Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Veoh Once Again Beats UMG (After Going Out of Business)

Posted by Soulskill on from the winning-through-losing dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Veoh has once again beaten the record companies; in fact it has beaten them in every round, only to have been forced out of business by the attorneys fees it expended to do so. I guess that's the record companies' strategy to do an 'end around' the clear wording of the DMCA 'safe harbor': outspend them until they fold. Back in 2009 the lower court dismissed UMG's case (PDF) on the ground that Veoh was covered by the DMCA 'safe harbor' and had complied with takedown notices. The record companies of course appealed. And they of course lost. Then, after the Viacom v. YouTube decision by the 2nd Circuit, which ruled that there were factual issues as to some of the videos, they moved for rehearing in UMG v. Veoh. Now, in a 61-page decision (PDF), the 9th Circuit has once again ruled that the statute means what it says, and rejected each and every argument the record companies made. Sadly, though, it did not award attorneys fees."

55 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Another such victory... by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and I am undone -- Pyrrhus of Epirus.

    1. Re:Another such victory... by anubi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do not think you understood what Russotto was referring to...

      "Some of his battles, though successful, cost him heavy losses, from which the term "Pyrrhic victory" was coined".

      I thank Russotto for presenting such a fine example of what is meant by that phrase.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  2. Sad by Tmann72 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's so sad that they can sorta "win" by pushing Veoh out of business via litigation. Even though Veoh won they still lost. Sad. The judge should have awarded fees.

    1. Re:Sad by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

      From the banking scandals it should be clear to anyone with half a mind that Washington wants you to stop being a little thief and start being a very big one.

    2. Re:Sad by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that's why Google bought Youtube. Without Google's pockets, video uploading or user-generated content sites in general would be in deep, deep trouble, and as common and popular as limewire, emule, TPB, etc.

      Google needed another platform to sell advertisements, and it protected user-generated content sites in the process. Sometimes, things DO work out.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Sad by shentino · · Score: 2

      No they don't.

      They want you to back off and save the pie for them to pilfer.

      Besides, you don't GET to be rich and powerful without their cooperation in the first place.

      By the time you get invited to join the old boy's club you've already been indoctrinated.

    4. Re:Sad by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even though Veoh is out of business the record companies lost a lot in this. Veoh may be gone but any attempt to treat someone else this way will cause severe penalties. You can run this scam once and then the courts get wise to it and punish you for trying to sue someone when it was made clear to you previously that you didn't have a case. Anyone else they sue will get attorney fees and the right to counter sue for harassment.

    5. Re:Sad by gmanterry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why the U.S. has a legal system and the word justice is nowhere to be found. This way of winning cases is the norm not the exception. The powerful and wealthy can always prevail because they can exhaust the financial resources of almost any citizen and any small company. Justice... my ass! For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    6. Re:Sad by shentino · · Score: 2

      The judge probably wanted to but since we don't have loser pays his hands were tied.

      Justice by economic intimidation sadly is the norm.

    7. Re:Sad by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the record companies will simply alter a few words in the same arguments that made the judges waste time before, enough to encourage the court to re-evaluate the suit's merits again, and again, and again. A great deal of software patent law works the same way, as does movie and record company "SLAPP" or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". This case is nowhere near enough to help eliminate such abuses precisely because legal fees were not awarded to the victor, who is now bankrupt. This has demonstrated that such ill-founded lawsuits can achieve business goals, even when they lose.

    8. Re:Sad by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Companies will simply wise up and shift to countries like Australia where loser pays and losing one case can set powerful precedents and barretry laws can come into pay, not only does loser pay but they can be sued for damages and penalties. Quite simply if you are becoming the target for bullshit lawsuits remaining head quartered in the US is crazy and a shift to Australia makes legal sense.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Sad by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Courts are all about legal precedent. When all your legal precedent says you're full of shit then things look really bleak for you in court. The legal system has plenty of problems but even now you can't scam them continuously or it will end up biting you.

    10. Re:Sad by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Such actions make them subject to a court case, which can be costly even in you win (which is exctly what this article is about). Furthermore, the reinstating won't usually happen for ten days. For a lot of content, particularly news, being gone that long is a significant disadvantage.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:Sad by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 5, Funny

      I imagine the context changes too, though. Does Australia recognize the DMCA and the safe harbor bits?

      Not yet, but as soon as the US gives us democracy...

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    12. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you dense? If the recourse is that costly, it's not really a recourse.

    13. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this being modded as funny?

      That is the nature of government; it legitimizes violence as a means of keeping those who are part of it in power. This is just as true now as it was when aging tribal leaders turned to divine right and mysticism to stay dominant after their physical strength was gone. It is a lie to permit the few and the weak to rule over the many. Washington indeed wants you to be a big thief, which is to say part of the club that is permitted to steal and grants that privilege to others who play along. This describes our court system perfectly. To see this, just ask why Veoh didn't simply carry on as normal. Ask why they would destroy themselves financially giving money to a bunch of lawyers and such? What could compel them to commit suicide like that?

      The answer is violence; it is violence that most everyone here worships as good and necessary. Had Veoh ignored the 'requested' summons, had they simply dismissed and recycled the ever more threatening letters, eventually, the owners of the company would have had a visit from some guy in a nice black suit. He would be very morose yet it would be made clear that some guys with guns and rape rooms and access to their bank accounts were getting very very annoyed at being ignored. Soon after that Veoh would find many of its assets stolen. Should the company leadership continue to ignore these savage threats and somehow continue operations, eventually guys in matching costumes would break into their homes, shoot their pets more likely than not, and kidnap them, and lock them in cages with various tortured individuals on either side of the bars.

      This isn't some obscure flaw in a sound design. It is the very heart of statism: that moral rules have exceptions and that violence against innocent people is right when done by certain people.

    14. Re:Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about the loser pays legal fees to the winner but the amount is whatever the loser's lawyer gets paid.

    15. Re:Sad by bbelt16ag · · Score: 2

      and yet there are more of us then they are of them? they cant make a airplane fly or a build a subway. all they do is sti in an office somewhere and bark oders and push paper. I bet they dont even know what abeet is or how to plant it. see tthey have power, but not all of it and it will never be . If you are tired of taking this crap, then get off your asses and do something.

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    16. Re:Sad by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!

      You're wrong if you thing that will improve access to the courts; it would only make it worse. It would make it an even higher stakes poker game. The real things that would improve access to justice are such things as (a) making it easier rather than harder to bring class actions, (b) making it easier rather than harder for other forms of contingent cases, (c) investing money in civil legal aid, (d) developing laws to encourage prepaid legal services, and (e) the courts not bending the law -- as they sometimes do -- to accommodate large corporations abusing the judicial system (see my article on how the RIAA was given numerous unfair advantages by the courts in its war against ordinary people: "Large Recording Companies vs The Defenseless", ABA Judges Journal, Equal Access to Justice issue, 2008)

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    17. Re:Sad by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      we don't have loser pays

      Correction. In copyright cases, the court has discretion to award attorneys fees to the prevailing side. 17 USC 505

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    18. Re:Sad by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected. What are the criteria for deciding that btw?

      Regrettably, they vary from judge to judge and from court to court and are not predictable, since they are "discretionary".

      I can tell you that if I were deciding UMG v Veoh I would have awarded Veoh its attorneys fees.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    19. Re:Sad by jwilcox154 · · Score: 2

      So since one person is a thief it's ok for everyone to be a thief? What kind of logic is that?

      In other words you support the biggest thief of all, Vivendi Universal? The ones that sued Nintendo and others over trademark infringement when King Kong was in the public domain? The ones that sued Sony over creating a video cassette for watching movies because it could be used for copyright infringement? The ones that sued MP3.COM nearly out of existence over a service similar to what Google and Amazon offer today? The ones that have locked artists into long-term contracts only to totally control the works of their artists while being totally oblivious to how modern music promotion works?

      Universal has a history of bully tactics that amounts to thuggery to maintain the status quo even if it slows or halts technological advancement in the entertainment sector. Hell they even reneged on their royalty payments to their own artists. Supporting them is essentially supporting the elimination of independent studios and artists because Universal has and always will show a dislike for competition and will always find ways to eliminate their competitors through legal bullying, especially when their competitors support indie studios and artists.

    20. Re:Sad by hazah · · Score: 2

      Actually, he's not willing to pay the costs of THEIR choices, not his. To have a choice one must have a voice, or do you have an agenda to push?

    21. Re:Sad by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      This is why one can't simply have a good idea anymore, one has to sell out to a supercorp just to deal with all the lawsuit bullshit.

      This is why I have argued for years that we REALLY need court reform, when our system was designed nobody ever even thought about what would happen when companies would become bigger than some third world countries or the law so complex that it could take years just to deal with all the appeals and counterclaims. This court design now frankly gives too much of an advantage of the big guy over the little so as in thius case whether the little guy is right or not is irrelevant, you can just bleed them to death in court fees.

      What we need is a "lawyer pool" in both civil and criminal cases to where the money both side were planning to spend on lawyers and paralegals gets dumped into a pot and split 50/50, that way in civil you couldn't "lawyer to death" a company or person and in criminal the state couldn't force pleas by piling on every possible charge they can think of knowing that while the state has infinite resources the defendant will have his lawyer fees shoot up with each charge piled on until they can't afford to fight back.

      But of course since the current system enriches lawyers while making things as rigged as a game of three card monty? I doubt things will ever change. But we need to accept the current system has jack squat to do with justice or the law, its all about how much money you can afford to spend.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Sad by jwilcox154 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no expiration of trademark.

      First off it in a way it can "A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain." Furthermore Universal never owned the trademark.

      "First, Universal knew that it did not have trademark rights to King Kong, yet it proceeded to broadly assert such rights anyway. This amounted to a wanton and reckless disregard of Nintendo's rights. Second, Universal did not stop after it asserted its rights to Nintendo. It embarked on a deliberate, systematic campaign to coerce all of Nintendo's third party licensees to either stop marketing Donkey Kong products or pay Universal royalties. Finally, Universal's conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial process, and in that sense caused a longer harm to the public as a whole. Depending on the commercial results, Universal alternatively argued to the courts, first, that King Kong was a part of the public domain, and then second, that King Kong was not part of the public domain, and that Universal possessed exclusive trademark rights in it. Universal's assertions in court were based not on any good faith belief in their truth, but on the mistaken belief that it could use the courts to turn a profit."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Trademarks

      Royalties on something they don't own? Sounds like thievery to me.

      I honestly cannot speak to the MP3.com case as I'm unfamiliar with it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com

      Essentially UMG sued MP3.com for everything then bought them up at a discounted price just to bury them. It was over the my.mp3.com service which is very similar to what Amazon.com is offering today. The real reason Universal sued for so much was MP3.com was a competitor to Universal and Universal hates competition.

      If an artist signs away their rights than it's a problem for the artist. No one forces them to sign. I know several bands that never signed and all of them made a good living prior to the theft of their works.

      Except they renege on their contracts. They are telling their artists one thing then doing another. I do agree that artists shouldn't sign with UMG as they are not trustworthy and they are way behind the times.

      P2P has done more damage to the independent artist than anything else. Stop trying to blow smoke up my ass.

      Not necessarily. P2P can be useful for getting artists known. Not all artists mind that their music is shared. That doesn't detract from my main point, Universal is a bully and a thief just as it always has been. The best thing is to avoid anything by Universal rather than download or purchase anything by them.

    23. Re:Sad by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep, exactly right. There were two points that the court used to decide that MP3.com was making illegal use of music: that the company had bought copies of CDs and put those rips on their servers rather than using bits uploaded by users, and that the service used a digital signature check so you didn't have to actually upload all the bits of your song. (If your signature matched one of their purchased CDs they pointed you at those bits.) What this really meant was that MP3.com was ten years ahead of its time and that the court was technologically illiterate. MP3.com was doing data deduplication with distributed checking, but they couldn't say that in court because the terms didn't exist yet.

      To address the two points in a bit more detail:

      When MP3.com put a CD rip on their servers they had done nothing wrong. They had not yet shared any music with anybody, merely backed up music that they already owned, and the legal right to back up data is well established. There wasn't even a DMCA violation; CDs do not have any copy protection. At this point there is one copy of a CD (or an MP3 of it) on their server and it belongs to a legal owner of the music.

      When they did the signature check and then shared the rip with a customer, they still hadn't done anything wrong in modern technological terms. The customer had stored a copy of those bits, and their server and client software used deduplication and pointed that customer's file system at the copy stored by MP3.com rather than at a copy uploaded by the customer. The result is exactly the same as if the customer's CD had been uploaded and a separate copy stored; it was just done at much lower cost to MP3.com and to the customer. There are now two virtual "copies" on the server; one belonging to MP3.com and one belonging to the customer. Both presumably legally own that music, and thus all is still well. Additional customer uploads add more virtual copies but don't change the legalities.

      The only questionable thing about the MP3.com process is sorting out whether the customer owned the uploaded bits in the first place. But there are now many providers now that let you upload bits to the cloud: Amazon Cloud Drive, Google Drive, Dropbox, and many more. The storage provider is not legally liable if it turns out that the customer does not own the bits; the customer is. Those companies are not currently discussing whether they are doing any deduplication of customer-uploaded data but they probably are. Amazon DOES deduplicate MP3s bought from Amazon and the instant MP3 versions of CDs that were purchased from them.

      Sadly, there is no way to unwind all the damage done by the court. That would require that Universal return MP3.com to its former owners, pay all their court costs, and restore all the music that became unavailable when MP3.com went offline. Not to mention that Universal would have to somehow repay all the money that MP3.com would have made in the intervening years, and repay all the people who had uploaded music to MP3.com all the money they would have made when people downloaded their songs. Figuring out who all the damaged parties are and the amount of the damages is obviously impossible.

  3. Still... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

    At least it's legal precedent.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Still... by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the real-world precedent of don't mess with the record companies even if you have the law on your side.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Still... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      Don't mess with people in court who have more money than you. FTFY

      --
      God spoke to me
  4. US Law by damicatz · · Score: 2, Informative

    The adversarial system is the biggest injustice ever created. Such a system dates back from the times when people solved disputes by beating each other over the head with clubs. The US legal system literally derives from the law of Germanic tribes back in antiquity.

    The adversarial system turns everything into a game. Fact is irrelevant. Law is irrelevant. Justice is irrelevant. All that matters is whose lawyer is the best at legal gamesmenship. A typical civil trial in the US is a game of trying to bury the other party in motions and frivolous lawsuits until they can no longer afford to fight it. The adversarial system ensures that no help is given to a party who has a significant financial disadvantage because the law is simply not important and if you can't afford a good lawyer, that's too bad and you're going to go bankrupt even if you've done nothing wrong.

    Civilized countries (e.g. the majority) realized a long time ago that the adversarial system is not just. In most countries, the inquisitorial system is used in which the judge, rather than the lawyers, are the ones who do the investigating and asking of questions. In an inquisitorial court, it is not a competition to see which party has the best lawyers and legal arguments but rather a search for the truth.

    1. Re:US Law by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, nobody would expect that...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:US Law by fredprado · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A civilized country is a country that follows some widely accepted precepts for a modern civilization, like having a justice system that actually enforces its law code equally for all people, not one that works only for the highest bidder.

      A civilized place, on the other hand, is a place that doesn't have assholes like you.

    3. Re:US Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, Roman law was mostly adversarial. Europeans think that their civil law derives from Roman law, but it doesn't. It derives from the interpretation of extant Roman codes by scholars beginning in the 11th century. And almost all the Roman law that those scholars knew about came from the Justinian Code, which was promulgated near the end of the Roman Empire. When Justinian published his code all the legal scholars and practitioners literally revolted. It was not representative of ancient Roman legal customs, which were largely based on something like a case law tradition (except the case law was literal, and unlike either European or Anglo-American legal systems you weren't usually supposed to derive abstract legal precepts from the law to apply to novel situations.)

      Any scholar will tell you that the best legal systems in the world tend to be Common Law based, although German law is very highly regarded and some argue the best. And that's because on the whole Common Law is driven by the courts, and not the legislature. The more that legislatures and politicians get involved, the quicker things turn to crap. Courts tend to be retrospective, so they're much more grounded in necessity and practicality. Politicians are always trying to solve imaginary problems, or to shape people's behavior according to their predilections and prejudices.

      The problem w/ inquisitorial systems is that it's effectively law by bureaucrats. If you think American legal stories are nightmarish, you should read accounts of people and businesses getting reamed in civil law jurisdictions like France, Italy, Brazil, etc. In Common Law jurisdictions most disputes are settled outside of court. And a far as being evidenced based, the Common Law rules of evidence are one of the greatest achievements of modern society. In inquisitorial systems, the judge can take into account anything he wants. That means prejudice and bias are dramatically more likely to effect the outcome of cases... and in fact do.

      None of this is to excuse what happened in this case, of course.

    4. Re:US Law by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      In an inquisitorial court, the notions of "fairness" and "justice" are determined by the inquisitors, rather than the people actually harmed. Nevermind how much an offense actually harmed you - it's what the judge thinks that matters. That sentimental statue that the mugger smashed? The one your great-great-grandmother carved while on a ship coming over from Europe? In the eyes of the inquisitorial court, it's just a trinket, and is of no consequence.

      While an inquisitorial system does give a more objective sense of justice, the people involved don't really get any outcome that seems fair. This is why inquisitorial systems in practice have such poor reception. Consider how much hatred is seen even here on Slashdot for arbitration clauses in contracts. People expect that the inquisitorial arbitration will simply side in favor of the bigger company, and don't expect a fair chance to present their own side of the story.

      Inquisitorial systems are also games, but the game is different. Rather than argue for one's case with reason and law, one gambles with the statistics of inquisitors. Since there is no risk of of encountering a particularly skilled opponent, any criminal can simply adjust their illegal activities to the skill of the state, since only the state can argue against them. A few well-placed bribes can ensure that investigators never really find anything too badly wrong, regardless of how the aggrieved may want to interpret the law.

      The adversarial system is based on the concepts that only the aggrieved can determine how badly they've been harmed, and the state cannot be implicitly trusted. The government is supposed to be only the representative of the society, closely following society's standards for morality and formality as the plaintiff's arguments change. In an inquisitorial system, the state is assumed to be an infallible and absolute embodiment of fairness. The inquisitorial system's opinions of right and wrong only change as judges retire.

      That's just a few reason why most countries actually have an adversarial system for most grievances, and only a handful actually use an inquisitorial system.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:US Law by damicatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's all well and good as long as you know how to "determine" fairness and justice. US courts are set up in such a way to deliberately obfuscate the law.

      Federal courts in the US are a mess. There are entire books worth of byzantine rules that even the lawyers have trouble understanding. To make matters worse, each of the federal districts has their own local rules as well (because every federal district court needs it's own rules for what font size motions should be in...).

      Pro se parties are routinely discriminated against. Lawyers essentially have unlimited power to issue subpoenas; the US is one of the only countries that allows lawyers to do this with no oversight. Pro se parties cannot do this. The clerks of court will go out of their way to answer questions about the law to lawyers (again, even they can't keep track of all of the rules) but will refuse to answer any questions for pro se parties.

      In addition, the salaries of lawyers are artificially inflated through the cartel known as the bar. The amount of lawyers is artificially restricted by the state through economic rent seeking. Even offering your opinion on something related to the law can subject you to the imposition of violent force by the state on behalf of the bar (Free speech doesn't apply to non-lawyers). Since judges are members of this cartel, and judges are lawyers themselves, they will never rule such a thing illegal even if it is.

      If that doesn't get you, case law will. Lawyers have access to tools like LexisNexus which allow them to figure out WHAT the case law is and what cases have been overturned and such. The average person can't afford that and has to resort to inferior tools.

      It is criminal to have a system where someone with millions of dollars can simply use the state and its courts as a means to steal money from people simply because they can't afford to fight it. It is criminal to have a system where shysters can issue one subpoena after another without needing any sort of approval. It is criminal to have a system where someone is subject to violence because they offered legal advice to the less fortunate simply because they haven't paid money into the bar racket.

      As far as I'm concerned, US Courts no longer have any legitimacy. They are a joke and should be treated as such. So help me if I'm called for jury slavery because I would be the juror from hell.

    6. Re:US Law by Solandri · · Score: 2

      A civilized country is a country that follows some widely accepted precepts for a modern civilization, like having a justice system that actually enforces its law code equally for all people, not one that works only for the highest bidder.

      In other words, nobody's actually attained civilization yet.

      The problem with trying to link a definition of civilization to justice is that it's highly probable that justice/fairness is an impossible goal. It's been proven that you can't create a perfectly fair election system. And that's a very specific case of justice/fairness. In the general case, it's very likely that any justice system will be flawed in some way. The best you can do is pick which flaws you're willing to live with.

    7. Re:US Law by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The adversarial system benefits lawyers.

      Lawyers become politicians.

      Therefore, nothing will change.

    8. Re:US Law by fredprado · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thinking in absolutes is silly. That said, there are countries that manage to get nearer this ideal and others that unfortunately are much farther. When you try to define something you have to keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish with such definition. What distinctions exactly you are looking for. In this case you can see this definition of a guideline of civilization, and those countries that are nearer it can be considered "civilized" whilst those that are farther cannot.

    9. Re:US Law by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 2

      only a handful actually use an inquisitorial system.

      My country, Germany, is not in the list, although it uses an inquisitorial system. Maybe Wikipedia is not a very good source :-/

    10. Re:US Law by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      If you are correct that inquisitorial systems are flawed, and the GP is correct that adversarial systems are flawed, is there a compromise between or synthesis of the two that would be better?

    11. Re:US Law by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      And then you just need to buy off the judge. Great improvement.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    12. Re:US Law by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      My apologies for the long post, but there are a very large number of asinine statements that I feel need some correction and clarification. At this point you might just be trolling, but it's a lovely Sunday afternoon, and I have some time to kill.

      That's all well and good as long as you know how to "determine" fairness and justice.

      More to the point, the adversarial court system tries not to determine such things itself, instead letting each side express how badly they've already been affected by the dispute. An adversarial court tries to determine first whether the defendant is responsible for the plaintiff's problems, then tries to just even out the grief. Again, it's the inquisitorial system where the government assumes the power to determine what's right or wrong, rather than the people.

      US courts are set up in such a way to deliberately obfuscate the law.

      Nope. US courts, like most common law courts, are set up to behave consistently, in the interest of minimizing corruption. It's very easy to spot when judges rulings are contrary to a precedent, and it's then easy to raise questions of corruption. This is an instance where the court is not trusted implicitly. Judges are expected to follow precedent, or justify their decisions when they decide precedent should not apply. That way, if a judge is bribed, it's still very difficult to actually favor anyone.

      Federal courts in the US are a mess. There are entire books worth of byzantine rules that even the lawyers have trouble understanding. To make matters worse, each of the federal districts has their own local rules as well (because every federal district court needs it's own rules for what font size motions should be in...).

      Yes, they are, and yes, there are, but this is beside the point. Those law books and messy rules on font sizes usually don't actually apply to any given case, and any violation of the rules is easily forgiven by judges. The rules are there primarily to speed the judgement process by ensuring consistency. Yes, lawyers have trouble understanding them, much the same as programmers have trouble understanding undocumented code. However, it is easy to determine which sections of the text actually matter to the case at hand, and which do not. One does not need to be an expert on alcohol import laws to argue in a case of theft.

      Pro se parties are routinely discriminated against.

      We discriminate against people representing themselves in much the same way as we discriminate against people repairing their own cars, cooking their own food, or building their own houses. Law is indeed a complicated discipline, and people who pick up a Law 101 textbook are unqualified to represent themselves, just as a man with a hammer is unqualified to build a building to modern safety standards. If someone chooses to represent themselves in a complicated case, they may end up doing more harm than good, just as easily as building one's own house can end up producing a death trap.

      Of course, judges know this, and I've seen judges give more leniency to pro se parties, especially in terms of those font-size rules and other formalities. What's important is that the circumstances are presented accurately and honestly. Formality is easily discarded in the interest of serving (not determining) justice, while a fully-trained lawyer is expected to be able to comply with all the rules of the legal dance, for the sake of keeping the court system unobstructed.

      Lawyers essentially have unlimited power to issue subpoenas; the US is one of the only countries that allows lawyers to do this with no oversight. Pro se parties cannot do this.

      Absolutely incorrect. Courts issue subpoenas. Lawyers may only sometimes, depending on the jurisdictions, issue subpoenas themselves, but that's only as an agent of the court. Pro se parties are assumed to not know the law of what ca

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. Veo out of business? by dgharmon · · Score: 4, Informative

    "I googled veoh to see what they were, and was surprised to see that Veoh is still around. The wiki page says they were bought by an Israeli company. Is the new Veoh something similar in name only? I'm genuinely confused."

    The current Veoh appears to show only trailers or brief snippits, with links to paid-for sites ...

    --
    AccountKiller
  6. The operation was a success by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    but the patient died...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by geekd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked for mp3.com from 1999 to them folding in 2003 from UMG's (and others) lawsuit. I worked for Veoh from 2008 to 2009 when they folded from UMG's lawsuit.

    I HATE UMG.

    Those were the most fun jobs I've ever had. The work was challenging, the environment was fun, and my co-worker were some of the smartest people I've ever met. I had the opportunity to write code that solved problems no one had every faced before. It was awesome.

    UMG has screwed me out of 2 very fulfilling jobs.

    1. Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by drainbramage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Face it dude:
      Either you're a bad omen for co-workers or UMG is actually after you, or both.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    2. Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ok, but what do you make of the claims posted on one of the sites links to in the original article, where someone claims Veoh was horribly mismanaged from the start, and blowing through as much as $4 million a month while not having any business or contracts lined up to justify the expenditures?

      I don't know enough about the company to say whether any of that is true ... but unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. One would think that if the company really had a great, profitable business model all put together, even these lawsuits wouldn't make them disappear -- as another investor would come along and revive Veoh, knowing the path was now clear with winning all of the court cases.

      I've seen a number of start-ups which were clearly very fun, challenging and rewarding places to be employed ... but in the big picture, they just didn't have something profitable enough to sustain them. Usually, they simply spent too much money trying to give off an image of success, rather than going through the much less pleasant (but far more workable) growth over time from very minimalist beginnings.

    3. Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by geekd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the all hands meeting when Michael Robertson told us all about his idea for my.mp3.com, one guy, a developer, (we'll call him "D") raised his hand and said "So, how are not a warez site, then?", and Michael had some explanation, and D asked the question again, and was insistent about it, and eventually was told to shut up and sit down (in nicer language). He was right, though, as history has proven.

    4. Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by geekd · · Score: 4, Informative

      That may be true. I'm a developer, so I can't comment intelligently about the financial side of things. It may be that Veoh would have went under anyway, but we would have lasted a lot longer without those attorney's fees, and without the chilling effect the lawsuit had on us. I was told that some companies did not want to advertise with us because of the lawsuit.

    5. Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      I will cross Anonymous Coward off the shortlist.

  8. When you have justice by the dollar.. by SuperCharlie · · Score: 2

    Only those with dollars have justice.

  9. That word doesn't mean what you think it means by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It sounds like you think Americanism Exceptionalism means American betterism. It does not. It means, simply, that the origins of the US, the founding, was DIFFERENT than other countries. Not superior, just different. In general states are based on nations, on ethnic groups. Ethnic groups formed kingdoms, and they persist today as countries. France, Germany, China - these are like most nations in that they are also ethnic groups, based on ancestry, led by kings and empererors at various times.

    America, on the other hand, was not the formalization of the boundaries of ancient tribes. Instead, Americans were united by certain IDEALS. (Ideals they often don't live up to, but ideals nonetheless.) Rather, people came to America for the promise of individual liberty and the opportunity that implies. In America, you were free to practice whatever religion you wanted, and free to succeed on your own merits. A "low class" store clerk born in a log cabin could become president. In other countries, being born low class meant you stayed low class your entire life.

    Does that imply that America is better? Not necesarily. Critics will point first to slavery, which once existed in the US. How does that square with a nation "founded on the proposition that all men are created equal"? It doesn't, and that, my friend, is the whole point of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism tells us that BECAUSE the country was founded on these ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality, we had better make great effort to live up to those ideals. It doesn't mean that we do, it means that our founding documents demand that we SHOULD.

    1. Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      What, like Singapore or Australia?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  10. Re:ttruly by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    Please stop feeding the trolls, they're too fat already. Ignore them and they'll go away.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  11. Yes, please work for UMG by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Since everywhere you work goes out off business, please go work at UMG, then Microsoft, then the White House. Thanks.