Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3% of the population is Caucasian. Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from."
Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury. For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.
Were there any Native Americans on the jury? In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog, I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were. He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive." "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.
Oh really? Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive. How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas? I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.
Racism hurts people in the justice system. Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.
they weren't giving their clients [the RIAA] sound advice. And the record companies were being played for the suckers. Highly 'aggressive' clients are easy prey.
Stockbrokers who churn their clients' accounts are subject to civil and criminal penalties. Is it the same for lawyers who churn the cases of aggressive clients?
The RIAA is going after Ray Beckerman is because they want to shut down his blog. Pure and simple.
Recording Industry vs. The People has made it possible for defense lawyers in different jurisdictions to be aware of what the RIAA was doing in the courts, so they could hone their legal arguments and focus on what matters. Without Ray's blog, defense lawyers would have to spend countless hours "reinventing the wheel" in redundant legal research. Against the perverse, well-funded multi-jurisdiction legal campaign by the RIAA, a defense lawyer might have no chance at all, were it not for Ray's blog.
We have the First Amendment precisely because blogs like Ray's can exist. He defends democracy against RIAA fascism, and is a true patriot. (Said without irony or sarcasm.)
Maybe the RIAA can set up a system of Song Download Karmic Offset Credits. For every song that Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s kids download illegally, the RIAA can withdraw a frivolous and unproveable accusation of copyright violation.
Believe it or not, the architect and manager of the RIAA's terror campaign called me up several weeks ago to give me his personal assurance that the RIAA doesn't use trolls. (Ha, ha, ha).
The RIAA attorney's assertion may be technically correct--there may not be trolls on the RIAA' payroll. But every bully has his sycophants. The RIAA is no exception. They set the tone, and the trolls do their thing on their own.
This wouldn't be the first time an RIAA attorney has used a narrow fact to buttress a complete lie.
Did the research I SHOULD HAVE done before making the above post: Time Warner no longer owns Warner/Electra/Atlantic. That business is privately held since November, 2003; mostly by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., a Canadian.
In fact, no major label is controlled by an American public corporation. The industry is for the most part foreign owned. So there's no way that shareholder activism at an annual meeting would have an impact on the industry; unless you're French, German, or Japanese.
Understand that the execs at the RIAA are there as human shields to keep us little people from disturbing their masters -- the recording industry execs. They are what Tom Wolfe called "the flak catchers." They are paid handsomely to ignore you.
Instead, go around them.
Buy a share of stock of Time Warner (TWX), and then show up at their annual meeting to tell them exactly what you think of their tactics. 2,000 small shareholders with big voices would scare the shit out of them.
Write paper snail-mail letters--more effective than email--to RIAA record company execs telling them what turds they are. In particular, write to the smaller members (like Telarc) and pressure them to withdraw their support for the RIAA.
Find out what theatrical enterprise Edgar Bronfman, Jr. is supporting these days, and hand out leaflets in front of the theater telling patrons about how Edgar's pet industry attacks innocent working people.
Above all, complain to the artists that the recording companies are pretending to defend in these lawsuits. Express moral outrage. Demand that they take a public stand on what their masters are doing.
Bronfman is a noted opponent of P2P technologies, and as CEO of Universal, helped lead the music industry's opposition to Napster, likening it to slavery and Soviet communism. In late 2006 in an interview with Reuters, Bronfman caused a stir by admitting that his children have pirated music. He claims to have punished the child, but wants the punishment to remain within the realm of the family.
Certainly if he didn't support the RIAA's tactics, they wouldn't be happening.
"Regardless of the merits of the DMCA itself... [felching redacted]... the DMCA is still the law; why should a university be expected to shield individuals engaged in illegal behavior?"
Because in the United States, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Moreover, the RIAA's investigative methodologies are proven to finger people who are not involved in illegal activity; and even when confronted with this, they continue to bully their victims with expensive and vexatious litigation. Many instances are well documented here and on sites such as Recording Industry vs People.
Stanford's unwillingness to protect its students from frivolous litigation is shameful and indefensible. I think any alumnus who is considering giving to Stanford should think twice.
If Booz Allen is paying $170k to someone who can't differentiate "tier" from "tear" or "college" from "collage," then I sure as hell won't send any business their way!
If Media Sentry provides the RIAA with information that causes you to be falsely sued, then you should be able to sue Media Sentry for libel. There is precent for this in lawsuits brought about by consumers against credit reporting bureaus. (caveat lector, IANAL)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Ray. Whatever. BTW, it WAS an all white jury, according to Ars Technica. In Minnesota, for a Native American, that's a hanging jury.
Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3% of the population is Caucasian. Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from."
Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury. For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.
Were there any Native Americans on the jury? In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog, I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were. He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive." "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.
Oh really? Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive. How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas? I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.
Racism hurts people in the justice system. Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.
For being irrelevant, they sure do file a lot of lawsuits.
Stockbrokers who churn their clients' accounts are subject to civil and criminal penalties. Is it the same for lawyers who churn the cases of aggressive clients?
We have the First Amendment precisely because blogs like Ray's can exist. He defends democracy against RIAA fascism, and is a true patriot. (Said without irony or sarcasm.)
They say that a lot in Alcoholics Anonymous too.
Is it too early to apply Godwin's Law here?
Maybe the RIAA can set up a system of Song Download Karmic Offset Credits. For every song that Edgar Bronfman Jr.'s kids download illegally, the RIAA can withdraw a frivolous and unproveable accusation of copyright violation.
It could be:
In the final analysis, does it matter? They're wrong, and they're pathetic. Not worth the pixels to even acknowledge.
The RIAA attorney's assertion may be technically correct--there may not be trolls on the RIAA' payroll. But every bully has his sycophants. The RIAA is no exception. They set the tone, and the trolls do their thing on their own.
This wouldn't be the first time an RIAA attorney has used a narrow fact to buttress a complete lie.
You're being sarcastic, aren't you. I can tell.
Did the research I SHOULD HAVE done before making the above post: Time Warner no longer owns Warner/Electra/Atlantic. That business is privately held since November, 2003; mostly by Edgar Bronfman, Jr., a Canadian.
In fact, no major label is controlled by an American public corporation. The industry is for the most part foreign owned. So there's no way that shareholder activism at an annual meeting would have an impact on the industry; unless you're French, German, or Japanese.
I apologize for the mistake.
Understand that the execs at the RIAA are there as human shields to keep us little people from disturbing their masters -- the recording industry execs. They are what Tom Wolfe called "the flak catchers." They are paid handsomely to ignore you.
Instead, go around them.
But bitch to the RIAA? Won't work, sorry
Edgar Bronfman, Jr. is the most visible recording industry person driving the RIAA lawsuits, in my opinion.
From Wikipedia:
Certainly if he didn't support the RIAA's tactics, they wouldn't be happening.
Because in the United States, people are innocent until proven guilty.
Moreover, the RIAA's investigative methodologies are proven to finger people who are not involved in illegal activity; and even when confronted with this, they continue to bully their victims with expensive and vexatious litigation. Many instances are well documented here and on sites such as Recording Industry vs People.
Stanford's unwillingness to protect its students from frivolous litigation is shameful and indefensible. I think any alumnus who is considering giving to Stanford should think twice.
If Booz Allen is paying $170k to someone who can't differentiate "tier" from "tear" or "college" from "collage," then I sure as hell won't send any business their way!
If Media Sentry provides the RIAA with information that causes you to be falsely sued, then you should be able to sue Media Sentry for libel. There is precent for this in lawsuits brought about by consumers against credit reporting bureaus. (caveat lector, IANAL)