We here on Slashdot may have no love for the RIAA. But in general, defendants shouldn't be forced into exposing sensitive information, like trade secrets or business strategies, as a means to blackmail them into settling.
You mean like the RIAA does in every single one of their cases? Turning over all computer in the house probably with privilege information all over it as well as the only way these defendants have to contact and organize a defense.
Excellent observation, LORAX.
Actually the real reason the RIAA presses for secrecy of its own information in every case is that it seeks to increase the litigation costs for the defendants in other cases. The more information a defendant's lawyer can obtain online, from other cases, the less work he or she has to do in the case at hand.
I must admit, at first glance, I was concerned since I only knew about recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com [blogspot.com], but beckermanlegal.com [beckermanlegal.com] is in TFS, so I would imagine it too is genuine Ray Beckerman
Yes, both are mine. I haven't had any trouble opening the *pdf.
But are there any plausible and non-nefarious explanations for this turn of events? I mean, is meeting with the defendant's attorneys privately, sealing the record of what went on there, and then sealing the plaintiff's motion a relatively normal thing? Or is it as weird and skeezy as it sounds?
In case you're wondering what's going on here, so am I."
Oh fuck. It was bad enough when we had rank-and-file nerds asking for legal advice on slashdot.
Now we have a 'house lawyer', so to speak, and he's asking for legal information on slashdot.
The apocalypse is upon us! Run for the hills!*
IANAL. Even if I were a lawyer, I'd not be YOUR lawyer. This is not legal advice. By reading this footnote, you are agreeing to not hold Red Flayer liable for any damages sustained while running for the hills. For that matter, please walk, don't run -- and make sure to look both ways before crossing the street.
Good post, Red_Flayer. But I thought you guys could help me out and explain to me what's going on; I've only been working in the litigation field for 35 years, so I'm kind of new at this.
In Soviet Russia....... oh wait, maybe we are in Soviet Russia.
Just wanted to report that the excellent p2pnet.net site, which is the source of the last link in the story, is back online! Welcome, Jon, glad you've put the server problem behind you! All the best.
1. I am not here to give legal advice, so you if you want my "expert opinion" you would have to consult with me, which you have not. Saying that your comment was "bunk" was merely an informal comment on your comment.
2. Long ago when I got involved in blogging about copyright cases, and visiting Slashdot, I had to develop protocols for myself, since my profession is trial lawyer, not blogger. One of those protocols is that I NEVER get into debate over legal issues WHICH I HAVE NOT YET LITIGATED, because it would disadvantage my clients to give the RIAA a preliminary free look at my thoughts. I never discuss any of the legal issues until after they have been formally and publicly argued. The only thing I have said to you about the law so far in this case, and the only thing I am going to say at this stage, is that, in my professional opinion, the authorities cited in Mr. Altman's briefs are correct, and the arguments Mr. Altman made are correct, while the arguments the RIAA made, and the decisions in the lower court, were incorrect.
Just because this is Slashdot, doesn't mean that you have to behave like just another moron, Ray.
Even if the OP was 100% wrong, the fact that it was presented reasonably deserved more than you gave. Your response just made you look unprofessional, not to mention slightly dumb or at least insensitive to queries. A short explanation was in order, not a berating and a dismissal.
Try harder. You're held to a higher standard than most here.
Sorry you disapprove. Why don't you set your own standards for yourself, and let me set my standards for myself. Here on Slashdot, when conversing with my friends, I have the right to be "just another moron". So why don't you take a flying leap?
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge
I haven't lost any "cases". I said I lost some "motions". I lost 3 motions on the John Doe procedural issues. In the named defendant cases, I made 4 dismissal motions, each based on 2 different topics: (a) the making available issue and (b) the specificity issue as to downloading & distributing. Here is the track record:
-Elektra v. Santangelo: judge denied motion as to (b), didn't say how she was ruling as to (a); -Maverick v. Goldshteyn: judge denied (b), deferred (a) until after discovery on the ground that he did not understand the technology; -Electra v. Barker: judge granted motion as to (a) and denied it as to (b); -Warner v. Cassin: motion never decided because RIAA withdrew the case before it could be decided. There were 7 different judges, no magistrates.
One of the judges on the panel which issued the stay and probably will hear the appeal in Arista Records v. Does 1 -1 6 is my former torts professor at Yale Law School (and later the dean), Guido Calabresi. You could not ask for a more intelligent, decent and intellectually honest judge.
You were privileged indeed to be able to study at the feet of this man, who embodies what is good in our profession.
I went the trouble of reading the documents, that of both parties and the judge..... And was left with those questions.
Actually I didn't see any questions, I just saw your statement of your opinions. If your question is "this is my opinion, why am I wrong?", my answer to that is : "please read the papers that were prepared by Richard A. Altman, in the lower court and in the appeals court, and the numerous authorities he cited to the Court. They correctly state the law. There is nothing I could tell you that Richard has not already said".
Obviously, you are much more satisfied with the Magistrate's decision than are 3 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Which doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right. But looking at the composition of that panel, and having studied the law myself for the past 35 years, IMHO you are wrong and they are right to be concerned.
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.
I'm going out on a limb, here, but I would bet you that the vast majority of non-lawyers would also have "found" a lot of "problems" with the Magistrate Judge's decision. (Which is one of the reasons I raised my "troll" alert on the GP post, but I must confess that my primary reason for raising the "troll" alert was the language: "I'm no fan of the MAFIAA, however....." Most of the trolls -- or shills -- start out with that disclaimer.)
There is a clearly defined way of getting information into the court system. Media Sentry & the RIAA don't follow those rules, so why should they be allowed to present their information? The alternative is to have to preface every case with a hearing on each piece of evidence to determine if it was obtained in a valid manner.
Why should the court allow a company to waste it's time with hundreds of hearings that do nothing except increase the cost of the litigation for the defendant, when it could all be reduced to 2 questions:
* Are you a licensed investigator?
* Did you follow the peer reviewed guidelines in obtaining this information?
Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
No, in my personal opinion. Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are a troll. I would like to think it's the former, rather than the latter.
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
Moreover there are practical reasons supporting severing the claims against the defendants. The filing fees for the recent four cases totaled $600, whereas filing fees for 254 separate cases would have been $38,100. ..Because these four suits are in actuality 254 separate lawsuits, the Court sua sponte will dismiss without prejudice all but the first defendant in each case. ..In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Speaking from the point of view of an appellate court, it would tip us off that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been cavalier about following the law. And we might direct the lower court to order the RIAA to show cause why it was not in contempt of that order.
Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Not to my knowledge. You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
In the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, they state in footnote 1, "Defendants rely on the same arguments Mr. Beckerman has raised and lost in other cases." Strangely enough, they fail to cite the actual cases in which these arguments have been "raised and lost." Are there actual legal precedents in which Mr. Beckerman's arguments have been found lacking, or are the RIAA lawyers just blatantly lying?
There are some motions we have made which we have lost in the lower courts, however we prevailed on the portion of our motions which was directed to the "making available" theory, and most other lawyers have prevailed on the misjoinder issue.
In the appeals court, all of that is basically academic. The appeals court is here to give the district courts direction, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
We here on Slashdot may have no love for the RIAA. But in general, defendants shouldn't be forced into exposing sensitive information, like trade secrets or business strategies, as a means to blackmail them into settling.
You mean like the RIAA does in every single one of their cases? Turning over all computer in the house probably with privilege information all over it as well as the only way these defendants have to contact and organize a defense.
Excellent observation, LORAX.
Actually the real reason the RIAA presses for secrecy of its own information in every case is that it seeks to increase the litigation costs for the defendants in other cases. The more information a defendant's lawyer can obtain online, from other cases, the less work he or she has to do in the case at hand.
I must admit, at first glance, I was concerned since I only knew about recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com [blogspot.com], but beckermanlegal.com [beckermanlegal.com] is in TFS, so I would imagine it too is genuine Ray Beckerman
Yes, both are mine. I haven't had any trouble opening the *pdf.
I'm no fan of the RIAA, but ....
Troll alert.
Ray, is it true that the RIAA mass-litigation model isn't even original, but rather harkens back to DirectTV?
Yes the bizarre mass-litigation model was pioneered in the Direct TV and cable descrambler cases, but the RIAA took it to new heights.
That's about all the free legal advice I can give at this time, if you're looking for more where that came from, my billable rate is $375.
No problem; just send the bills to CowboyNeal.
But are there any plausible and non-nefarious explanations for this turn of events? I mean, is meeting with the defendant's attorneys privately, sealing the record of what went on there, and then sealing the plaintiff's motion a relatively normal thing? Or is it as weird and skeezy as it sounds?
To me it sounds "weird and skeezy".
But what do I know?
Ray Beckerman:
In case you're wondering what's going on here, so am I."
Oh fuck. It was bad enough when we had rank-and-file nerds asking for legal advice on slashdot.
Now we have a 'house lawyer', so to speak, and he's asking for legal information on slashdot.
The apocalypse is upon us! Run for the hills!*
IANAL. Even if I were a lawyer, I'd not be YOUR lawyer. This is not legal advice. By reading this footnote, you are agreeing to not hold Red Flayer liable for any damages sustained while running for the hills. For that matter, please walk, don't run -- and make sure to look both ways before crossing the street.
Good post, Red_Flayer. But I thought you guys could help me out and explain to me what's going on; I've only been working in the litigation field for 35 years, so I'm kind of new at this.
In Soviet Russia....... oh wait, maybe we are in Soviet Russia.
Just wanted to report that the excellent p2pnet.net site, which is the source of the last link in the story, is back online! Welcome, Jon, glad you've put the server problem behind you! All the best.
1. I am not here to give legal advice, so you if you want my "expert opinion" you would have to consult with me, which you have not. Saying that your comment was "bunk" was merely an informal comment on your comment.
2. Long ago when I got involved in blogging about copyright cases, and visiting Slashdot, I had to develop protocols for myself, since my profession is trial lawyer, not blogger. One of those protocols is that I NEVER get into debate over legal issues WHICH I HAVE NOT YET LITIGATED, because it would disadvantage my clients to give the RIAA a preliminary free look at my thoughts. I never discuss any of the legal issues until after they have been formally and publicly argued. The only thing I have said to you about the law so far in this case, and the only thing I am going to say at this stage, is that, in my professional opinion, the authorities cited in Mr. Altman's briefs are correct, and the arguments Mr. Altman made are correct, while the arguments the RIAA made, and the decisions in the lower court, were incorrect.
All I want to say is: God bless you... and take those devils to hell!
Amen.
You have said that you are not a lawyer. So why do you feel qualified to opine on such a legal technicality as the admissibility of evidence?
You say you're not a troll, but you're arguing pretty hard for a "disinterested observer". And your arguments are pure bunk.
Will this be anything like the oral arguments I make with my wife in the bedroom?
Probably a little more exciting.
Troll alert.
Just because this is Slashdot, doesn't mean that you have to behave like just another moron, Ray. Even if the OP was 100% wrong, the fact that it was presented reasonably deserved more than you gave. Your response just made you look unprofessional, not to mention slightly dumb or at least insensitive to queries. A short explanation was in order, not a berating and a dismissal. Try harder. You're held to a higher standard than most here.
Sorry you disapprove. Why don't you set your own standards for yourself, and let me set my standards for myself. Here on Slashdot, when conversing with my friends, I have the right to be "just another moron". So why don't you take a flying leap?
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge
I haven't lost any "cases". I said I lost some "motions". I lost 3 motions on the John Doe procedural issues. In the named defendant cases, I made 4 dismissal motions, each based on 2 different topics: (a) the making available issue and (b) the specificity issue as to downloading & distributing. Here is the track record:
-Elektra v. Santangelo: judge denied motion as to (b), didn't say how she was ruling as to (a);
-Maverick v. Goldshteyn: judge denied (b), deferred (a) until after discovery on the ground that he did not understand the technology;
-Electra v. Barker: judge granted motion as to (a) and denied it as to (b);
-Warner v. Cassin: motion never decided because RIAA withdrew the case before it could be decided. There were 7 different judges, no magistrates.
One of the judges on the panel which issued the stay and probably will hear the appeal in Arista Records v. Does 1 -1 6 is my former torts professor at Yale Law School (and later the dean), Guido Calabresi. You could not ask for a more intelligent, decent and intellectually honest judge.
You were privileged indeed to be able to study at the feet of this man, who embodies what is good in our profession.
After 6 long years of madness, we are finally getting an appellate court to look at this. It is like rain falling on parched earth.
I went the trouble of reading the documents, that of both parties and the judge ..... And was left with those questions.
Actually I didn't see any questions, I just saw your statement of your opinions. If your question is "this is my opinion, why am I wrong?", my answer to that is : "please read the papers that were prepared by Richard A. Altman, in the lower court and in the appeals court, and the numerous authorities he cited to the Court. They correctly state the law. There is nothing I could tell you that Richard has not already said".
Obviously, you are much more satisfied with the Magistrate's decision than are 3 judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Which doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right. But looking at the composition of that panel, and having studied the law myself for the past 35 years, IMHO you are wrong and they are right to be concerned.
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However... I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.
I'm going out on a limb, here, but I would bet you that the vast majority of non-lawyers would also have "found" a lot of "problems" with the Magistrate Judge's decision. (Which is one of the reasons I raised my "troll" alert on the GP post, but I must confess that my primary reason for raising the "troll" alert was the language: "I'm no fan of the MAFIAA, however....." Most of the trolls -- or shills -- start out with that disclaimer.)
There is a clearly defined way of getting information into the court system. Media Sentry & the RIAA don't follow those rules, so why should they be allowed to present their information? The alternative is to have to preface every case with a hearing on each piece of evidence to determine if it was obtained in a valid manner.
Why should the court allow a company to waste it's time with hundreds of hearings that do nothing except increase the cost of the litigation for the defendant, when it could all be reduced to 2 questions:
* Are you a licensed investigator?
* Did you follow the peer reviewed guidelines in obtaining this information?
Exactly right.
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
They've never won a contested case.
Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
No, in my personal opinion. Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you are a troll. I would like to think it's the former, rather than the latter.
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
Moreover there are practical reasons supporting severing the claims against the defendants. The filing fees for the recent four cases totaled $600, whereas filing fees for 254 separate cases would have been $38,100. . .Because these four suits are in actuality 254 separate lawsuits, the Court sua sponte will dismiss without prejudice all but the first defendant in each case. . .In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Speaking from the point of view of an appellate court, it would tip us off that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been cavalier about following the law. And we might direct the lower court to order the RIAA to show cause why it was not in contempt of that order.
Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Not to my knowledge. You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
In the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, they state in footnote 1, "Defendants rely on the same arguments Mr. Beckerman has raised and lost in other cases." Strangely enough, they fail to cite the actual cases in which these arguments have been "raised and lost." Are there actual legal precedents in which Mr. Beckerman's arguments have been found lacking, or are the RIAA lawyers just blatantly lying?
There are some motions we have made which we have lost in the lower courts, however we prevailed on the portion of our motions which was directed to the "making available" theory, and most other lawyers have prevailed on the misjoinder issue.
In the appeals court, all of that is basically academic. The appeals court is here to give the district courts direction, not the other way around.