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

[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.

I am shocked!

[Locke2005]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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: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.

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.

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

[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:vexatious litigant?

[Tubal-Cain]

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

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...

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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...

[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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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: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: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 ?

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!