You should use the new lossless comment compression codec. It encodes all of the information from your last post in the string, "Yes." I was going to ask you 'how does one do that?'. Then, when I went to reply, I saw the "Quote" option, used it, and of course found out what you were talking about.
I think this is a new feature, from Slashdot's beta discussion software, which I wasn't using until yesterday.
My biggest problem with the beta discussion software is that it doesn't seem to give you the option of changing the order from 'oldest first' to 'newest first' and doesn't seem to have the flat, nested, and threaded options.
Jimmy Valvano was a great coach and great person, who led an over-achieving NC State squad to an improbable, buzzer-beating victory in the NCAA men's basketball championship. His greater fight was his fight against cancer, which he lost in 1993 at the age of 47, but without ever losing his joy, his love of life, his love of, and respect for, people, and his boundless spirit.
This morning I received an email from Ms. Gerace directly, and it appears that the Technician Online article is not 100% accurate. In fact, the Office of Legal Services is not able to represent students in federal court, and the students will need to use outside counsel for the actual litigation. See correction on my blog.
I don't know why this motion would 'cripple the RIAA's lawsuit engine'. It just has to do with the simple right to interpose a counterclaim.
I can't imagine why the RIAA is even moving to dismiss, other than to raise the ante on the legal fees, which seems to be its usual M.O.
Assuming the judge denies the RIAA's dumb motion, he's not going to rule in defendant's favor dismissing the case. He's just going to say, OK the counterclaim stays.... now defendant has to prove it.
That's not a big deal. That's the way things normally are when not dealing with abusive litigants like the RIAA.
1. I still don't see your name there. Your profile gave 3 websites, but I didn't see your name on any of them. In any event, I am satisfied that you are not an RIAA troll.
2. In any event, this generation of law suits has nothing to do with any downloading "sites"; it is about peer-to-peer file sharing which does not go through any sites, but it computer-to-computer.
if i were to go online now and, using a well-known, well-trafficked file sharing site, downloaded a well-known track, and this were to attract the attention of the riaa driftnets, is it safe to say that i could survive the legal attack...
I have no idea what you're referring to when you say a "file sharing site", or what you mean by downloading attracting the attention of the riaa driftnets...I don't know why your question was modded up, because you don't seem familiar with the factual matrix of these cases at all.
It started in patent misuse and has expanded into copyright law. The EFF's brief gives a pretty good explanation of its current status in copyright law.
This will be cited by defendant's lawyers as yet another example of the RIAA pursuing a case it knew to be frivolous, and then withdrawing it before having to go to trial. I am not aware of a single case they have taken to trial.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
Jimmy Valvano was a great coach and great person, who led an over-achieving NC State squad to an improbable, buzzer-beating victory in the NCAA men's basketball championship. His greater fight was his fight against cancer, which he lost in 1993 at the age of 47, but without ever losing his joy, his love of life, his love of, and respect for, people, and his boundless spirit.
This morning I received an email from Ms. Gerace directly, and it appears that the Technician Online article is not 100% accurate. In fact, the Office of Legal Services is not able to represent students in federal court, and the students will need to use outside counsel for the actual litigation. See correction on my blog.
The RIAA controls the settlements, too. Here Matthew Oppenheim, who is from the RIAA, controlled the settlement process.
My comment is:
"No comment."
I don't know why this motion would 'cripple the RIAA's lawsuit engine'. It just has to do with the simple right to interpose a counterclaim.
I can't imagine why the RIAA is even moving to dismiss, other than to raise the ante on the legal fees, which seems to be its usual M.O.
Assuming the judge denies the RIAA's dumb motion, he's not going to rule in defendant's favor dismissing the case. He's just going to say, OK the counterclaim stays.... now defendant has to prove it.
That's not a big deal. That's the way things normally are when not dealing with abusive litigants like the RIAA.
2. In any event, this generation of law suits has nothing to do with any downloading "sites"; it is about peer-to-peer file sharing which does not go through any sites, but it computer-to-computer.
I do think that what they are doing is illegal.
Yes they are trying to use dirty legal trickery to torture his family, to punish him for having hired a good lawyer and pushed back.
I don't know what you mean about downloading from a file sharing site.
If you're asking me whether you can infringe copyright and get away with it by some legal maneuvering, the answer is no.
I had a tough time writing that, actually, because I didn't want to sound mean.
So I had to rephrase it.
In my own words: "it was a dumb question, possibly written by a troll trying to bait me".
Thanks, packeteer. I don't have the necessary connections for that kind of thing.
If by "being in the game" you mean representing defendants in litigations, I am presently handling 6 contested litigations.
You are incorrect. The lawsuits are directly controlled by the RIAA. Matthew Oppenheim at the RIAA is the liaison to the outside lawyers.
I have to be careful about saying "thank you" in this place. It's just not an interesting enough thing to say, for some people.
I have no idea what you're referring to when you say a "file sharing site", or what you mean by downloading attracting the attention of the riaa driftnets...I don't know why your question was modded up, because you don't seem familiar with the factual matrix of these cases at all.
It started in patent misuse and has expanded into copyright law. The EFF's brief gives a pretty good explanation of its current status in copyright law.
Thanks, Weasel. Much appreciated. (I say this at the risk of being modded down for having nothing interesting to say.).
I don't know if I can really assist. I'm a native Legalese-speaker.
It hasn't been decided by the judge, yet. But there are certain well-defined standards for admissibility, and Dr. J's testimony flunked them all.
The term "copyright piracy" has a well known meaning in copyright law. It means large scale, wholesale copying of entire works for commercial resale.
His testimony is now inadmissible in court.
How much more "crushed" can you get?
I don't take credit for the crushing; his own carelessness and lack of integrity is what crushed him.
He's a fake.
I'm right here.
This will be cited by defendant's lawyers as yet another example of the RIAA pursuing a case it knew to be frivolous, and then withdrawing it before having to go to trial. I am not aware of a single case they have taken to trial.
They knew they had no case against her. They always knew it. Their game is not law, it's extortion.