I'm too busy working and fighting for what I believe in to sit around wondering how the war between the good guys and the bad guys will all play out in the end.
The only thing I know about the future is that I will die one day, and when I reach that day, it will not matter to me what the final score is, but it will matter to me a lot (a) which team I was on, and (b) whether I was playing my best, or whether I'd taken myself out of the game.
The labels are listed as plaintiffs in the notice of voluntary dismissal. Put in a post listing them all. I do think people should know which labels to boycott, and which artists to write to.
It's not a myth. It's based on my personal experience.
How do you know how far I will go?
It wasn't just a stern letter. It was a letter marshalling evidentiary and legal material which would have formed the parameters of a battle the RIAA could only lose.
The RIAA lawyers, not being normal lawyers, actually do refer to settlements, default cases, ex parte rulings, and pro se cases, things which a normal lawyer learns at an early stage have no precedential value and are not supposed to be cited.
Regardless of who the local counsel is, all cases are run by Denver, Colorado, firm. There is a lawyer there who makes all the decisions, in consultation with his liaison counterpart at the RIAA. The decision had to have been made by them, no one else.
Civilized lawyers recognize that 'settlement' conversations are confidential and off the record, but the RIAA lawyers -- who are not civilized -- love to bring up the subject of settlement talks. 1. If you did have talks with them, they'll tell the court and suggest that it implies that you were guilty or are withholding information. 2. They'll misrepresent the contents of the talks. 3. If you don't have settlement conversations with them, they'll say that you refused to have talks with them, which makes you obstructionist.
Meanwhile they don't even understand the meaning of the word 'settlement' because they refuse to compromise or negotiate.
It's definitely a better strategy not to even discuss the issue with them, because once you do -- they'll keep on using it in their communications with the judge.
Since the purpose of the letter was to bring the suit to an end. And since the letter worked so well, bringing the litigation to an end within a matter of hours, I don't see the point in criticizing it. The letter did its job. A lawyer doesn't live in an ivory tower. He's there to get results for his client. Most letters accomplish nothing. Since this letter worked, it was, by definition, a good letter.
If you were in his client's shoes, you would be grateful.
Also, students should be getting together, and pooling their resources. E.g., if 10 students on a campus chip in $500 each, they can go hire a lawyer for $5000 to make a motion to prevent the RIAA from getting the "discovery order" they need in order to get the identities of the "John Does".
Making such a motion for 10 people would be almost exactly the same amount of work as making one for 1 person.
Probably not, which is one of the reasons people should not be rushing to pay the RIAA's extortion demands and sign its one-sided, oppressive "settlement" form.
In the real world a lawyer has to try to get the case shut down at the earliest possible juncture. There is no guarantee of getting attorneys fees later. The idea is to win, and win as fast as possible. Mr. Ledford did the right thing. And accomplished a great result.
Slashdot Mirror
To my way of thinking, such defeatism is the trap.... if it leads you to inaction.
I'm too busy fighting bad guys to sit around thinking about such things.
Yes I have never seen a clearer example.
Listen to what I'm saying:
Fatalism like that is the trap.
I'm too busy working and fighting for what I believe in to sit around wondering how the war between the good guys and the bad guys will all play out in the end.
The only thing I know about the future is that I will die one day, and when I reach that day, it will not matter to me what the final score is, but it will matter to me a lot (a) which team I was on, and (b) whether I was playing my best, or whether I'd taken myself out of the game.
I'd say "you're welcome", but I'm afraid to be modded down for not having anything more profound to say.
I don't know. See if you can find anything more detailed on it.
That's a cop-out. I'm too busy fighting these bad guys to give in to emotions that would steer me to inaction.
The labels are listed as plaintiffs in the notice of voluntary dismissal. Put in a post listing them all. I do think people should know which labels to boycott, and which artists to write to.
It's not a myth. It's based on my personal experience.
How do you know how far I will go?
It wasn't just a stern letter. It was a letter marshalling evidentiary and legal material which would have formed the parameters of a battle the RIAA could only lose.
The RIAA lawyers, not being normal lawyers, actually do refer to settlements, default cases, ex parte rulings, and pro se cases, things which a normal lawyer learns at an early stage have no precedential value and are not supposed to be cited.
A snowball in hell would actually have a better chance.
Regardless of who the local counsel is, all cases are run by Denver, Colorado, firm. There is a lawyer there who makes all the decisions, in consultation with his liaison counterpart at the RIAA. The decision had to have been made by them, no one else.
Nice post, cyphercell. I hope you are modded up for your excellent observations and good sense.
1. If you did have talks with them, they'll tell the court and suggest that it implies that you were guilty or are withholding information.
2. They'll misrepresent the contents of the talks.
3. If you don't have settlement conversations with them, they'll say that you refused to have talks with them, which makes you obstructionist.
Meanwhile they don't even understand the meaning of the word 'settlement' because they refuse to compromise or negotiate.
It's definitely a better strategy not to even discuss the issue with them, because once you do -- they'll keep on using it in their communications with the judge.
Yes the RIAA is acting illegally, and has even committed perjury, but getting the defendants compensated for that will be very difficult.
If you were in his client's shoes, you would be grateful.
Give the guy credit for a job well done.
Making such a motion for 10 people would be almost exactly the same amount of work as making one for 1 person.
I disagree with your outlook.
Here is mine.
Rule Number 1: All bullies are also cowards.
Rule Number 2: The only way to stop bullies is to beat them.
Rule Number 3: When you draw blood they run away because of Rule Number 1.
Thanks for the info, FishWithAHammer. Why wouldn't I believe you?
Incorrect. The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed hours after receipt of the letter.
Thanks for correcting me. I forgot about that.
1. The RIAA claims that there have been about 5000 settlements.
2. I'm not aware of a single case having gone to trial.
Probably not, which is one of the reasons people should not be rushing to pay the RIAA's extortion demands and sign its one-sided, oppressive "settlement" form.
There was no settlement. After receiving the letter, the RIAA almost immediately withdrew the case, on its own.
In Capitol v. Foster the RIAA moved to dismiss "with prejudice".
In the real world a lawyer has to try to get the case shut down at the earliest possible juncture. There is no guarantee of getting attorneys fees later. The idea is to win, and win as fast as possible. Mr. Ledford did the right thing. And accomplished a great result.