Slashdot Mirror
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."
the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' What?!? RIAA lawyers exagerating? That is certainly a first!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Yay for him, but may he beware of being too passionate and involved into what he defends/attacks. Lawyering is best served cold.
You just got troll'd!
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?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
“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!"
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
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.
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 ."
It's even in his description about himself in his user page (right side).
Ray is one of those 2% of lawyers that the other 98% make things bad for.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
...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!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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"
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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?
Or have I?
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful