Or, as the RIAA has itself expressed it, "when you fish with a driftnet you're going to catch some dolphins", see Capitol v. Foster and Lava v. Amurao amicus curiae briefs.
For someone who professes to be an advocate of civilized discourse, your choice of terminology was odd, to say the least. Of course you're not the type to apologize for it.
1. I removed you from my "foe" list many months ago. You, however, continue to have me listed as your "foe", which means I won't normally get to see your comments.
2. It isn't true that you have been posting here for a lot longer than I have been posting RIAA litigation news. You only joined after these stories started being posted.
3. I have no problem with argument and disagreement; I live for it. What I don't like is someone hiding their ulterior motives, which is what the PR flack trolls do on Slashdot. Any RIAA PR flack who wants to be candid about who he or she is, and participate here, is welcome in my book.
4. When I designated you as a foe it was because you were (a) nit-picking and wasting my time disagreeing with me that the litigation cartel was foreign even though 3 of its 4 members are foreign corporations, (b) disputing that the RIAA runs the litigations even though I deal with these clowns every day, and even see the RIAA lawyers in court, and (c) always insisting on having the last word. I don't have time for reading stuff from people whose sole goal in discussion is to prove they know more than everybody else:
I use the "foe" designation to reduce my reading burden, not to disparage anyone; I generally use it to indicate to myself (a) likely RIAA trolls and (b) people who always have to have the last word.
If you want to chill out, and remove me from your "foes" list, I'll see your posts and we can possibly engage in meaningful dialogue.
Ray, I know you mean well, and I'm glad that you post here.
Having said that, you have to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an RIAA troll. This is Slashdot; people will argue with you for the sake of argument. That doesn't mean they're on some sinister agency's payroll, though.
I will consider what you are saying, and take it to heart.
But this AC wasn't "disagreeing" with me, he was trying to discourage people from reading and participating:
No juror will believe, as I do not believe, that this man did not know what the word "exculpate" means.
It is a well known principle in the law, and fully recognized in many judicial decisions, that a witness who will lie about little things will usually lie about big things too.
That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it before. It is indeed a part of my training to produce citations to authority for what I am saying. (And I don't understand objecting to that : (a) those who want to read further click the link; (b) those who don't, don't.)
His testimony in the Lindor case will wind up burying him in every case where the defendant has the ability to fight back, which sadly is almost never the case.
His testimony is inadmissible because it totally fails the "reliability" tests established by Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702. I have never heard of an expert failing so miserably.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, as the RIAA has itself expressed it, "when you fish with a driftnet you're going to catch some dolphins", see Capitol v. Foster and Lava v. Amurao amicus curiae briefs.
For someone who professes to be an advocate of civilized discourse, your choice of terminology was odd, to say the least. Of course you're not the type to apologize for it.
I'm not a PR person. Sorry I 'put people off'. Hope they're the kind of people I don't mind 'putting off'.
Thank you, AC. Nice to see someone who reads.
Thanks, broKenfoLd. Much appreciated.
Thanks, RobertM1968. Appreciate your kind words.
Give me a break.
I have enough enemies over at Holme Roberts & Owen. What I need is friends.
You are correct. I misspoke about being here before Builder. He was here long before me.
Me? Questionable?
Good one ichigo 2.0. You got a chuckle out of me. Hope the moderators pick it up.
1. I removed you from my "foe" list many months ago. You, however, continue to have me listed as your "foe", which means I won't normally get to see your comments.
2. It isn't true that you have been posting here for a lot longer than I have been posting RIAA litigation news. You only joined after these stories started being posted.
3. I have no problem with argument and disagreement; I live for it. What I don't like is someone hiding their ulterior motives, which is what the PR flack trolls do on Slashdot. Any RIAA PR flack who wants to be candid about who he or she is, and participate here, is welcome in my book.
4. When I designated you as a foe it was because you were (a) nit-picking and wasting my time disagreeing with me that the litigation cartel was foreign even though 3 of its 4 members are foreign corporations, (b) disputing that the RIAA runs the litigations even though I deal with these clowns every day, and even see the RIAA lawyers in court, and (c) always insisting on having the last word. I don't have time for reading stuff from people whose sole goal in discussion is to prove they know more than everybody else:
I use the "foe" designation to reduce my reading burden, not to disparage anyone; I generally use it to indicate to myself (a) likely RIAA trolls and (b) people who always have to have the last word.If you want to chill out, and remove me from your "foes" list, I'll see your posts and we can possibly engage in meaningful dialogue.
Having said that, you have to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an RIAA troll. This is Slashdot; people will argue with you for the sake of argument. That doesn't mean they're on some sinister agency's payroll, though.
I will consider what you are saying, and take it to heart.
But this AC wasn't "disagreeing" with me, he was trying to discourage people from reading and participating:
nothing to see here. Move along.Thanks edward2020. And you were a lot more polite than the comment you were responding to.
Thanks jgoemat. Good analysis of some of the fallacies in this guy's underlying reports.
There are a few commenters who are missing the point of the motion, which is what the article is about.
Thanks for reminding them.
If the judge reads as carefully as you do, this witness is a goner.
It is a well known principle in the law, and fully recognized in many judicial decisions, that a witness who will lie about little things will usually lie about big things too.
That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it before. It is indeed a part of my training to produce citations to authority for what I am saying. (And I don't understand objecting to that : (a) those who want to read further click the link; (b) those who don't, don't.)
His testimony in the Lindor case will wind up burying him in every case where the defendant has the ability to fight back, which sadly is almost never the case.
His testimony is inadmissible because it totally fails the "reliability" tests established by Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702. I have never heard of an expert failing so miserably.
As a lawyer I've done the legal research on this point: there is no law requiring you to click every link.
Everything's *pdf because the federal court system opted for *pdf format. There's nothing I can do about that. Sorry.
This was the first time in 25,000 cases that the RIAA's expert was deposed.
The RIAA says he is their only witness to copyright infringement.
They used the same expert in all the cases.
And it turns out his testimony would be inadmissible at trial.
I think that's pretty important and not at all "routine".
In fact in 32 1/2 years of working in the litigation field, I've never even heard of anything quite like this.
I hope that tells you something about her guilt or innocence.