Dear Mr. Coward, this is extremely important because the outcome of this motion could determine whether the RIAA can afford to keep on harassing people or not. If these counterclaims hold up... or even some of them... the RIAA is dead meat, because almost everything that happened to Ms. Andersen happened to most of the other RIAA lawsuit victims, and all of the present and future defendants will begin asserting similar counterclaims.
A second reason that it is important is that Ms. Andersen was the first person to seriously interpose aggressive counterclaims against the RIAA based on the RIAA's own misconduct.
If Tanya Andersen wins this round, the RIAA will be on the defensive all across the country.
With each dilatory move the RIAA has made in Capitol v. Foster, it seems to be digging its grave just a little bit deeper.
I can't for the life of me fathom what they are doing other than enriching their lawyers. Plus they're ensuring that Ms. Foster's attorney will have a nice payday at the end of this, which will enable her to help many more RIAA victims.
They're turning a $55,000 attorneys fees award into a $150,000 award, and spending a lot of money to do it.
Plus they're ensuring that their fee arrangements -- which they don't want people like me to know about -- will become public.
Go figure.
I've been in the litigation field for 32 1/2 years, and I can't imagine what they are thinking.
But Capitol v. Foster has already given the rest of us a number of excellent judicial precedents, and it seems that more are on the way.
But when the Court's final decision fixing the amount of fees is issued, the details will probably be in the decision.
And if the RIAA appeals, then the underlying papers will be filed as part of the appellate record, and it is highly unlikely that the appeals court would keep them confidential.
Yes there is some interest. And I do believe that something like that will happen one of these days, hopefully sooner rather than later.
The problem probably is that the right wing's control over the presidency, and until recently Congress, has made class actions -- which are equalizers between rich and poor -- harder to bring. Which means there are less class action firms out there, and those that can operate can afford to be, and actually have to be, very selective.
1. I guess you didn't read what I said. I was there. I'm a witness.
2. I guess you don't read much, or get around much. See, e.g. this, this,
this,
this, this,
this , this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this about the Ohio 2004 election, for just a few samples of the voluminous material on the subject.
3. Now tell me what proof you have that it didn't occur. That what I witnessed and what millions of people in Ohio witnessed didn't happen.
4. How dare you let your partisanship excuse your misrepresenting the truth about something so important as the right to vote. A lot of people have given their lives for that freedom.
I worked on a voter protection hotline in Ohio in 2004, during the presidential election. It was evident to just about anyone who was in Ohio during that period, including the Ohio news media, that the election was a farce, and that hundreds of thousands of people -- mostly African Americans -- had been systematically disenfranchised. And yet when I got home, and heard and saw the news in the national media, they were all saying, in coincidentally identical words, that 'the worst fears about Ohio were never realized, and except for a few minor glitches, which people took in good spirit, everything went smoothly'. This was a gross and deliberate misrepresentation which was repeated systematically on all radio networks, television networks, and other national media throughout the U.S.
It was evident that the national media had conferred with each other, and for whatever reason -- perhaps based upon a paternalistic decision that the American people could not handle the truth, and needed at least 50% of their presidential elections to be honestly decided -- reinvented the facts.
The story, and the comment to which you were responding, were about the RIAA's service of a deposition notice and subpoena on 24 hours notice. The law says you have to give "reasonable" notice. No judge will find that this notice was reasonable. Therefore the law does not permit this to happen. You said the law permits this to happen. Therefore you were wrong.
Your post had nothing to do with this subject at all. It had to do with a criminal case in Cleveland Ohio, a History Channel show on pharmaceuticals, and Sir Isaac Newton's theories on gravity in different parts of the universe. You were way, way, way off topic, and even you yourself admitted it:
So, how does this relate to the *AA? It doesn't directly. It's more of an analogy...
Frankly, I didn't see the analogy, and I don't think anyone else did either.
If you can't admit that you were off topic, and you can't admit you were wrong about the law allowing service of a deposition subpoena on 24 hours notice, then you show yourself to be unworthy of being taken seriously.
Well, Lithden. You've about summed it up. I've been a litigation lawyer for more than 28 years, and have never seen anything like the way these lawyers practice.
Thanks for your help, but there are 3 things about this whole area that I just don't understand at all:
1) How come that in such a hugely litigation-loving country, the hundreds of thousands of parents of RIAA victims are not banding together for high-profile counter-suits against RIAA methods, demanding investigation of the ridiculous claimed losses, and calling for wholesale examination of the very concept of non-commercial music sharing as theft.
2) How come that the US legal system itself isn't taking an interest in the RIAA's operating methods, which certainly verge incredibly close to racketerring and extortion, remaining within the letter of the law only by a technicality, and quite possibly involving both abuse of minors and entrapment. Have the Attorney Generals etc no sense of fairness at all, outside the letter of the law?
And 3) In a country so hell-bent on exorcising the anti-trust demon, how come that there is no top-level anti-competitive examination and oversight of the labels' grip on all the key channels of music promotion, without which the ridiculously high price of CDs would have plummeted by normal competitive pressures long ago. Without this very effective monopoly grip on the minds and ears of listeners, the labels would not be able to *afford* to annoy potential customers in the way that they are doing.
In summary, as an outsider, none of this makes any sense to me.
1. It's a myth that this country loves litigation. Most people detest it.
2. I don't know why the attorneys general are not investigating the RIAA's campaign; perhaps they are, and neither you nor I happen to know about it. I know of at least one judge who has taken an interest -- Judge Lee West in Capitol v. Foster -- who has determined that the defendant is entitled to be reimbursed for her quite substantial, and still growing, attorneys fees.
3. Since the Ronald Reagan presidency, the federal government has practically ceased enforcing the great body of antitrust law which had come about during the preceding 85 years. I am hoping for the pendulum to start swinging the other way. Our country has not been 'hell bent on exorcising the antitrust demon' for 25 years, which is why our corporations are so huge, why anticompetitive cartels are permitted to go their merry way, why anticompetitive combinations and mergers have been permitted, why small business finds it so difficult and big business finds it so easy.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are a troll Mr. Coward. Obviously it's relevant to the counterclaims for extortionate and deceptive practices.
A second reason that it is important is that Ms. Andersen was the first person to seriously interpose aggressive counterclaims against the RIAA based on the RIAA's own misconduct.
If Tanya Andersen wins this round, the RIAA will be on the defensive all across the country.
1. "Though the wheels of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."
2. I loved that footnote, too.... in his gentlemanly way pointing out their complete and total dishonesty.
Probably more like ~25,000.... but of course only they know for sure.
I don't think it would be very hard to collect a judgment against these companies....
I can't for the life of me fathom what they are doing other than enriching their lawyers. Plus they're ensuring that Ms. Foster's attorney will have a nice payday at the end of this, which will enable her to help many more RIAA victims.
They're turning a $55,000 attorneys fees award into a $150,000 award, and spending a lot of money to do it.
Plus they're ensuring that their fee arrangements -- which they don't want people like me to know about -- will become public.
Go figure.
I've been in the litigation field for 32 1/2 years, and I can't imagine what they are thinking.
But Capitol v. Foster has already given the rest of us a number of excellent judicial precedents, and it seems that more are on the way.
But when the Court's final decision fixing the amount of fees is issued, the details will probably be in the decision.
And if the RIAA appeals, then the underlying papers will be filed as part of the appellate record, and it is highly unlikely that the appeals court would keep them confidential.
The problem probably is that the right wing's control over the presidency, and until recently Congress, has made class actions -- which are equalizers between rich and poor -- harder to bring. Which means there are less class action firms out there, and those that can operate can afford to be, and actually have to be, very selective.
If anyone wants to look up that case it's UMG v. Lindor.
SONY rootkit case was settled.
And notice that it's an off-topic troll, to boot.
That's only if other RIAA trolls get mod points.
My vote: it's the troll. It's too stupid to do a parody of anything.
Sounds like an RIAA troll to me. Yeah, like the RIAA is trying to help small business.
1. Who pays for the neutral expert?
2. Who makes the deletion of the privileged files?
3. How are the privileged files going to be deleted?
1. I guess you didn't read what I said. I was there. I'm a witness.
2. I guess you don't read much, or get around much. See, e.g. this, this, this, this, this, this , this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this about the Ohio 2004 election, for just a few samples of the voluminous material on the subject.
3. Now tell me what proof you have that it didn't occur. That what I witnessed and what millions of people in Ohio witnessed didn't happen.
4. How dare you let your partisanship excuse your misrepresenting the truth about something so important as the right to vote. A lot of people have given their lives for that freedom.
It was evident that the national media had conferred with each other, and for whatever reason -- perhaps based upon a paternalistic decision that the American people could not handle the truth, and needed at least 50% of their presidential elections to be honestly decided -- reinvented the facts.
Ignoring a subpoena is a dangerous business. Never advisable.
Yes it is frustrating.
They should "prey" in hell.
Off topic again.
Your post had nothing to do with this subject at all. It had to do with a criminal case in Cleveland Ohio, a History Channel show on pharmaceuticals, and Sir Isaac Newton's theories on gravity in different parts of the universe. You were way, way, way off topic, and even you yourself admitted it:
So, how does this relate to the *AA? It doesn't directly. It's more of an analogy...Frankly, I didn't see the analogy, and I don't think anyone else did either.
If you can't admit that you were off topic, and you can't admit you were wrong about the law allowing service of a deposition subpoena on 24 hours notice, then you show yourself to be unworthy of being taken seriously.
1. In the first place, you're way off topic, as you yourself seem to recognize.
2. In the second place, there's nothing in the law that says they can to what they did. In fact, the law says quite the opposite.
Well, Lithden. You've about summed it up. I've been a litigation lawyer for more than 28 years, and have never seen anything like the way these lawyers practice.
1) How come that in such a hugely litigation-loving country, the hundreds of thousands of parents of RIAA victims are not banding together for high-profile counter-suits against RIAA methods, demanding investigation of the ridiculous claimed losses, and calling for wholesale examination of the very concept of non-commercial music sharing as theft.
2) How come that the US legal system itself isn't taking an interest in the RIAA's operating methods, which certainly verge incredibly close to racketerring and extortion, remaining within the letter of the law only by a technicality, and quite possibly involving both abuse of minors and entrapment. Have the Attorney Generals etc no sense of fairness at all, outside the letter of the law?
And 3) In a country so hell-bent on exorcising the anti-trust demon, how come that there is no top-level anti-competitive examination and oversight of the labels' grip on all the key channels of music promotion, without which the ridiculously high price of CDs would have plummeted by normal competitive pressures long ago. Without this very effective monopoly grip on the minds and ears of listeners, the labels would not be able to *afford* to annoy potential customers in the way that they are doing.
In summary, as an outsider, none of this makes any sense to me.
1. It's a myth that this country loves litigation. Most people detest it.
2. I don't know why the attorneys general are not investigating the RIAA's campaign; perhaps they are, and neither you nor I happen to know about it. I know of at least one judge who has taken an interest -- Judge Lee West in Capitol v. Foster -- who has determined that the defendant is entitled to be reimbursed for her quite substantial, and still growing, attorneys fees.
3. Since the Ronald Reagan presidency, the federal government has practically ceased enforcing the great body of antitrust law which had come about during the preceding 85 years. I am hoping for the pendulum to start swinging the other way. Our country has not been 'hell bent on exorcising the antitrust demon' for 25 years, which is why our corporations are so huge, why anticompetitive cartels are permitted to go their merry way, why anticompetitive combinations and mergers have been permitted, why small business finds it so difficult and big business finds it so easy.