact Singapore only need to take UK libel law and ignore the unwritten rule that the government won't sue the opposition for libel and that is enough for the Prime Minister to be able to silence criticism there. Now the UK government doesn't do that, but if you get screwed by some RIAA like company and mention it on your blog they will most likely threaten you with libel and try to intimidate you into shutting up. Your ISPs might yank the page at that point too.

Re:Layman's terminology?

[Clandestine_Blaze]

In the UK if you said "liar, liar, pants on fire" to an RIAA like organisation they could sue you for libel unless you could prove that every single employee had burning pants.

Nothing that couldn't be accomplished with enough kerosene, matches, or spontaneous combustion.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

... welcome our vexatious, anti-RIAA blogging attorney overlords...

Congrats.

NYCL is a lawyer and must be punished!!!!

[erroneus]

The RIAA claimed that Lindor, her family and Beckerman "intentionally provided false information, attempted to misdirect plaintiffs as to relevant facts and events, and concealed critical information and evidence regarding the infringement at issue."

In other words, NYCL has delivered information as required but in the way that was the most advantageous to the interests of the defendant he faithfully represents. NYCL does exactly what the plaintiff's attorneys do by being less than forthcoming with evidence that might harm their case and by characterising their evidence in ways that are not consistent with the facts in the case. (I'm sure NYCL might have exception to this assertion, but when it comes to lawyers, I have a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. [smirk])

In essence, the plaintiff's lawyers complain that NYCL is fighting fire with fire, or in their case, bullshit with bullshit and they can't handle it.

Frankly, I can't believe the plaintiff attorneys can perform this "pot calling the kettle black" act with a straight face. Given that most judges were lawyers themselves, I find it unimaginable that they don't already see through the bullshit.

WTF

[WiiVault]

Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.

Re:WTF

[Zerth]

In the US it's not, in the UK the truth can be libelous.

Re:WTF

[Attila Dimedici]

Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.

Part of the reason that the judge didn't slap the RIAA hard is because Ray was (is?) in court opposing the RIAA. When one is in litigation (whether as one of the litigants or as one of their lawyers) there are legal limits about what one is allowed to say about the case. Those limits vary from case to case.

Re:WTF

[Mister Whirly]

Because there is no such thing as "absolute truth" in a legal courtroom. (See also: justice, fairness, equality, and common sense.)

Re:WTF

[debrain]

Excuse me IANAL, but isn't the truth never libelous? Even opinion is supposed to receive the utmost protection. Libel is reserved for those know knowingly lie simply to inflict harm. I mean sure the RIAA doesn't agree with Ray's angle, but since when is well stated opinion backed by dozens of sources, and agreed upon by pretty much everybody who isn't a RIAA fascist suddenly become illegal to share? Thank god the judge dismissed it, but the fact that he didn't slap them in hard for trying to silence a critic makes me understand why in the eyes of the law, we the people are fucked.

I recall there being a number of philosophical thoughts on the relationship between libel and truth. The first I recall is that in general libel is any written statement that causes harm. You can claim for damages from libel anyone who makes a statement that causes harm. However, if the written statement was true, that is a complete defence to claims for libel.

The second school of thought I recall is that libel is any untrue statement that causes harm. Therefore you can only claim for damages where the written statements cause harm and the statements were untrue.

In the first scenario one can sue for any harm by way of written statements, and the defendant may allege as a defence (and must prove) that they were true statements. In the second scenario one can only sue for untrue statements and must show that the harmful statements were untrue. In other words, the onus of bearing the burden of proof shifts and the type of allegations change.

In both these cases, true statements prevent you from being responsible in law for damages resulting from the written statements - but through different legal mechanisms. There are other schools of thought, however, and your mileage may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - there are places where the truth is not a defence, particularly if that truth was gotten through deceit or in violation of privacy laws. There are more differences between the two schools of thought above, and the differences are subtle, but they can have significant effects procedurally and practically.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is no longer an absolute defense against libel in the U.S. anymore either:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/02/the-most-dangerous-libel-decision-in-decades/

Re:WTF

[MobyDisk]

In Massachusetts, truth is not the ultimate defense against libel."

Go get EM RAY

[WindBourne]

Good Luck. Nice to see those that take on the evil and can win at least a battle (hopefully, the war).

Whats the problem, he was vindicated...

[TiggertheMad]

Frankly, I can't believe the plaintiff attorneys can perform this "pot calling the kettle black" act with a straight face. Given that most judges were lawyers themselves, I find it unimaginable that they don't already see through the bullshit.

It seems fairly clear that the judge did see through the BS. Just because someone files a silly complaint and the judge doesn't shoot it down outright doesn't mean they are 'buying' the BS.

I would imagine that many judges are inclined to hear out both side's arguments fully, in order to give the case a fair shake. This probably involves listening to a lot of stupid blathering over the course of a career as a judge. If you just dismiss everything outright, I would think that would make the case more likely to be appealed.

Also, there is an old saying about giving someone enough rope to hang themselves...

Re:Whats the problem, he was vindicated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only partially. His complaints were also kicked out.

Re:Whats the problem, he was vindicated...

[ubercam]

I would imagine that many judges are inclined to hear out both side's arguments fully, in order to give the case a fair shake. This probably involves listening to a lot of stupid blathering over the course of a career as a judge. If you just dismiss everything outright, I would think that would make the case more likely to be appealed.

I'd be inclined to agree with that. On the TV shows like Judge Judy and the like, the judge actually listens to what both parties have to say, every time, no matter how ridiculous the stories or how batshit insane the people are... they kind of have to don't they? The legal system wouldn't make sense otherwise. You might as well just toss a coin if that were the case.

Many people in the Slashdot universe also seem to forget or ignore the fact that they're biased as hell against the MAFIAA (even calling it that shows incredible bias... I'm not trying to hide mine) and when they see them attacking Mr. Ray "Knight in Shining Armour" Beckermann, OF COURSE it's wrong and they should be thrown out of court! How DARE they?!?

For what it's worth, I too think the MAFIAA is being rather hypocritical and litigious, and I heavily dislike their tactic of apparently suing the incredibly vulnerable (poor, old, etc) due to the increased likelihood of winning or settling. Their other tactics are also disgusting, but no need to repeat them for the umpteenth time. Hopefully the tables will turn at some point and they will lose a huge, high profile case WITH prejudice and become the laughing stock of the world for decades to come. That day can't come quickly enough. However, it's not for us to decide the frivolousness of their claims. That's the judge's job, and to do so he/she has to hear both sides, as ridiculous as they may both be.

No

[WiiVault]

Lawyering is best served cold.

Sorry but that is exactly the line of thought that is letting (most of) the lawyers destroy our society. Take the RIAA, if their lawyers had souls and weren't just cold bastards they would refuse to sue grannies for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Wouldn't society be better without these moral-free lawyers? It can be an honorable job as Ray proves, but lets not forget that he is the minority in his profession from what I can tell.

Re:No

[Darkness404]

Would society be better if a government was established that let the people decide what they thought was acceptable? I think the answer would be yes. A free government should not criminalize common things that are not inherently dangerous to others. But, until the US switches to a more sane democratic system (such as Proportional Representation) I don't think we will see the change we need.

Re:No

[4D6963]

Lawyers are instruments, unilateral protagonists of the justice system. They're not the moral guardians of society, very far from that. You need to look at professionals not as humans but by their functions. Lawyers are mercenaries of justice, and by opposing two sides of lawyers and letting a judge be the referee you're supposed to get justice. And lawyers are just more efficient and less error-prone when they stay dispassionate and cool-headed.

Re:No

[WiiVault]

I hope you can see the difference between the actions of the RIAA and those of good prosecutors. The RIAA has shown time and time again a total disregard for the law. In the example you gave, the law was applied rationally.

Re:No

[sumdumass]

I can see the differences. Except that not all of RIAA's actions are against the law or disregard it. When RIAA sued the grandma, they didn't violate or disregard the law that I'm aware of. Whether grandma is stealing from you or RIAA, the fact that she is a grandma should be irrelevant. Grandmas do not get a pass just because they are grandmas.

Re:No

[WiiVault]

Stealing... Stealing what?

Re:No

[sumdumass]

Well, stealing anything really. In the concept of RIAA, it's the right to control when and how your works are copied and distributed or implemented. The law gives the owners of copyright and patents that right, it's not some hidden principle or anything. And at a geek site, I'm not sure why the question of it was even asked.

Anyways, the point is not of theft, it's that theft is present should stand on it's own merit, not the fact that someone is a grandma. I understand that the Grandma the RIAA sued was innocent, and I also understand that the RIAA dropped their lawsuit on her. However, had the claims been valid, the merit of the claims should be what's important, not who or what she is.

Let me just add

[jamstar7]

... my congratulations to Ray. It's not every day that somebody has the courage to descend into the belly of The Beast and beard them in their own den.

Ray is one of those 2% of lawyers that the other 98% make things bad for.

Harassing or Annoying the Defendant

[twmcneil]

"The question is not whether the court approves of the plaintiff's litigation tactics, but whether the plaintiff acted for the purpose of harassing or annoying the defendant."... "Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part."

Hello! That's exactly what they are doing. Chasing after other family members not a party to the action and trying over and over to find the existence some magical external drive.

Summary sucks as usual but I think NYCL got a bit of the shaft on this one.

Keep up the good work Ray.

About Time

[hyades1]

Ray Beckman has been fighting an uphill battle against the recording industry for years, and it's past time he got a bit more recognition for his efforts. A lot of people don't appreciate that every time one of the RIAA's outrageous tactics receives even limited support in a court of law, that tactic will inevitably make its way into normal corporate practice.

This struggle is about a lot more than alleged theft of music. It's about abuse of the legal system by corporations and individuals with deep pockets as they enforce their will on average people by threatening to bankrupt them in court if they dare to fight back against blatantly unfair practices.

I have great respect for Ray Beckman. We need a thousand more like him.

Re:About Time

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray Beck[er]man has been fighting an uphill battle against the recording industry for years, and it's past time he got a bit more recognition for his efforts. A lot of people don't appreciate that every time one of the RIAA's outrageous tactics receives even limited support in a court of law, that tactic will inevitably make its way into normal corporate practice. This struggle is about a lot more than alleged theft of music. It's about abuse of the legal system by corporations and individuals with deep pockets as they enforce their will on average people by threatening to bankrupt them in court if they dare to fight back against blatantly unfair practices. I have great respect for Ray Beck[er]man. We need a thousand more like him.

Thank you, hyades1. Much appreciated. You are so right about this being an "abuse of the legal system by corporations... with deep pockets". I wrote an article for the ABA's Judges Journal, last year, about that very subject : "Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless : Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigations". I am so grateful for the fine lawyers who have joined me in this struggle, fighting for principle.

Re:About Time

[hyades1]

Jeez...sorry about the missing "er", Mr. BeckERman. I'm normally smarter than that. I plead the pressure of other open tabs and two concurrent conversations, Your Honour.

Re:About Time

[shentino]

What we need even more is to remove the notion that you can file a frivolous lawsuit and simply win it by outspending the defendant.

Moving the US to a loser pays system would give the hapless and helpless "we the people" incentive to stand and fight instead of rolling over.

As it stands now, corporations are kings. They know that if you do something they don't like, all they have to do is squash you like a bug under a big fat lawsuit, and the law be damned. The only reason they don't treat EACH OTHER like that is they know they'd be in for a huge fight in court and they'd only be able to win on merit, so in the corporate world companies tend to pick their battles.

People cannot afford to defend themselves. Which means that, today, the legal landscape is full of nothing but "might makes right" akin to the middle ages of warfare where who won was determined by whoever had the biggest and baddest army, merit and fitness to rule be damned. And since currently you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself even if you are innocent, it's better for you to roll over and cough up whatever they ask for.

This is, indeed, a protection racket. Instead of "pay or die" it's "pay or go bankrupt". And the best part of it is that forcing someone to spend money on laywers isn't illegal so it isn't considered extortion!

Going to a loser pays system would allow people to stand and fight without fear, knowing that they'd be saved in the end when they're legal bills are refunded. And for those who are too poor to hire their own defense, having "everlast refundable dollars" to finance a defense would let folks like the EFF and like to throw their full weight in support of the innocent.

I am curious what NYCL thinks about "loser pays" though.

Re:About Time

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I am curious what NYCL thinks about "loser pays" though.

I'm not in favor of it. I think it ups the ante, and therefore makes it even harder for people without lots of money to have access to the courts. Copyright law in the US does, however, have a modified "loser pays" rule; the prevailing party may be entitled to attorneys fees.

Burning the Witches

[jd]

To me, part of the problem is the US legal system itself. Both sides sought to be obstructive, in their own ways. Both sides were guilty of mud-slinging. Both sides made it hard for the judge to make any kind of reasoned decision.

But I cannot blame the lawyers for this, because this is how the system itself is set up. There is little interest in the truth, especially when a favorable lie could get you so much more. The lawyers, by mistreating reality and harassing their opponents merely did what they were paid to do, and did a good job of it.

If you don't like the conduct of either side (and I certainly loath the conduct of the RIAA lawyers), don't yell at those who are just doing their jobs. That won't make any difference. You've gotta dig deeper. Those playing the game will always opt for the best strategy, so change the rules and the strategy - and players - will follow.

"You're Gotham's DA...

[Weaselmancer]

...if you're not getting shot at, you're not doing your job right."

Seriously, I think it's great that the RIAA has decided that Mr. Beckerman is enough of a threat to where he needs to be silenced. Don't you? That means he's on to something. He's hit them in a sensitive spot. The enemy has let us know that something has hurt them. And that something is exposure and scrutiny. Enough of that and one day their racket will be over. That's what they fear. The Truth. They know it, and now we know it.

So keep it up NYCL! We're all rooting for you!

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

...if you're not getting shot at, you're not doing your job right." Seriously, I think it's great that the RIAA has decided that Mr. Beckerman is enough of a threat to where he needs to be silenced. Don't you? That means he's on to something. He's hit them in a sensitive spot. The enemy has let us know that something has hurt them. And that something is exposure and scrutiny. Enough of that and one day their racket will be over. That's what they fear. The Truth. They know it, and now we know it. So keep it up NYCL! We're all rooting for you!

Thank you Weaselmancer, much appreciated. Damned right I'm "on to something". The truth, which, as you accurately observe, is what they fear. Like vampires & ghouls fear the light of day, the RIAA lawyers fear the truth.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[Tigersmind]

Glad to hear NYCL. Whenever I want to find out what is up with the RIAA, I go to you first. You do a great job and please keep it up :)

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Glad to hear NYCL. Whenever I want to find out what is up with the RIAA, I go to you first. You do a great job and please keep it up :)

Thank you, Tigersmind. Much appreciated. I notice that some of the readers are still believing what is in the article, instead of believing my report. The Rule 11 motion has not been ruled upon by Magistrate Levy.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[Dachannien]

Like vampires & ghouls fear the light of day, the RIAA lawyers fear the truth.

Also goes to show just how high the stakes are here.

ba dum bum

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[Donkey_Hotey]

Wait a minute... I thought vampires sparkled in the light of day. Now I'm confused.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, watch where you point that, some of us can't handle it.

- Lt. Daniel Kaffee

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[MrKaos]

Like vampires & ghouls fear the light of day, the RIAA lawyers fear the truth.

One of the things I think is underplayed is the effect these copyright laws have on stifling innovation, especially in I.T. I wonder what innovations would have been bought to market had the RIAA's lobbying not been there to trample on every new idea that innovators attempted. It makes you wonder what the true cost of these laws are to the community and artists (I am a music producer and musician) as they continue to try to be the middle man in every music transaction.

One things for sure, they really take the art out of music. I wonder what music we would have if they weren't the 900 pound gorilla in the room propping themselves up with an artificial monopoly.

Still having your pseudonym connected to your real name on slashdot, that deserves to be one of those achievement things. Hope it translates to useful exposure for you. Read many of your comments, love your work.

No, I'm Ray Beckerman.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[debatem1]

Seriously, there's not a lot of people who can claim to have gone toe-to-toe with those bastards and come out the better for it. More power to you, NYCL- and if you'll tell me what you drink you've got one of them headed your way.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Seriously, there's not a lot of people who can claim to have gone toe-to-toe with those bastards and come out the better for it. More power to you, NYCL- and if you'll tell me what you drink you've got one of them headed your way.

Thanks, my friend. Regrettably, I don't drink; but it's the thought that counts. :)

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Wait a minute... I thought vampires sparkled in the light of day. Now I'm confused.

I KNEW that when I brought up vampires and ghouls someone at Slashdot, more knowledgeable on the subject than I, would correct me. It comes up every time I try to describe the RIAA lawyers in understandable terms.

Re:"You're Gotham's DA...

[Donkey_Hotey]

For that you need a car analogy...

RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[commodore64_love]

I can't believe they would bring a case like this. Or that they send-out fear-inducing "Pay us $5000 or we'll drag you to court for millions in fines" extortionate letters.

RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.

Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[mcgrew]

Well, as much as I hate the RIAA scum, they heven't exactly killed anybody. However, I'd like to have these folks asking me if I wanted fries with that.

Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[russotto]

RIAA's CEO deserves the same fate as Mussolini of Italy, or King Louis of France, or Emperor Nero of Rome - all tyrants - all meeting the same fate.

Wouldn't matter. You could shoot him and abuse his body, guillotine him, or drive him to suicide with his letter opener, and the next RIAA CEO would continue in the same vein (only with better security). It's the organization which needs to be destroyed, not any individual head of it.

Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[Schmorgluck]

I'm happy they lost, but a lawyer commenting on a judicial process they're involved in as counsel has both special leniencies and special limitations to what he's allowed to say, compared to an ordinary citizen. I'm not shocked the courts found it worth examination.

Since you mention Louis of France, and assuming you mean Louis XVI, it's a bit excessive to call him a tyrant. He held far less power than his predecessors, and genuinely attempted to reform France but failed mostly because of his lack of authority over French aristocracy. He wasn't either the idiot some depict, he just hadn't much political skill, and was more interested in sciences and technology than in politics. If anything, Louis XV was far worse, despite all the flamboyance of his reign. Louis XVI certainly lacked the ability to adapt to the changes of his time, but he wasn't insensitive to the ideal of liberty. If his support to the American independance had been only motivated by a geostrategic agenda, he wouldn't have needed La Fayette to convince him to go for it.

Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[easyTree]

they heven't exactly killed anybody

It's more profitable to drain the life from your victims slowly.

Re:RIAA's CEO is a tyrant

[bruceslog]

Wouldn't matter. You could shoot him and abuse his body, guillotine him, or drive him to suicide with his letter opener, and the next RIAA CEO would continue in the same vein (only with better security). It's the organization which needs to be destroyed, not any individual head of it.

It's not just one CEO.
That "RIAA Organization" is owned, or paid for, and representing, and suing people, at the behest of the record labels you buy your CD"s from.
These include;

Big Machine Records
BMG Entertainment
Disney
EMI ( Capitol, Capitol Nashville, Virgin Records, and others )
Flicker
HBO
MGM
MTV ( including Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, VH-1 and others )
Paradigm
Sony BMG ( Columbia, Epic, RCA, Arista, and others )[ all part of the same family ]
Universal Music Group ( Universal Records )
Warner Music Group
etc.
There are hundreds of them.
If you haven't seen it before, here's a good list http://www.riaaradar.com/tree.asp
That is your RIAA. It isn't just one CEO. It's the group of companies in that list on that website.
Want to hurt them ? Stop buying their stuff and feeding their lawyers, till they fly right.
I haven't purchased a CD from any of these 'companies', or any Sony product in almost 4 years. And Counting. And I hear plenty of music all day long on the radio. It ain't killing me.
I don't want my money going to their lawyers to twist the laws the way they do. It's a matter of principle. And now, maybe even pride.
I'm not out to sink the RIAA. The record labels need that group to protect their interests. It's the way they are Going About protecting that interest that I am opposed to. And I don't want the record labels to disappear either. I like music.
But I won't give my money to any group that abuses peoples rights and the laws as they were Intended.
I'm not hurting them much, they seem to have made it through this last recession without having to ask for a handout from the feds.
Even if they do claim they are in such poor financial condition from the abundant volumes of piracy they say is going on, they seem to be in good financial shape. So Somebody is still buying their products and supporting their RIAA "lawyers".
Which leads me to a parting question. Don't lawyers have to take some kind of oath to uphold the spirit of our Constitution and obey the laws that protect the people ?

Hrmmm

[commodoresloat]

Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either... -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.

That's an admirable thing.

So you're saying he's kinda like Jack Thompson?

Re:Hrmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, more like Joe Jackson for spawning Michael.

Re:Hrmmm

[Carthag]

Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either... -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.

That's an admirable thing.

So you're saying he's kinda like Jack Thompson?

If he was grossly unprofessional to the point of disbarment, yeah maybe.

Re:Hrmmm

[TubeSteak]

So you're saying he's kinda like Jack Thompson?

A troll's methods are entirely separate from their goals and/or their beliefs.

Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, [Jack Thompson] has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him.

Re:Hrmmm

[Aladrin]

Yes, Jack Thompson did stand up for what he believed in, and that's admirable.

Unfortunately, what he believed in was totally false and his methods were reprehensible.

It's possible to admire someone's courage and dedication, but be disgusted by their cause and actions.

Re:Hrmmm

[ScrewMaster]

It's possible to admire someone's courage and dedication, but be disgusted by their cause and actions.

fanatic
–noun
1. a person who sticks to his guns ... whether they're loaded or not.

Re:Hrmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No...

Jack's only interested in anything that will keep him in the spotlight, as he's the only person (in his mind) that's in his right mind, and therefor should be allowed to dictate what everyone else can see / do / say / hear / play / watch / etc....

He's only interested in himself.

Re:Hrmmm

[srvivn21]

Whether or not you believe he is making it a better country isn't the issue, either... -He- believes that (and so do many others) and he's working on his beliefs.

That's an admirable thing.

So you're saying he's kinda like Jack Thompson?

Except for the part where he's (NYCL) not unprofessional enough to get disbarred, there are certainly similarities. Passion, theatrics, showmanship... I'd have to tip the scales on talent and intelligence in NYCL's favor, though.

Really.

[Mathinker]

In a previous post you lauded the decision as balanced (surprising considering your chosen Slashdot ID), and stated that neither side should be prevented from exercising their rights.

> Then they kept the suit open while trying to find out who might have used her
> account. It looks like it just took several years before they could identify
> the right defendant.

Ah. So if a random person infringes copyright using my net connection, possibly even without my knowledge, it is reasonable for me to have to defend myself in court for several years? I like the added touch of your "just" --- "just took several years". Do you have any idea what that costs?

The right of RIAA to defend its copyrights does not balance against an individual's right not to be sued frivolously. All of the cases, even those where juries awarded enormous statutory damages, are frivolous in my eyes, because the individuals in question (based on the evidence produced) couldn't possibly have caused economic damage to the record labels at the same level as the economic damage caused them by being sued.

It is a big problem. If you believe them, the labels are "drowning", because each of 1,000,000+ individuals spits on them. Unfortunately, they can't charge any one individual with their "murder" by spitting. What would fit this situation is the inverse of a class action suit; unfortunately (for RIAA, anyway; probably the opposite for society), such a beast doesn't exist.

Re:Really.

[RIAAShill]

Ah. So if a random person infringes copyright using my net connection, possibly even without my knowledge, it is reasonable for me to have to defend myself in court for several years? I like the added touch of your "just" --- "just took several years". Do you have any idea what that costs?

This wasn't exactly a random person. This was the defendant's daughter, who brought a computer into the defendant's home at the time of the alleged infringement. It sucks being stuck in a lawsuit because you don't remember that your daughter was using your internet connection. But unreasonable for the plaintiff to continue the lawsuit when crucial facts have not been discovered...I'm not so sure.

To be clear, by "just" I meant that the several year delay was due to the several years it took to identify the right defendant (it just took several years before...). I did not mean that the length of time was insignificant (it took just several years before...). Thank you for pointing out the potential for miscommunication.

Re:Really.

[Mathinker]

> This wasn't exactly a random person. This was the defendant's daughter

My example was hypothetical, it wasn't intended as commentary on the case in question. And I see that you have avoided replying to my more general point, which is that your average filesharer does very little economic damage to the record labels, putting them in the very uncomfortable position of trying to fight an enormous fog of tiny droplets with a laser cannon.

Since you seem rather reasonable, I have a question: you talk about both sides' rights. Are you in favor of legislation in the "three strikes" style which tries (in my eyes badly) to "balance" economic rights like copyright versus human rights like freedom of speech and the right to due process?

Re:Really.

[RIAAShill]

And I see that you have avoided replying to my more general point, which is that your average filesharer does very little economic damage to the record labels, putting them in the very uncomfortable position of trying to fight an enormous fog of tiny droplets with a laser cannon.

I agree with you. That is a horrible situation to be in. Right now, file sharing is like a lottery where the prize is a lawsuit. Every time someone downloads a song from you it's like being given another ticket. If your luck has run out, the person downloading it is some kind of investigation service that will turn over your IP address and the download time over to the copyright owner. The risk of a lawsuit means that file sharing is not free. But it also is horrible for the public relations of an entire industry.

I have commented on statutory damages. I'm not strictly against them. If you adjust for the risk of getting caught, they start to look reasonable (e.g., if the risk of getting caught sharing one file is assumed to be 1 in 10,000, then the risk-adjusted expected damages for willfully sharing the file is only $0.075 to $15).

I think statutory damages could be reformed though. Perhaps by lowering the maximum damages for file-sharing where no money was exchanged, eliminating or reducing the minimum statutory damages, or excluding from evidence works that are not part of the suit (to avoid award inflation by the jury).

Since you seem rather reasonable, I have a question: you talk about both sides' rights. Are you in favor of legislation in the "three strikes" style which tries (in my eyes badly) to "balance" economic rights like copyright versus human rights like freedom of speech and the right to due process?

I try to be reasonable, but I'll settle for seeming to be reasonable. As for three strikes laws...I really haven't given them much thought. My limited (and probably flawed) understanding of them is that they involve blanket injunctions against using the internet after repeat copyright infringement convictions. This seems too much like an enroachment on free speech. Sure, with the present U.S. system, copyright infringers may end up owing thousands of dollars for file sharing, but at least they can still argue, in worldwide fora, that justice was miscarried.

Re:Really.

[Mathinker]

I have commented on statutory damages. I'm not strictly against them. If you adjust for the risk of getting caught, they start to look reasonable (e.g., if the risk of getting caught sharing one file is assumed to be 1 in 10,000, then the risk-adjusted expected damages for willfully sharing the file is only $0.075 to $15).

Yes, perhaps something like this was in the lawmakers' mind when the idea of statutory damages was thought up. Unfortunately, the statute doesn't have any mechanism which would maintain a "reasonable" damage amount in the case that the probability of being caught varies (and in the real world, it does vary wildly).

We're losing our most basic human rights!

[Paracelcus]

We've lost Habeas corpus, free assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, keep & bear arms. Look around, listen to public and "free speech" radio, talk to your more erudite friends about the post 911 expansion of government powers and see if it's not true.

Re:We're losing our most basic human rights!

[CompMD]

"We've lost [the right to] keep & bear arms..."

Not sure where you're from, but I have an arsenal in the closet, a CCH permit, and open carry is legal in my state.

Re:We're losing our most basic human rights!

[Paracelcus]

I hope you're ready for a knock at the door..

No claims of deft dismissed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed. The defendant did not have any counterclaims. She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys. That motion is still pending.

Re:No claims of deft dismissed

[RIAAShill]

I don't understand the statement that some "counterclaim" was dismissed. The defendant did not have any counterclaims. She did make a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the RIAA's attorneys. That motion is still pending.

I think that the submitter was referring to the "counter-complaint" mentioned in the article. The article said that Magistrate Judge "Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman's counter-complaint." The article then quotes a portion of the opinion where Judge Levy says that he found "no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on" the part of the plaintiffs'. Judge Levy was discussing Ms. Lindor's request that the case be dismissed with prejudice. Thus, this request is probably the "counterclaim" mentioned in the story summary.

The summary's language is not legally precise language, but it is an understandable mistake.

More accurate article: my Firehose submission

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

For a more accurate and detailed article on the Magistrate Judge's decision I recommend my own Slashdot submission from last Friday, which Slashdot rejected: "RIAA's "Sanctions" Motion in Lindor Denied"

Re:More accurate article: my Firehose submission

[Nefarious Wheel]

Slashdot generated quote at the end of this page was "Between grand theft and a legal fee, there only stands a law degree."

Laugh till cry.

Re:More accurate article: my Firehose submission

[Barny]

The request to impose sanctions reminds me too much of scooby-do:

"we would have won too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"

Forget that it was evidence grounded in fact, that they themselves would have happily used a bias (were one to exist) and that they themselves have created such bias in the past with "expert" witnesses and creative information gathering (yeah, I read the full transcripts posted way-back-when of so called expert witnesses).

Good luck with future cases.

Not just corporations..

[cheros]

I'm not convinced it's "just" corporations abusing the system. The rot starts at the top. When politicians dial back reasonable rights, accountability, transparency, privacy and the separation between state and justice, companies generally follow in that wake and abuse as much as they can. Companies are there to make money, and ethics won't come into this unless they become a route to revenue.

Granted, the RIAA has been very creative (and is IMHO *preventing* revenue - different debate) but the likes of Enron and the Wall Street crash are also a consequence.

Fixing the issue thus requires starting at the top or you'll fight symptoms, not causes. Having said that, sometimes that's all you can do until the upper problem is corrected. There's no point weaning someone off smoking if you don't take care of the cancers already present..

Apologies for rambling - I'll go to bed now :-)

Praise for NYCL

[Whuffo]

He's a competent attorney, and knows better than any of the laymen here what the risks are of the choices he makes. But there's something very special happening here; knowing the risks and facing a huge and implacable enemy he's sticking fairly closely to the path of truth - even though it may be expensive or uncomfortable to him.

He can see the true outlines of the questions being decided - and they're much more important than many of the commentators here may imagine. It's not solely about protecting some pirate from having to pay for their downloads - it's also about the music cartel and if they should be allowed to exert total control over the production and distribution of music. While we've been snoozing they've carved out a legal niche where they crouch and work out ways to take even more control for themselves.

Those cartel members are full of self-importance and those stories you hear about "pay per play" or putting independent outlets out of business aren't bedtime stories - these are things the cartel wants and they'll get them and more if nobody stands up to oppose them. Those who think that downloading a few more tunes will make a difference are fooling themselves; they're playing the cartel's game.

It's OK if most of the folks stick to their nice soft beds and don't get involved in important social problems like this one. But we need a few who will - NYCL is one, who else will stand up and fight for the truth?

Re:Praise for NYCL

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

He's a competent attorney, and knows better than any of the laymen here what the risks are of the choices he makes. But there's something very special happening here; knowing the risks and facing a huge and implacable enemy he's sticking fairly closely to the path of truth - even though it may be expensive or uncomfortable to him. He can see the true outlines of the questions being decided - and they're much more important than many of the commentators here may imagine. It's not solely about protecting some pirate from having to pay for their downloads - it's also about the music cartel and if they should be allowed to exert total control over the production and distribution of music. While we've been snoozing they've carved out a legal niche where they crouch and work out ways to take even more control for themselves. Those cartel members are full of self-importance and those stories you hear about "pay per play" or putting independent outlets out of business aren't bedtime stories - these are things the cartel wants and they'll get them and more if nobody stands up to oppose them. Those who think that downloading a few more tunes will make a difference are fooling themselves; they're playing the cartel's game. It's OK if most of the folks stick to their nice soft beds and don't get involved in important social problems like this one. But we need a few who will - NYCL is one, who else will stand up and fight for the truth?

Thanks, Whuffo. Very much appreciated.

The MAFIAA is after everyone these days...

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA types shoot at anyone who dares question copyright these days. The PFF (an industry-funded EFF knock-off group) has been going after people like William Patry, the former top Google lawyer and copyright law expert, these days.

You may remember them from back when they were badmouthing the judge in Capitol v. Thomas, even though they receive major funding from one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit. They didn't bother to disclose that to the reporter, which is why there's that update at the top of the page.

Believe it.

[Nazlfrag]

All the info is on http://www.taubmansucks.com/ or google "Henry Mishkoff" or watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITE7ITSR6M.

Re:Believe it.

[Quothz]

I see; thanks. As I suspected, the story given here was pretty much wrong in every detail. The ACLU didn't represent the guy (Friend Citizen did so; the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief). The case never reached SCOTUS. And his costs judgment was paid:

Curiously enough, we now find ourselves at the satisfying point where Taubman has paid us a grand total of $1,349.98 – which not only is $84.25 more than the amount that we originally requested, it's also $349.98 more than they could have paid me to settle this entire matter nearly two years ago!

soooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I be worried about posting anti RIAA messages on slashdot?

Any publicity is good publicity!

[Civil_Disobedient]

Keep up the good fight, Ray!