Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Lobbyist Becomes Federal Judge, Rules On File-Sharing Cases
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica:
"Last week, Washington, DC federal judge Beryl Howell ruled on three mass file-sharing lawsuits. Judges in Texas, West Virginia, and Illinois had all ruled recently that such lawsuits were defective in various ways, but Howell gave her cases the green light; attorneys could use the federal courts to sue thousands of people at once and then issue mass subpoenas to Internet providers. Beryl Howell isn't the only judge to believe this, but her important ruling is especially interesting because of Howell's previous work: lobbying for the recording industry during the time period when the RIAA was engaged in its own campaign of mass lawsuits against individuals. The news, first reported in a piece at TorrentFreak, nicely illustrates the revolving door between government and industry."
maybe the RIAA has forgotten to take her off the payroll.
Enjoy your Corporate States of America!
The alternative to the "revolving door between government and industry" seems to mostly be regulators who don't know anything about what they're regulating. Fun stuff either way! :)
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
but this is ridiculous. I honestly don't think that cases of this nature should be allowed to come before, or be judged by someone who has spent so much time fighting on one side of a cause like that.
That's like asking an ice cream man to preside over a case or cases where someone is suing an ice cream company for them being fat or something (probably not the best analogy, but as close as i could think of). In short, this is retarded, and that judge shouldn't have been allowed to have anything to do with this stuff.
Increasingly, our country is appears to be more like the Corporate States of America. Sad. Can I have my bill of rights, consumer rights, and right to privacy back please? Or is that now subject to subscription services? (plenty of sarcasm intended).
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
How can any judge with even a sliver of a conscience not recuse themselves from this case?
I wonder if her past history would be something that the defense lawyers would be able to bring up as a cause for bias and a basis for appeal.
Since this person use to lobby FOR the RIAA, wouldn't they be obligated to excuse themselves from cases/issues such as this?
STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC (and don't pirate it.) Sooner or later they will die away like any meme that has become bad.
Who knows, maybe the govt will force us to shop with them, grin, but I doubt it - even forcing us to buy something useful, like medical insurance, is meeting incredible resistance.
if isCrony(judge){
if isRepublicanAppointee(judge)
blame(Repuplicans);
if isDemocratAppointee(judge)
blame(RevolvingDoors);
}
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
And confirmed by a Democrat Senate (in the lame duck session, right before the Dems lost some Senate seats in January):
Beryl A. Howell (born 1956) is a federal District Court judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. She was nominated by President Barack Obama on July 14, 2010 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 27, 2010. (Wikipedia)
Well, all you YRO types who voted for Obama, this is what you get.
Too bad I had to post anon due to predictable mod abuse, because I am serious about this topic, not trolling.
Do conflicts of interest not affect judges?
STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC (and don't pirate it.) Sooner or later they will die away like any meme that has become bad..
Or, they'll buy enough politicians to be able to simply sue all of us w/ internet connections. You know there's just no way we would stop buying their product without somehow stealing it. [rolls eyes]
This is a bought and paid for judge. Not a doubt in my mind. Music war is on I guess. Pirate everything, leave them nothing.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
She is an Obama appointee. And not his first.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
1789 style, throw the rich greedy bastards out of the country...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
goatse warning :(
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
In terms of avoiding legal messes of the bribery kind, sure. In terms of objectively judging whether or not an industrial operation should or should not be doing something? Um... no. Industry does not tend to be more ethical with its information than it is with its money.
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
Has anyone ever read the Science Fiction classic The Space Merchants or the more recent novel Jennifer Government? This is where we're headed...a society where consumers have no rights.
I actually started reading the article for once, and immediately regretted it after seeing this:
The big question is why Judge Howell came to this conclusion. Although we can’t see inside her mind, ... [snip]
All judge's are required to put their verdict into writing, with a clear explanation for why they came to a conclusion. I don't care what the rest of the article says if the author can't even be bothered to look up simple background information.
I'm certainly no legal expert, but shouldn't a judge with such an obvious conflict of interest recuse themselves from such cases? I was under the impression that's what a judge is supposed to do if the judge can't adjudicate impartially?
Why sue everyone with an internet connection when you could just surcharge the connection? There are surcharges on blank discs and burners in various places on this planet, so why not start nickeling and diming at the source here?
Eeurgh. I'm not so sure if it's more revolting that it's plausible or that there have been approximations of this already done successfully.
"What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
Hell Yea, When do we start ?.
See subject.
Any more than a fraud = a contract. True conservatives want the crony capitalism cut off, because capitalism means taking risk, risk to fail, not be bailed out by Big Nanny. The Tea Partiers, while just casual, often first-time political participants, do understand this. No bailouts or special deals for cronies, like Obama's UAW peeps. This is what they ran on and why they won. To suggest Obama's corruption of the judiciary somehow lessens that message takes some seriously contorted reasoning.
I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who have corporate cronies. I'm saying they aren't real conservatives. The current tension between the recently-sworn Tea Party members of Congress and the GOP old guard is evidence of this. Power corrupts. Which is why we should Amend the Constitution for term limits.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
She did not recuse herself even though she lobbied on behalf of one side? Sounds to me like she gave them built-in grounds for appeal.
Pol pot, Lenin, Castro, Mugabe, Mao...
Even if that weren't a false dichotomy I'd prefer a meddlesome regulator who follows the laws to the letter because he didn't "know anything about what he was regulating" to the lazy one that "knows which regulations don't need to be followed".
Red tape may be annoying, but it's often there for a reason.
Plain and simple. Politicians should be hung when they do things like this, publicly, on the White House lawn.
Our revolution wasn't class-based, because in America, there is the opportunity for class mobility unlike in 1789 and present-day Europe. Two-thirds of the Forbes 500 did not inherit their wealth, BTW.
Americans, unlike Europeans, don't hate rich greedy bastards. They just hate when they accrue their wealth and power in nefarious ways inconsistent with real capitalists, i.e., crony capitalism. In fact, the Tea Partiers, mocked as simpletons by the left, are ironically, quite clear about such a nuanced position. They didn't run on "no more rich!" They ran on, "no more bailouts!" IOW, no more crony capitalism, not no more capitalism.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Is there a way to do something like impeachment or something to such a biased judge?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Where's Jared Lee Loughner when you need him?
the whole country would fail, just like it was prophesied in "atlas shrugged"
This is something that would have happened during the Bush years. Obama was going to change government and we'd become a file-sharing utopia. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
A large number of posters seem to be confusing bias (pre-determined unjustified favoritism towards one side or the other) with a Conflict of Interest. A Conflict of Interest is indeed a serious matter, and not disclosing them can lead to censure, having a caseload pulled, etc. However, a Conflict of Interest would require a *current* financial or personal incentive to rule for one side or the other. Merely having worked for one side or the other at some point in the past is NOT a Conflict of Interest. Judges are required to recuse themselves from individual cases they have personally worked, but she worked for the RIAA, and this particular suit was brought by the movie industry.
Judges, by necessity are lawyers, and they will have of course worked for clients. We don't ask judges who worked in criminal defense (or prosecutions) to recuse themselves on civil liberties cases, nor can we demand a corporate lawyer recuse themselves from a case that happened to involve the same industry as one or more of his/her clients.
If she has no current financial arrangement then she may not be _required_ to recuse herself but she most certainly should recuse herself. Caesar's wife and all that. Complaints should be made to the relevant bar associations and her acaedemic institutions. See where it goes from there.
What if I use blank discs to copy stuff other than music or movies? Should I pay for those download music and movies? How fair is it that the population must pay a private corporation even if the population doesn't use their product or service? I'm OK with taxes that go to the government but taxes to private industries is going way too far.
Or they'll use their clout to whine so much about the supposed "piracy" that the government applies a federal "media" tax where everything that can or does hold any kind of content (from a blank journal notebook to a CD to a hard drive to web space) is taxed and filtered into the RIAA. And those artists who are not part of the RIAA can just eat a dick.
WINNING!
USNG: 14TPU4605
your attorney is fucking your spoiuse. I'm sure you'd agree that your divorce will be equitably handled so long as they no longer have sex....
You've assumed the defendant has money for the appeal. You assumed the defense attorney has the balls to risk contempt. You assumed that piece of work (yes, the judge) has enough decency to do the right thing.
Yes, those who work in an industry logically tend to have valuable information on it.
Of course, bias concerns stemming from that are just as logical.
Another example is how repair personnel who often have the best grasp on what you need fixed are also the ones selling you the parts and labor to get it fixed.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I expect a very quick appeal due to the Judge most likely still having a personal stake in the issue and/or due to the past relationship she should have been recused.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Yes, because if you're not already working in a given industry, you couldn't possibly know anything about it.
And if you don't work in government, you shouldn't vote, right? After all, how can you know about something when you work in a totally different industry?
Welcome to fascism. Benito would be proud.
Those that do not learn from history...
in case you've not noticed it has already failed and continues failing, bailouts in the billions, wars in the trillions, over 14 trillion dollar deficit, jobless recovery, even the mexicans have slowed down crossing the border because the economy is in the toilet, just how bad does it have to be for you before you consider it "failed"?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Why the sudden coordinated campaign for Goatse?
Is someone making money off this?
Acandemic note: The site of choice used to be the French one - now it's the Russian one.
My current list of Russian Goatse links:
http://tinyurl.com/63avlna
http://tiny.cc/jg2wh
http://goo.gl/zjJOI
http://bologgingaway.blog.com/2011/03/29/post/
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
One, I would think that the judge would mention possible bias.
Two, the defence lawyers should be requesting an alternate judge due to possible bias.
Cos that's what defence lawyers are paid for.. aren't they?
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Ignorance is preferable to bias and self-dealing any day.
I am no lawyer, but off the cuff,
"Corporations being 'Sorta-People' " is an ___ year old fast and dirty solution to the earliest cheap tricks where a company would dissolve/cease to exist and therefore claim that it couldn't be sued. The whole "Sorta-People / Pierce the Veil" doctrine was a rough hewn step to avoid the dumbest of escapes by two bit sleaze artists.
However, I agree there are tons of other problems now.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"My mommy is a porn company and my daddy is 4chan".
Think of the children!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
in 2010, and that Bush was not a small-government fiscal conservative. There's a reason the Tea Party freshmen members of Congress are feuding with the old guard GOP.
And at least TARP was paid back. Don't look for that with Government Motors or especially the housing GSEs.
But thanks for playing.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
People will be people as much as /. hates to admit it.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
Is there any evidence of an improper relationship between her and the RIAA after she terminated her employment with them? I RedTFA and I didn't see any mention of that. If you want to make an inference of corruption, "she used to work for them" is pretty weak.
I wonder how many on /. complain when criminal defense or civil plaintiff's attorneys get appointed to the bench? Is this an even-handed criticism of "well, you represented X in the past, therefore you can't be a judge", which would apply equally to nearly everyone (and disqualify everyone from being a judge) or is it only people we don't like that get this treatment?
If Congress truly wanted to prove themselves to the American people to be above it all they would ban any contribution of any kind from K-Street to any member of Congress or their families. Further more, they would forbid the same from ever working for such organizations. However I doubt this will come, it will take influence outside of the Democrat or Republican parties.
Yet both are deft at playing people off each other, getting people to focus on the other party, which thereby keeps them in power. When groups rise up outside of their control you can tell as the media will line up and protect their investment, along with all the powers on Wall Street. The American public are only allowed to rise when commanded and when they dare do so on their own the entire establishment comes down in force. Unfortunately too many buy into it and side with the very people keeping them under the thumb of two political parties corrupt beyond repair.
If you voting for a party your voting for your loss of freedom
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I never said bias was a good thing. I merely said that this was NOT a conflict of interest, and that lawyers who become judges cannot be expected to recuse themselves from every case that might be related to a matter they have worked in the past.
Also, a lawyer that has argued on one side of a case does NOT necessarily agree with their client.
As I said in my last post, are lawyers who used to work criminal law recuse themselves from any case involving civil liberties? It's an issue that comes up in every criminal lawyer's career sooner or later, and briefs will be written and positions advocated for, because that is the lawyer's job.
1789 style, throw the rich greedy bastards out of the country...
That's just a permanent foreign vacation in a tax-sheltering country. They're already doing that voluntarily: "Move to Zug for great tax shelter."
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
once told that DI water can't be discharged....
Did anyone above me here actually go through her legal memorandum in this case?
I just finished a quick skim of her memorandum, and even though at present I have not formed an opinion on her conflict of interest in this case (I have yet to research her past from unbiased sources), it seems to me that her memorandum was not unduly biased towards the RIAA.
Basically, she states these facts:
In other words, she is agreeing to let the case proceed at the very least until the defendants are identified by name and address. She says that other questions can and should be answered after the defendants are named.
/.)
Having read her opinion, I would not say she was overly biased against one party or the other. This is by no means a judgement against file-sharers and is just an order to let the defendants be identified at least, before the validity of the case can be judged.
So, I have a hard time understanding the impulsive comments above -- read before accuse? (Oh but this is
Foxes know everything about stealing hens, so that's why we've got them guarding the hen house.
Apparently this is the thinking in government when appointing people to positions regarding oversight and making regulatory decisions. So what can go wrong?
These injustices done to us in the past decade at the hands of our government & corporations are just the exaggerated symptoms of a corrupt judicial system. Since the beginning, our judicial system has been designed to deny the masses the ability defend their rights. It's been engineered to guarantee only the wealthy the ability to obtain justice. It has done this by insuring no one except the wealthy can afford to hire attorneys & litigate. This point in particular is exemplified if litigation is to amend law & policy that is believed to violate one's rights. The majority of Americans cannot afford to litigate for this purpose, and that's exactly what Wall Street & their cronies in government have been banking on. They can pass law & policy that violate our civil & human rights en masse with little fear of lawsuits to hold them accountable. Until we have a judicial system that guarantees all people, regardless of income, the ability to appoint attorneys & litigate, our politicians will continue to have limited accountability for their actions. They will only continue to pass law & policy that violates our civil & human rights.
s/people/disgusting crooks/g
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I doubt that another judge will agree to hear any appeals on the case. I think they mostly cover for each other when being accused of bias, less they be accused themselves down the line.
The case might be appealed on other grounds, but not because of some unproven level of bias by the ruling judge. You have to submit evidence that she is biased. She can simply say that using her special prudence powers, she is immune from such petty motivations. God bless America and all that.
"If you want to make an inference of corruption, "she used to work for them" is pretty weak."
No, it's actually rather strong., As she has had prior business interests with the RIAA as a lobbyist FOR the RIAA, she should have been 100% disqualified from hearing any file-sharing case.
This is more than enough evidence to have the Federal Government investigate her. This is more than enough evidence for a citizen-initiated recall of the judge.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
There is actually a good reason: the interests of common people aren't equally represented.
God we should have appointed Ron Paul as our president or maybe Mike Gravel.
I am still waiting to see a "None of the above" option for our ballets where if it gets the majority, a new election must be held with all the current people running are not eligible to be in it so they must find a new set of people. Probably end up seeing like 10 straight elections held within the same year due to "None of the above" getting the majority of the votes every time cause then we would end up having people who aren't as willing to vote in the lesser of 2 evils when they can just remove both evils instead.
And remove the electoral college and the first past the post voting system.
And should be impeached along with whomever appointed or voted to confirm her.
In case anyone felt the need to read the opinion before before trashing it (this is Slashdot, what am I saying?) It can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51383490/COTW-doc-no-40
If you bother to read the opinion this is really about a preliminary joinder issue and doesn't really make any new law on the subject. It just pushes off some of the issues (such as improper joinder and personal jurisdiction) until a defendant is actually named in the suit. At which point the defendant may still assert these arguments and potentially get their case dismissed.
Look, there is the possibility of bias for any judge. We don't prevent prosecutors or public defenders who later become judges from ruling on criminal cases. In fact, those judges may be more knowledgeable in those cases than their fellow jurists. Judge Howell puts forth rational legal arguments for her positions. Even if those arguments are not ultimately correct, you have to attack them for a logical failing, not simply allege bias because you don't agree with the ruling.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Recuse
"When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.
Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
freedom of speech does not mean that you can remain anonymous
You do realize you're posting on /., home of the original AC, right?
from http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Can someone find me a link to the case in question? I've noticed that the particulars that would help find the case's information on http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ are absent from this article's summary and the articles it references.
Why should I even believe this is a real case without proof? It wouldn't be the first time that a false and/or misleading summary has been posted here.
Can someone find me a link to the case in question? I've noticed that the particulars that would help find the case's information on http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/ [uscourts.gov] are absent from this article's summary and the articles it references. Why should I even believe this is a real case without undeniable proof? It wouldn't be the first time that a false, misleading and/or scare-mongering summary has been posted on slashdot.
Alright. Let's suppose we accept your ground rules.
Now to be fair, we also need to diqualify former attorneys for an environmental advocacy group from hearing any environmental-law cases. After all by your standard, a EAG attorney can be inferred to have just as much of a bias with regards to an environmental case as an RIAA attorney with regards to a file-sharing case. And likewise for union lawyers, corporate lawyers, white-collar-defense lawyers, prosecutors, defense counsel ....
In fact, there's no limiting principle here at all -- any work on behalf of a former client would be enough to throw a judge off a particular case merely because they share some aspect of law.
[ Oh, and you have no idea how Federal law works. There is no citizen-initiated recall of Federal judges, nor any power to 'investigate' judges (as that would be patently abusive). Only the House/Senate can bring impeachment articles. ]
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/judicialethics/ABA_MCJC_approved.authcheckdam.pdf
RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
But who would hold a judge accountable? Another judge?
yeah that raises a good point. If a lawyer did something that has this kind of conflict of interest, they would be dis-bared. Who or what dis-bars a judge? Isn't there some kind of judicial ethics oversight committee that will come down on this stupid bint for even ruling on the case?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
...we'll have to grab twelve random schmoes off the street to decide cases for us.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Ummmm. That is not the point. Whether she acted biased or not, she should have excused herself from the case. If nothing more then to avoid the appearance of bias. It's basic procedures in a non-corrupt system.
They learned how to get away with it.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
This points out what most Americans and all Libertarians fail to understand about regulation.
Regulation is not "the man" tying the hands of the "free market(TM)". Regulation is supposed to ensure that an industry can run properly, produce products as well as being profitable and competitive.
Proper regulation brings in more competition and allows for better products or lower prices. Part of this is listening to the industry, who have a list of their problems and wants, part of this is listening to the customers who have a list of their problems and wants then to figure out what is the best course of action to ensure that both sides can get as much of what they want as possible. Often the best course of action is nothing but not always.
Regulation often helps businesses, by limiting liability or preventing supply shortages/abuses sometimes even as far as to fix prices for supply and disallowing below cost prices to force competitors out of business. Complaints about regulation more often then not come from corporations and entities who are attempting to do something that is not in good faith (I.E. squeeze out competitors).
Those people who froth at the mouth with "blerg, regulation is bad(TM)" blanket statements are idiotic. They dont take into account the actual situation. Bad regulation is bad, good regulation is good, blanket statements based on inflexible philosophies are useless.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
STOP BUYING THEIR MUSIC (and don't pirate it.) Sooner or later they will die away like any meme that has become bad.
You're assuming they'll be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure this out.
Given the fact that they've stated there are 200,000 more pirates then internet connections in Australia I doubt it (23 million population). They didn't even bother to look up stats publicly available on the ABS web site (Australian Bureau of Statistics) before pulling some horrifying looking numbers out of their arse.
The only way to beat them is at the courtroom. The more court cases they can lose the more it costs them. Barring that you have to go to the laws themselves. Make it expensive for them to sue John and Jane Doe's. This is why they haven't tried to sue the millions of Filthy Pirates(TM) in Oz, our normally woeful libel and deformation laws would bankrupt them in a month.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You're making the classic mistake of confusing extortion for justice.
>lobbying for the recording industry during the time period when the RIAA
Conflict of interest if I ever heard of any....if she is pure pro RIAA doing these things, that means she is biased, and will not give a fair trial to the case.
This isn't fascism, learn what that is then read some history.
is jury nullification. Spread the word.
My father:
Family lost their farms, not a ton of opportunity (oh what that land in Napa valley would be worth.....). Joined the Air Force, wound up at West Point. After going back into the Air Force he worked for a major insurance company and retired as an executive. Invested his entire life and has a couple million to his name.
My maternal Grandfather
Grew up near the coal mines, worked in coal and steel. Was able to get into college and went on to med school. Retired as a columbia medical school professor, head of a department at a famous teaching hospital and invested well with a couple million.
Both started in the lower class and by late life certainly were upper middle to upper class.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Stupid argument. Attorneys are allowed to be biased in favour of their customers' interests. Judges should be impartial. You do know that there is a difference between an attorney and a judge?
Unfortunately, the "system" protect both groups so they can be as crooked as can be, and it's almost impossible to take them down. They have exempted themselves from the laws others have to live by, so they are used to being "above the law"...
I've always hated the phrase 24/7/365.
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 weeks a what? Approximately 7 year period?
Please, just stick to 24/7.
Stupid argument. Attorneys are allowed to be biased in favour of their customers' interests. Judges should be impartial. You do know that there is a difference between an attorney and a judge?
You do know that nearly all judges are appointed from the ranks of practicing attorneys.
Most people are focusing on the conflict of interest, but what will the real effects of this ruling be? Does this mean that, as of the date of the ruling, the RIAA will be able to send out blanket suits to anyone whose IP shows up in any type of filing sharing?
60/60/24/7/52/10/10
60/60/24/7/52/10/10
52 and one seventh, or two sevenths in a leap year, please.
The argument I always hear from Libertarians is that regulation is bad because eventually, regulatory organizations are taken over by the industries they're supposed to regulate thus providing entrenched government power for said industry, elbowing out competition.
You know, exactly like what everyone is complaining about on this article.
Jeez - you need expertise on technical cases. Where's it gonna come from? A parallel universe? Look at her arguments, see what's really fair and if there is EVIDENCE of bias before going of on knee-jerk double-barrel shotgun blasts of generalized rhetoric. That is foolish. She may be a great judge. Maybe these cases were no-brainers that she supported. Maybe not. Look at evidence first.
Not attorney, lobbyist. Think the difference is important. And yes, it should be applied to all lobbyists who become judges, regardless of their cause.
"..whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Forget that part of the Preamble to the Constitution? That's pretty explicit permission to do exactly that.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yes, because if you're not already working in a given industry, you couldn't possibly know anything about it.
Well, from the frame of reference that most politicians have, this is probably quite logical.
I get the impression that most of them are the type that need 3 years of schooling on any subject before they have a decent grasp of it. That's why they can't understand backyard mechanics, why it's now illegal for farmers to administer medications to their own animals, and a bunch of other stupid shit.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......