anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
Let me know the results of this poll. I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change.
It seems to me that RIAA getting smacked down, as well as setting itself up to be smacked down, would brighten the day of most/.ers.
NYCL, keep doing what you're doing. The humor will follow naturally.
OK then. I'll just stay in my present line of work, and hope things get better.
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
I'm pretty sure it's an achievement-system based on meme use. So I think you're about 1/1000 to date. Next time, throw in some stuff about old Koreans emailing, or Natalie Portman, or Beowulf clusters of our new overlords:-) Next submission will be your 200th, so you should totally go all out:-)
1. Become a member of Slashdot. 2. Watch, listen, and learn the wisdom of the Ancient Ones. 3. ???????? 4. Profit!
I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change. (Score:3, Funny)
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
I'm pretty sure it's an achievement-system based on meme use. So I think you're about 1/1000 to date. Next time, throw in some stuff about old Koreans emailing, or Natalie Portman, or Beowulf clusters of our new overlords:-) Next submission will be your 200th, so you should totally go all out:-)
I for one welcome the advice of our ZachPruckowski overlords.
my impression from the outside is that amicus briefs aren't usually all that central to a case and often get ignored.
Not so.
Perhaps I'm just wrong here.
Yes you're wrong on that point. This amicus brief cited 4 cases, and 2 law review articles which had not been cited in anyone else's brief.
Anyway, the fact that the RIAA feels any need to make a nasty response to such a brief reveals that they are beginning to realize that they are... errr... screwed...
I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
It would not be possible for me, or any lawyer of conscience and professionalism, to be on the RIAA's side in these cases. The RIAA lawyers routinely sign documents they know to be false.
Well if you click the link "pending sanctions motion", and then click through to the underlying litigation document -- my November 7, 2008, declaration -- there you will find a detailed, painstaking, point-by-point analysis of each and every deliberately false statement of fact they'd made in their motion. And if you click through to the UMG v. Lindor case, and look at the RIAA's "reply" declaration, you will see that they were unable to rebut a single one of my allegations.
anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
Let me know the results of this poll. I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change.
Well I wish computer programming was more accessible to me. What can you do? We live in a complex world. A lot of things require a lot of study to become "accessible", and each of us has only one lifetime. The law, like every other field of study, has its own language, conventions, methods, and processes. It takes time to learn them.
No kidding, Ray.
I've never seen the truth be a problem for them- they go plowing right on with their stuff, never mind that they're suing kids that could never have done the things they're accusing them of, the elderly, and even the dead.
There's a reason I tell people to just not deal with anything that touches their crap. ANYTHING.
Any use contributes to the network effect that fuels this insanity. Just say no. Just like with drugs.
Agreed. Especially important, now that they are trying to weasel their way in by cutting deals with MySpace and YouTube. Very important for people not to patronize those new joint ventures. They should go where the good music is: independent music.
NYCL, honest question here, is there a real procedure to file a response to an amicus curiae? I thought they were wholly independent input from outside observers to the Judge and that the litigating parties didn't have authority to "respond" to them? Maybe I'm naive on this but it seems to me that outside observers offering input should be off the table for responses from either of the litigants as the brief is filed by someone not affiliated with the case which the Judge is fully aware of. If this is legit to do, how often would you say litigants officially file responses to amicus curiae briefs? And if it's not very common how do you think a Judge would respond to receiving one (either negative, positive or neutral)? And finally, don't they have to ask permission before filing the brief?
They have asked for permission. The judge hasn't yet granted them permission.
I'm not saying I don't agree with the message getting across, however with the amount of resources they have to bear, we may be "biting hard" to use my own analogy, but what is it truly accomplishing? They are still a factor, they still have money and influence, and they still have the ability to do stupid, assinine things like this without any true reprisal.
I am proud of the work that you do good sir, and wish you and the FSF the best of luck in everything you do, I just think that shifting the focus in this campaign towards true information dissemination, in a sense of making it more accessible and understandable to the masses, would be beneficial in a sense of passing on the outrage these morons perpetuate into the public realm, by educating people on just WHY this is wrong and evil. I think if you get the public more aware of this matter, and more involved in the vocalisation of their anger towards these fools trying to steal our rights, then you create a self sustaining constituency of supporters who will add their voice to ours in seeking the downfall of the RIAA and their associated ilk, not to mention garnering more people and more voices in relation to Congress in letting their reps know just how much they hate the idea of the DMCA and the existance of the RIAA may help in having more legislation enacted to reverse or at least amend these ignorant laws.
I don't disagree that there are other things which should be done. But I'm doing the only things that I'm equipped to do: (a) fight them in court, and (b) tell the world about what's going on in these cases.
Darn it, Ray... now I'm beginning to suspect that YOU have some sort of bias against the RIAA too!;-)
How dare you say that? I have nothing against them. I wish them the best in their lives. I hope that, after they serve their time in jail, they succeed in finding honest work, and live out their days in peace.
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better argument to use.
The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Exactly, Nefarious. Except I would question whether it was "nicely structured". It was the work of an incompetent, untrained lawyer who has no respect for the law, and no understanding of what a lawyer is supposed to be. By filing such a brief he merely reinforced the fact that the law is against him. There is not a federal court in the land that will sustain the constitutionality, as against a due process challenge, of a statutory damages award equal to 2100 or more times the actual damages sustained.
The RIAA is not beyond our reach and their vain attempts to discredit Mr. Beckerman and defame their opponents, which are reminiscent of the Scientology theory of "lawsuits to harass and annoy, not to win" and policies of "fair game", prove that well reasoned counter-arguments from informed informed groups and individuals can be brutally effective in exposing the malicious nature of the RIAA spamigation campaigns, the flaws in their legal arguments, and the specious nature of their "evidence" for all to see. In fact, we should take it as hopeful a sign when they single us out for special attacks because it proves that we are being effective. The RIAA has lost the initiative as the shock of their initial lawsuit charge has petered out and now they are stuck in a melee which they cannot win against a new generation of music consumers whom they have now lost forever as customers due to their own ineptness and incompetence which they have also repeatedly demonstrated during their lawsuits (contradicting even their own statements and arguments in different cases over the same issues).
You are exactly right. The reason they went off on a tangent attacking FSF and myself is that they are losing. Their aimless, pointless, blustery ad hominem atack on the messengers simply calls attention to the fact that they have no suitable response to the message.
Looking over the summary, at least, I'm left with one question: Are there any actual legal ramifications to this, or does this more or less boil down to "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeeee!"?
There are no legal ramifications to the ad hominem attacks; the RIAA was merely saying "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeee!".
As to the rest of the brief it grossly misstates and misunderstands the law regarding the jurisprudence of Due Process scrutiny of statutory damage awards.
Fortunately, Judge Gertner -- unlike the RIAA's lawyers -- can read.
Let's just assume that everything they said were accurate accusations and that the FSF is anti-copyright, anti-RIAA, anti-whatever...
How is this relevant to their case?
It's not. The amicus brief simply brought certain legal authorities to the Court's attention. Either the authorities are in the book, or they're not. What FSF's personal opinion of the RIAA is, or what my personal opinion of the RIAA is, is completely irrelevant to anything.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
Let me know the results of this poll. I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change.
It seems to me that RIAA getting smacked down, as well as setting itself up to be smacked down, would brighten the day of most /.ers.
NYCL, keep doing what you're doing. The humor will follow naturally.
OK then. I'll just stay in my present line of work, and hope things get better.
If I really ever did create a Slashdot meme... I could go to my grave in peace, knowing I'd given something back to the world.
Good one. You were able to change your user name?
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
I'm pretty sure it's an achievement-system based on meme use. So I think you're about 1/1000 to date. Next time, throw in some stuff about old Koreans emailing, or Natalie Portman, or Beowulf clusters of our new overlords :-) Next submission will be your 200th, so you should totally go all out :-)
1. Become a member of Slashdot.
2. Watch, listen, and learn the wisdom of the Ancient Ones.
3. ????????
4. Profit!
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here?
You'll be new here until you tell those damn kids to get off your lawn.
I can't bring myself to use that Slashdot meme. I identify with the kids.
Would it be ok if I just warned them that my dog uses the lawn too?
How do you feel about thepiratebay guys ray?
I don't know anything about the facts of the case or about the law applicable to the case, so I can't comment.
I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change. (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't quit my day job just yet.
It's not like I really have a day job.
my best guess is that we're to take it as an indication that the RIAA is feeling defensive, i.e. nervous.
Good guess.
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
I'm pretty sure it's an achievement-system based on meme use. So I think you're about 1/1000 to date. Next time, throw in some stuff about old Koreans emailing, or Natalie Portman, or Beowulf clusters of our new overlords :-) Next submission will be your 200th, so you should totally go all out :-)
I for one welcome the advice of our ZachPruckowski overlords.
my impression from the outside is that amicus briefs aren't usually all that central to a case and often get ignored.
Not so.
Perhaps I'm just wrong here.
Yes you're wrong on that point. This amicus brief cited 4 cases, and 2 law review articles which had not been cited in anyone else's brief.
Anyway, the fact that the RIAA feels any need to make a nasty response to such a brief reveals that they are beginning to realize that they are ... errr ... screwed ...
On that... you are dead on.
I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
It would not be possible for me, or any lawyer of conscience and professionalism, to be on the RIAA's side in these cases. The RIAA lawyers routinely sign documents they know to be false.
Well if you click the link "pending sanctions motion", and then click through to the underlying litigation document -- my November 7, 2008, declaration -- there you will find a detailed, painstaking, point-by-point analysis of each and every deliberately false statement of fact they'd made in their motion. And if you click through to the UMG v. Lindor case, and look at the RIAA's "reply" declaration, you will see that they were unable to rebut a single one of my allegations.
anyone else think that the only reason NYCL submits these stories is to brighten up our day with the humour that ensues?
Let me know the results of this poll. I've never considered myself much good at providing humor, or at brightening anybody's day. But if I get strong results in the poll, I may have to reconsider my overall outlook, maybe even make a career change.
Well I wish computer programming was more accessible to me. What can you do? We live in a complex world. A lot of things require a lot of study to become "accessible", and each of us has only one lifetime. The law, like every other field of study, has its own language, conventions, methods, and processes. It takes time to learn them.
No kidding, Ray. I've never seen the truth be a problem for them- they go plowing right on with their stuff, never mind that they're suing kids that could never have done the things they're accusing them of, the elderly, and even the dead. There's a reason I tell people to just not deal with anything that touches their crap. ANYTHING. Any use contributes to the network effect that fuels this insanity. Just say no. Just like with drugs.
Agreed. Especially important, now that they are trying to weasel their way in by cutting deals with MySpace and YouTube. Very important for people not to patronize those new joint ventures. They should go where the good music is: independent music.
No I'm in the 912k series. Does that mean I will always 'be new here'?
Wow, that's a cool low number you have. How much you want for it?
Not that I have strong feelings about it.
NYCL, honest question here, is there a real procedure to file a response to an amicus curiae? I thought they were wholly independent input from outside observers to the Judge and that the litigating parties didn't have authority to "respond" to them? Maybe I'm naive on this but it seems to me that outside observers offering input should be off the table for responses from either of the litigants as the brief is filed by someone not affiliated with the case which the Judge is fully aware of. If this is legit to do, how often would you say litigants officially file responses to amicus curiae briefs? And if it's not very common how do you think a Judge would respond to receiving one (either negative, positive or neutral)? And finally, don't they have to ask permission before filing the brief?
They have asked for permission. The judge hasn't yet granted them permission.
I'm not saying I don't agree with the message getting across, however with the amount of resources they have to bear, we may be "biting hard" to use my own analogy, but what is it truly accomplishing? They are still a factor, they still have money and influence, and they still have the ability to do stupid, assinine things like this without any true reprisal. I am proud of the work that you do good sir, and wish you and the FSF the best of luck in everything you do, I just think that shifting the focus in this campaign towards true information dissemination, in a sense of making it more accessible and understandable to the masses, would be beneficial in a sense of passing on the outrage these morons perpetuate into the public realm, by educating people on just WHY this is wrong and evil. I think if you get the public more aware of this matter, and more involved in the vocalisation of their anger towards these fools trying to steal our rights, then you create a self sustaining constituency of supporters who will add their voice to ours in seeking the downfall of the RIAA and their associated ilk, not to mention garnering more people and more voices in relation to Congress in letting their reps know just how much they hate the idea of the DMCA and the existance of the RIAA may help in having more legislation enacted to reverse or at least amend these ignorant laws.
I don't disagree that there are other things which should be done. But I'm doing the only things that I'm equipped to do: (a) fight them in court, and (b) tell the world about what's going on in these cases.
You must be new here
You must be new here if you're saying that to NYCL.
You must be new here if you're not used to people saying 'you must be new here' to NYCL.
Question: how long do I have to be here before I can be said to no longer be new here? In Soviet Russia I would probably be considered old here.
Darn it, Ray... now I'm beginning to suspect that YOU have some sort of bias against the RIAA too! ;-)
How dare you say that? I have nothing against them. I wish them the best in their lives. I hope that, after they serve their time in jail, they succeed in finding honest work, and live out their days in peace.
I've noticed that people resort to ad hominem when they haven't a better argument to use. The 9-page brief looks like a very nicely structured ad hominem attack, but that's all it is.
Exactly, Nefarious. Except I would question whether it was "nicely structured". It was the work of an incompetent, untrained lawyer who has no respect for the law, and no understanding of what a lawyer is supposed to be. By filing such a brief he merely reinforced the fact that the law is against him. There is not a federal court in the land that will sustain the constitutionality, as against a due process challenge, of a statutory damages award equal to 2100 or more times the actual damages sustained.
The RIAA is not beyond our reach and their vain attempts to discredit Mr. Beckerman and defame their opponents, which are reminiscent of the Scientology theory of "lawsuits to harass and annoy, not to win" and policies of "fair game", prove that well reasoned counter-arguments from informed informed groups and individuals can be brutally effective in exposing the malicious nature of the RIAA spamigation campaigns, the flaws in their legal arguments, and the specious nature of their "evidence" for all to see. In fact, we should take it as hopeful a sign when they single us out for special attacks because it proves that we are being effective. The RIAA has lost the initiative as the shock of their initial lawsuit charge has petered out and now they are stuck in a melee which they cannot win against a new generation of music consumers whom they have now lost forever as customers due to their own ineptness and incompetence which they have also repeatedly demonstrated during their lawsuits (contradicting even their own statements and arguments in different cases over the same issues).
You are exactly right. The reason they went off on a tangent attacking FSF and myself is that they are losing. Their aimless, pointless, blustery ad hominem atack on the messengers simply calls attention to the fact that they have no suitable response to the message.
Looking over the summary, at least, I'm left with one question: Are there any actual legal ramifications to this, or does this more or less boil down to "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeeee!"?
There are no legal ramifications to the ad hominem attacks; the RIAA was merely saying "Mommy, make them stop saying mean things about meeeeee!".
As to the rest of the brief it grossly misstates and misunderstands the law regarding the jurisprudence of Due Process scrutiny of statutory damage awards.
Fortunately, Judge Gertner -- unlike the RIAA's lawyers -- can read.
Let's just assume that everything they said were accurate accusations and that the FSF is anti-copyright, anti-RIAA, anti-whatever... How is this relevant to their case?
It's not. The amicus brief simply brought certain legal authorities to the Court's attention. Either the authorities are in the book, or they're not. What FSF's personal opinion of the RIAA is, or what my personal opinion of the RIAA is, is completely irrelevant to anything.