U. Wisc? About $3,000 per semester for max. load. It's on the high side for state institutions, but I'd hardly agree that this is a factor keeping people out of college who otherwise qualify.
>Unless the news about the takedowns sparks more interest in the album.
I first heard about it here. It was also the first time I became aware that the artist was represented by RIAA. First exposure was of a character that ensures I will be strongly prejudiced against it.
"So if a company suffered financial damage because a careless raid took down their website, they have no recourse?"
For recourse, they have the letter of the law as it pertains to the language in their contract. Unfortunately, the contract probably has a clause that makes an exemption for damages that result from compliance with lawful orders of law enforcement authorities.
If you don't want this exposure, don't sign a contract like that.
If that language is *not* in the contract, seek damages.
I don't see where anyone has lost legal recourse that they did not volutarily surrender.
>If this were in the U.S., all the affected businesses would probably sue the government over lost revenue.
Before doing that, they would make claims of personal liability for the individuals who actually confiscated the equipment. These people probably were not specifically bonded against liability stemming from their actions, and if brought to court, would require the people who gave them orders to do what they did, to give their reasons under oath. That testimony would then be most valuable when "suing the government" later, especially if everyone involved does not give the same answer.
What if it's your own work that your next work is being compared against? If that shows a positive match for some reason related to your individual writing style (or maybe you actually did copy yourself, that's acceptable in most instances), yet some ham-handed practice flags you for cheating. If that happened and you could prove it, screw copyright. Sue for billions.
There's more. They are asserting that they have treated the evidence to state-of-the-art (expensive) forensic care, because they are open to the possibility that it might become evidence for a federal case (hinting that the case will be against Sony if they actually go through with this terrible idea of pressing a suit without evidence and a long laundry list of procedural errors.)
"But, it's illegal for someone to pursue legal action without a good faith that allegations are true and substantiated by compelling evidence."
Unless you are *very* sure of your foundation, and certainly not before you have tried to reach an agreement with them politely, it is extremely unwise to threaten a lawsuit against anyone who can afford to retain a law firm that maintains a fleet of Gulfstream jets for the convenience of adverse witnesses. These are the people who can allow you to bring your suit against them just for their entertainment while they crush you.
Important subtext, probably in the watermark of the onionskin original letterhead: Our clients can afford a law firm that has a fleet of Gulfstreams. Good luck to you!
>What does that mean? what is it that's "a mid-six to low seven figure piece of computer gear"?
It means he would be perfectly happy to document that the cost of professional data forensics suitable for litigation purposes, particularly for evidence that may be required for a federal case are quite high, and if the plaintiff's experts show up with no case, they will be paying this bill.
>Now everyone that receives a $3000 settlement letter from the MAFIAA can just reply and get the case thrown out?
Well, in the case, the response is a very specific address warning the plaintiff's attorney of the deficiency of his evidence and of other procedural problems that will prevent his bringing his case to court. Separate, is that he knows exactly how to seek relief for malicious litigation in his state, and warns that he is likely enough to be successful, that a half-million dollar or higher settlement paid to his clients would be a realistic potential outcome of going forward with their weak case. Whether he could really make this happen or whether he is bluffing, is hard to say. But I suspect he is not bluffing at all, and I further suspect that he is entirely capable of nailing the plaintiff to the floor and that his clients can afford to do it just for fun. (I think the main thing to note is that the defendant here is a wealthy Californian who can do this just for the pleasure of making someone squirm.)
>But what's this about a nigh-million dollar (six figure) PC?
Who says it's a PC? I get the impression that Sony has tried to sue a Bank, (or maybe a law school regent?) and that the system in question is a SAN array or something. There's a lot between the lines here. Who knows? Maybe the cost of due diligence data protection for evidence purposes is known and justifiable for California litigation. It's Fresno. It won't be the first case to hit the floor involving disk drives as evidence.
IANAL, but I have studied law and I have worked in the litigation field. I have read many letters that have had me wanting to ROFL, and this is in that category. But the best part is also the last bit:
"From there, it should be a short trip to dismissal even if it means getting our clients to mediate Mr. Merchant's positive claims in the absence of an appropriate settlement."
Translation: If you have read this far, you realize that you not only have no case, but that you are entirely out of your league because the standards of evidence in the court system where I have major influence, would procedurally bar you from even entering your case on the docket. Despite this, my client's claims against you are already demonstrated, and our claims will continue to have merit even after your case is dismissed with prejudice (and we have not offered to drop our case.)
This letter is a masterpiece because it manages to hand the plaintiff his ass, in a rather respectful colleague-to-colleague way, while at the same time threatening a counterclaim that could end up with far greater damages than the initial claim!
And the real beauty is that even though the RIAA seems to have withdrawn its claim, the damages from the malice might still hold, if they really want to push it.
Who did they sue? Directors of a Silicon Valley bank? They should do some research before they pull the pin on the hand grenade!
"I would be happy to send the airplane..." (At the plaintiff's expense of course...)
And you wonder why people have issues with Microsoft's market domination.
Here is a clue: People do not enjoy patronizing service organisations who show contempt for their needs. They will not bring their return business, which, in a fair marketplace, equals death.
It costs a fortune to attract a customer, and if you lose his return business, it's wasted.
>But suggesting that the lack of any one specific identity, like the Jews...
Germany did a very thorough job of *killing* its doctors, teachers, artists and scientists, a generation ago, and will be paying the price for centuries to come.
Slashdot Mirror
>I know it is annoying but how is it different from sitting next to two guys who keep yapping for the whole 12 hour flight?
It's possible to inject yourself in their conversation! I do it all the time. *Especially* when it annoys them.
It never works, of course. But maybe someday I can be the target of an air-rage incident and retire on the lawsuit.
>Um.. isn't that her insurance company's job?
So... all you have to do to get an insurance claim paid is to do sometging incite people to steal or destroy your stuff...
>Remind me how much they charge in tuition?
U. Wisc? About $3,000 per semester for max. load. It's on the high side for state institutions, but I'd hardly agree that this is a factor keeping people out of college who otherwise qualify.
>By accepting my taxes
Do you pay taxes in Wisconsin? I assume you are aware that federal money doesn't actually fund grants for stem cell research.
>I've been using Ubuntu for a couple years on a few separate machines, and gotten this process down.
Let's see. Put the disc in. Turn the power on. Type the rsync command in the first terminal window.
Did I miss a step?
>Unless the news about the takedowns sparks more interest in the album.
I first heard about it here. It was also the first time I became aware that the artist was represented by RIAA. First exposure was of a character that ensures I will be strongly prejudiced against it.
And of course, anyone who has been to Phi Phi is quite aware that Thai women routinely go topless on Thai beaches.
"So if a company suffered financial damage because a careless raid took down their website, they have no recourse?"
For recourse, they have the letter of the law as it pertains to the language in their contract. Unfortunately, the contract probably has a clause that makes an exemption for damages that result from compliance with lawful orders of law enforcement authorities.
If you don't want this exposure, don't sign a contract like that.
If that language is *not* in the contract, seek damages.
I don't see where anyone has lost legal recourse that they did not volutarily surrender.
>If this were in the U.S., all the affected businesses would probably sue the government over lost revenue.
Before doing that, they would make claims of personal liability for the individuals who actually confiscated the equipment. These people probably were not specifically bonded against liability stemming from their actions, and if brought to court, would require the people who gave them orders to do what they did, to give their reasons under oath. That testimony would then be most valuable when "suing the government" later, especially if everyone involved does not give the same answer.
>The problem with that is false positives.
What if it's your own work that your next work is being compared against? If that shows a positive match for some reason related to your individual writing style (or maybe you actually did copy yourself, that's acceptable in most instances), yet some ham-handed practice flags you for cheating. If that happened and you could prove it, screw copyright. Sue for billions.
Oh crap, thanks. Million years on slashdot and I have made some boneheaded comments, but never before plain posted to the wrong subject.
>If the RIAA proceeds the lawyer will drive an expensive SUV through the flaws in the case to show how big they are.
Nah, think big. He will fly one of his firm's private jets through it.
There's more. They are asserting that they have treated the evidence to state-of-the-art (expensive) forensic care, because they are open to the possibility that it might become evidence for a federal case (hinting that the case will be against Sony if they actually go through with this terrible idea of pressing a suit without evidence and a long laundry list of procedural errors.)
>"In our part of the world, that is a mid-six to low seven figure piece of computer gear."
/sarcasm
>That's one very expensive piece of computer gear with "AOL" installed on.
Maybe it's someone at AOL itself that they accidentally threatened to sue.
"But, it's illegal for someone to pursue legal action without a good faith that allegations are true and substantiated by compelling evidence."
Unless you are *very* sure of your foundation, and certainly not before you have tried to reach an agreement with them politely, it is extremely unwise to threaten a lawsuit against anyone who can afford to retain a law firm that maintains a fleet of Gulfstream jets for the convenience of adverse witnesses. These are the people who can allow you to bring your suit against them just for their entertainment while they crush you.
Important subtext, probably in the watermark of the onionskin original letterhead: Our clients can afford a law firm that has a fleet of Gulfstreams. Good luck to you!
>What does that mean? what is it that's "a mid-six to low seven figure piece of computer gear"?
It means he would be perfectly happy to document that the cost of professional data forensics suitable for litigation purposes, particularly for evidence that may be required for a federal case are quite high, and if the plaintiff's experts show up with no case, they will be paying this bill.
>Now everyone that receives a $3000 settlement letter from the MAFIAA can just reply and get the case thrown out?
Well, in the case, the response is a very specific address warning the plaintiff's attorney of the deficiency of his evidence and of other procedural problems that will prevent his bringing his case to court. Separate, is that he knows exactly how to seek relief for malicious litigation in his state, and warns that he is likely enough to be successful, that a half-million dollar or higher settlement paid to his clients would be a realistic potential outcome of going forward with their weak case. Whether he could really make this happen or whether he is bluffing, is hard to say. But I suspect he is not bluffing at all, and I further suspect that he is entirely capable of nailing the plaintiff to the floor and that his clients can afford to do it just for fun. (I think the main thing to note is that the defendant here is a wealthy Californian who can do this just for the pleasure of making someone squirm.)
>But what's this about a nigh-million dollar (six figure) PC?
Who says it's a PC? I get the impression that Sony has tried to sue a Bank, (or maybe a law school regent?) and that the system in question is a SAN array or something. There's a lot between the lines here. Who knows? Maybe the cost of due diligence data protection for evidence purposes is known and justifiable for California litigation. It's Fresno. It won't be the first case to hit the floor involving disk drives as evidence.
A $650,000 to $1.4 million dollar disk drive. Did they have to down an EMC array for evidence?
IANAL, but I have studied law and I have worked in the litigation field. I have read many letters that have had me wanting to ROFL, and this is in that category. But the best part is also the last bit:
"From there, it should be a short trip to dismissal even if it means getting our clients to mediate Mr. Merchant's positive claims in the absence of an appropriate settlement."
Translation: If you have read this far, you realize that you not only have no case, but that you are entirely out of your league because the standards of evidence in the court system where I have major influence, would procedurally bar you from even entering your case on the docket. Despite this, my client's claims against you are already demonstrated, and our claims will continue to have merit even after your case is dismissed with prejudice (and we have not offered to drop our case.)
This letter is a masterpiece because it manages to hand the plaintiff his ass, in a rather respectful colleague-to-colleague way, while at the same time threatening a counterclaim that could end up with far greater damages than the initial claim!
And the real beauty is that even though the RIAA seems to have withdrawn its claim, the damages from the malice might still hold, if they really want to push it.
Who did they sue? Directors of a Silicon Valley bank? They should do some research before they pull the pin on the hand grenade!
"I would be happy to send the airplane..." (At the plaintiff's expense of course...)
Love it.
>"The cost of distribution" is very well defined.
At least it's "definable."
Judge: And how much did it cost you to distribute that?
Defendant: We do not have a record of that, your honor.
Judge: Agreed. $0.
>Suck it up
"Suck it up and install Windows"
And you wonder why people have issues with Microsoft's market domination.
Here is a clue: People do not enjoy patronizing service organisations who
show contempt for their needs. They will not bring their return business, which,
in a fair marketplace, equals death.
It costs a fortune to attract a customer, and if you lose his return business, it's wasted.
>The expression "on the backs of others" is a euphemism for exploitation.
Okay, then; "On the shoulders of giants."
>But suggesting that the lack of any one specific identity, like the Jews...
Germany did a very thorough job of *killing* its doctors, teachers, artists and scientists, a generation ago,
and will be paying the price for centuries to come.