I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.
If you are not worried NYCL I sleep all that much more easy but I have see[n] in my life far too many "hot shots" of any field, even when paired with experts, screw up. I don't like the path this could take is all.
(1) It's just one lower court case. (2) This judge, having been burned once by the RIAA's deceitful lawyers, who (a) failed to disclose contrary controlling authority, and (b) failed to disclose that an unpublished decision they'd provided to the judge had been overturned a week earlier, isn't likely to be taken in again on any point of law. It is only on a point of law that the case could be cited in any other case. The facts of the case are only the facts of the case, and a jury verdict against Ms. Thomas-Rasset is not a precedent against anyone except her.
The worst that can happen is that Jammie will lose again, this time for a lower amount than the time before. And then there would be some motion practice over the due process challenge to the statutory damages award. I'm just glad to see some enthusiastic lawyers like this, giving it their all, and giving the fakes a run for their money.
Despite the hype from Wired, Ars, Slashdot, and elsewhere, this particular case is just not that important legally. The important cases going on right now are Arista v. Does 1-16 and Lava v. Amurao, both in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If the good guys win in those cases, the RIAA's campaign is over.
Well don't misquote me. I'm not in a position to say whether he is a "gifted lawyer" or not. What I said was he and his firm have demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are "(a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working".
What do you mean you'll ignore it? Damn, that's the best part.
and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart.
Instead of my just being a snarky bastard? Well thanks for the more charitable interpretation.
Instead, I'll ask for clarification
I can do that too, although I prefer snarky.
- are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer?
Yes they are. But the actual filing and preparation is done by the RIAA. They just stick the record companies' names in. And when needed they give the record companies papers to sign. And then, if they get a judgment, the record companies assign the judgment to the RIAA, and the RIAA brings its own judgment collection proceeding.
For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?
Right.
As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.
Yeah, the settlement checks are payable to "RIAA Litigation Fund" (or something like that).
Oh, and by the way, Matthew Oppenheim, who acts as the "client" and the "principal" of the record companies, for settlement purposes, was at the counsel table during the first trial (and was observed by Ars Technica's reporter as reading my blog on his laptop), and has gotten himself admitted pro hac vice in the case this time around, which means he will be doing some questioning, or argument, or both.
By the way, I submitted a proposed article a few days ago -- which is still in the Firehose -- about the Judge denying the RIAA's motion to bar Jammie from objecting to the defects in their copyright registration documents. I guess the article is being rejected, although it was voted up to "orange" in the Firehose, so you might want to check it out.
This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny.
Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high.
I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open.
Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre.
I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom.
Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.
I wouldn't worry about it. This firm has shown that they are (a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working. Sure they're young, but that's okay. Win, lose, or draw, only good can come out of their being in the case and giving the RIAA a run for its money. I wish every case was litigated with this much dedication and "attitude". The RIAA's lawyers are so accustomed to having a walk through the park on almost every case, that they are probably in shock at the moment.
I guess you couldn't even be bothered to read the first sentence of the summary, which said "seeking to bar the defendant.... from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents".
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?
Didn't you read my second sentence:
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
I've just never heard you say "Hey guys - come look at this" before. Perhaps I should check your webpage more often.
I did it on Slashdot and on Groklaw, both before the deposition of Doug Jacobson -- to get ideas for the deposition -- and after -- to get the transcript vetted.
I also did it for the MediaSentry document production, but the editors rejected my story submission.
But normally I don't specifically ask for help; I just get it.
Other things that can be done:
If you are qualified to be either a tech consultant or tech expert witness, and you learn of a case that is being defended in your geographical area, reach out to the lawyer to offer your assistance.
Contribute, if you can afford to, to the Expert Witness Defense Fund being administered by the Free Software Foundation specifically for the purposes of hiring experts to serve as expert witnesses and/or tech consultants. Or contribute to other legal defense funds which pop up from time to time in specific cases.
Ray, the difference between what he said and what you said is you saying "Hey! I could use (some specific type of) help here!"
If you asked for help here I'm pretty sure you would get it. How can we help? Money? Bodies? Protestors? Pushing your message far and wide? Whatever you need. We're here for you as long as you keep doing what you're doing because we believe in it and you. You're working hard for us. I'm sure some of us have time to work for you.
How can we help?
Well the fact of the matter is the people who interact with the stories here and in the comment section of my blog are helping me all the time. People are always spotting flaws in the RIAA's junk science, and passing them along. When I specifically asked for help, as in the deposition of the RIAA's expert, I got a tremendous and valubable outpouring.
We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day.
So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing these past 4 years.
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Every state has an organization which has the power to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct, up to and including disbarment.
Is it possible that the RIAA lawyers are competent, but are also whores who will do any little silly thing because their pay masters keep the cash-ola flowing?
Not IMO. IMO they are both incompetent and whores.
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
You are correct that it's those 4 corporations hiding behind the RIAA as a front. I use "RIAA" as shorthand. But knowing those 4 names doesn't really help because most of the records are sold under their affiliated labels. So the best way to know which are the real bad guys is to go to my Index of Litigation Documents and look at the plaintiffs' names. And the best way to avoid patronizing any RIAA label is to check them out on RIAA Radar.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly
In your experience, is this generally the case?
Yes. If the judge says 'this is the rule we're going to play by' then that's the rule.
This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.
Will you do anything to help them? If they win, the Slashdot crowd will support you for supporting them.
I always offer my assistance to every lawyer representing a victim of the RIAA.
If you are not worried NYCL I sleep all that much more easy but I have see[n] in my life far too many "hot shots" of any field, even when paired with experts, screw up. I don't like the path this could take is all.
(1) It's just one lower court case. (2) This judge, having been burned once by the RIAA's deceitful lawyers, who (a) failed to disclose contrary controlling authority, and (b) failed to disclose that an unpublished decision they'd provided to the judge had been overturned a week earlier, isn't likely to be taken in again on any point of law. It is only on a point of law that the case could be cited in any other case. The facts of the case are only the facts of the case, and a jury verdict against Ms. Thomas-Rasset is not a precedent against anyone except her.
The worst that can happen is that Jammie will lose again, this time for a lower amount than the time before. And then there would be some motion practice over the due process challenge to the statutory damages award. I'm just glad to see some enthusiastic lawyers like this, giving it their all, and giving the fakes a run for their money.
Despite the hype from Wired, Ars, Slashdot, and elsewhere, this particular case is just not that important legally. The important cases going on right now are Arista v. Does 1-16 and Lava v. Amurao, both in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If the good guys win in those cases, the RIAA's campaign is over.
Well don't misquote me. I'm not in a position to say whether he is a "gifted lawyer" or not. What I said was he and his firm have demonstrated to my satisfaction that they are "(a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working".
I'll ignore the snarky end of your reply
What do you mean you'll ignore it? Damn, that's the best part.
and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart.
Instead of my just being a snarky bastard? Well thanks for the more charitable interpretation.
Instead, I'll ask for clarification
I can do that too, although I prefer snarky.
- are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer?
Yes they are. But the actual filing and preparation is done by the RIAA. They just stick the record companies' names in. And when needed they give the record companies papers to sign. And then, if they get a judgment, the record companies assign the judgment to the RIAA, and the RIAA brings its own judgment collection proceeding.
For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?
Right.
As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.
Yeah, the settlement checks are payable to "RIAA Litigation Fund" (or something like that).
Oh, and by the way, Matthew Oppenheim, who acts as the "client" and the "principal" of the record companies, for settlement purposes, was at the counsel table during the first trial (and was observed by Ars Technica's reporter as reading my blog on his laptop), and has gotten himself admitted pro hac vice in the case this time around, which means he will be doing some questioning, or argument, or both.
By the way, I submitted a proposed article a few days ago -- which is still in the Firehose -- about the Judge denying the RIAA's motion to bar Jammie from objecting to the defects in their copyright registration documents. I guess the article is being rejected, although it was voted up to "orange" in the Firehose, so you might want to check it out.
This stunt is dangerous. This rookie kid might just as well land the RIAA a win. The odds may look good for Kiwi right now but if the rookie screws up he may end up handing the RIAA a free ticket to tyranny. Remember he could lose and set more case precident in favor of the RIAA. This guy is gambling and the stakes are incredibly high. I am not amused at this, it's risking everyone rights and the future of fair use, by putting the case in his hands. He has noting to lose in this, he'll get his 15 minutes of fame either way. If he wins, great a blow to intellectual tyranny. If he loses, the law suit lottery flood gates are blown wide open. Going on the offense against an industry who is backed by both parties, who have pretty much hand picked damn near ever appeals judge out there, sounds like about the dumbest idea since the Sword-Chucks from 8 bit theatre. I'm not a fan of gambling with people's freedom. Yeah I said it. Mod me whatever, but this scares the hell out of me... IANALBMWIAPL and she's pretty spooked too.
I wouldn't worry about it. This firm has shown that they are (a) enthusiastic, (b) tech-savvy, (c) smart, (d) principled, and (e) hard working. Sure they're young, but that's okay. Win, lose, or draw, only good can come out of their being in the case and giving the RIAA a run for its money. I wish every case was litigated with this much dedication and "attitude". The RIAA's lawyers are so accustomed to having a walk through the park on almost every case, that they are probably in shock at the moment.
The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA
Wrong.
nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA"
And wrong.
Care to try for a third incorrect statement?
I guess you couldn't even be bothered to read the first sentence of the summary, which said "seeking to bar the defendant.... from making objections to the plaintiffs' copyright registration documents".
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
Today the judge denied the motion.
Seriously, wtf is wrong with the American legal system?
Didn't you read my second sentence:
To preempt those of you reacting with shock and anger at the American judicial system, let me assure you this motion has nothing to do with the American judicial system; the RIAA's motion has the chance of a snowball in Hell of being granted, as there is simply no legal basis for preventing a person from making valid legal objections in Trial #2, just because the lawyer she had in Trial #1 didn't make similar objections.
Boy some people are so predictable.
I've just never heard you say "Hey guys - come look at this" before. Perhaps I should check your webpage more often.
I did it on Slashdot and on Groklaw, both before the deposition of Doug Jacobson -- to get ideas for the deposition -- and after -- to get the transcript vetted.
I also did it for the MediaSentry document production, but the editors rejected my story submission.
But normally I don't specifically ask for help; I just get it.
Other things that can be done:
If you are qualified to be either a tech consultant or tech expert witness, and you learn of a case that is being defended in your geographical area, reach out to the lawyer to offer your assistance.
Contribute, if you can afford to, to the Expert Witness Defense Fund being administered by the Free Software Foundation specifically for the purposes of hiring experts to serve as expert witnesses and/or tech consultants. Or contribute to other legal defense funds which pop up from time to time in specific cases.
NYCL, if you are going to respond to every single post, then why don't you just invite us all 'round for a cup of tea?
I was waiting for you guys to invite me. And I was hoping for coffee.
Ray, the difference between what he said and what you said is you saying "Hey! I could use (some specific type of) help here!" If you asked for help here I'm pretty sure you would get it. How can we help? Money? Bodies? Protestors? Pushing your message far and wide? Whatever you need. We're here for you as long as you keep doing what you're doing because we believe in it and you. You're working hard for us. I'm sure some of us have time to work for you. How can we help?
Well the fact of the matter is the people who interact with the stories here and in the comment section of my blog are helping me all the time. People are always spotting flaws in the RIAA's junk science, and passing them along. When I specifically asked for help, as in the deposition of the RIAA's expert, I got a tremendous and valubable outpouring.
They already have certified copies? So they lied in their brief?
If you're surrpised by that, you must be new here.
We're all about openness here. Open source, open standards...openness. We've seen the good it can do. A good example is the Linux kernel. What makes it so good? What makes it work so well? The many thousands of eyes looking at it every day. It is open, and has a lot of good and talented people studying it every day. So why not open up cases like these to public scrutiny and try for the same result?
I thought that's exactly what I've been doing these past 4 years.
Ray, do lawyers not have somebody watching over them? Some body of management with the responsibility to say, "Hey, you're developing a serious pattern of malpractice here and we've got to send you back to lawyer school before we let you work any more because you might hurt somebody"?
Every state has an organization which has the power to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct, up to and including disbarment.
My guess is that the RIAA has a bit more "working capital" than Mr. Beckerman...
Yeah, but their balance sheet is probably looking more and more like mine every day.
The RIAA has an additional argument that seems to me to have some validity, namely the expense of obtaining certified copies on an expedited basis....
What the hell kind of court system are they dealing with?
They already have all the copies. In fact, even I have a set of all the copies.
Is it possible that the RIAA lawyers are competent, but are also whores who will do any little silly thing because their pay masters keep the cash-ola flowing?
Not IMO. IMO they are both incompetent and whores.
But if he starts making his summaries vague and misleading, then he might get tapped to become an editor for Slashdot.
That would be great. Then I would be respected and admired by all, instead of being reviled, mocked, ridiculed, and derided on a daily basis.
Just because they're married, doesn't mean she couldn't file bankruptcy on her own.
Please stop saying "RIAA" unless you also name its constituent organizations. Calling them "RIAA" without naming them simply lets them off the hook: * EMI * Sony Music Entertainment * Universal Music Group * Warner Music Group
You are correct that it's those 4 corporations hiding behind the RIAA as a front. I use "RIAA" as shorthand. But knowing those 4 names doesn't really help because most of the records are sold under their affiliated labels. So the best way to know which are the real bad guys is to go to my Index of Litigation Documents and look at the plaintiffs' names. And the best way to avoid patronizing any RIAA label is to check them out on RIAA Radar.