A little off topic, but I wonder what if anything the RIAA actually has accomplished from all these years of lawsuits. People hate them, is the money coming in at all?
They've accomplished absolutely nothing except: 1. enriching their lawyers and 2. bringing 4 record companies closer to obsolescence.
I think they pretty well explained their interest in the case when they said:
As an organization dedicated to the rights of computer users and their interaction with copyrighted works, we are concerned with the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law through legal proceedings against individuals who are generally unable to defend themselves.
Agreed Jane. And I think it's quite newsworthy that the Free Software Foundation has jumped into the fray, recognizing that the RIAA's tactic is to try to rewrite copyright law by suing defenseless people.
At least the laws about copyright infringement here were passed by a popularly elected, semi-almost-functioning legislature. We should be blaming ourselves for electing politicians that pass laws mandating criminal penalties in this instant.
Yes but I don't think there have been any elections where a choice between Democrat and Republican would have made a difference on that issue. So it's pretty tough to blame us, the voters.
Actually you DO see monopolies all the time in the US. The only thing is, you don't realize that they're monopolies.
The vast majority of people do realize that they are monopolies. The problem is that the government, since 1981, has been enslaved by its corporate overlords.
societies do not need to be terrorized with this dimwit copyright crusade by their governments against their own people
I for one welcome the control of our RIAA overlords, and their kind offer to permit the defendant to reduce his "restitution" by making a "public service announcement" to help them make more money.
Waitasec, I thought this WAS Ray... unless...
My God, you're dictating your Slashdot posts to your secretary. You magnificent bastard.
No nothing as cool as that. I was just trying to be funny -- i.e. as NYCL I'll go ask Ray what he thinks. Unfortunately, NYCL and Ray and Ray's secretary are all the same guy.
Thanks, rts. Much appreciated. Your advice is sound. Probably what I should be doing is hiring some more NYCL's to assist me. Then I would have more time for living and for my family.
If there was doubt before, there is none now...You are one of us....
Thanks. help us!!!!
How do you find the time to juggle all of the balls you have in mid-air?????
By neglecting my family and myself.
[I, for one , am glad you are currently juggling the balls!]
I, for one, am not so sure.
No, really!???
Really by neglecting my family and myself.
I check out your blog
Thank you
, check/., and other online sources...
Thank you for staying well informed; it's the primary reason I enjoy it here more than other places on the internet.
But I've often wondered how much sleep you average per week/month.
Not nearly as much as I should be getting; I could use a sabbatical.
Are you an android or AI??*
No, more like Robocop. Remnants of a human being, reassembled by special fibers; in my case the fibers are made of anger.
(keep juggling
Thank you
, IMHO-your doing great!!!)
IMHO if I was doing great I would have made the judges understand a long time ago what a line they've been handed; most tech people, and most well read people, understand. But I have yet to get the judges to understand, although they seem to be starting to wake up.
*maybe I'm just lazy, but how do you keep up???
I haven't studied the Staples v. Noonan case, so I don't know if it is in error or not. I do know that if it held that truth is not an absolute defense to defamation, in any of the 50 states of these United States, it is in error.
In addition to asking for Mr. Kogill's imprisonment, the RIAA is asking the Judge to order Mr. Kogill to pay them $30,000 "restitution" and make a "public service announcement". I think directing Mr. Kogill to do a "public service announcement" for the RIAA would be "cruel and unusual punishment".
It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."
You must be new to this world.
Yes I am new to it, have only been here 61 years. Still finding part of it rather strange... the human part.
RIAA and associates are working desperately to form future law by way of precedent. In doing so, they have violated and/or challenged more civil law than most people can dream of violating in an entire LIFETIME. Further, they have no problem with violating criminal law. The end justifies the means, and that end is future law. To RIAA, trampling the protocol of some court or another is just another bump in the road. Dictating how a trial will be conducted will soon be a RIAA prerogative, unless those courts get together, and put RIAA in their place NOW.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been stunned by the passivity of so many judges to date. Only a minority have stood up to protect the integrity of the federal judicial process from the RIAA cheats.
I'd amend the "thousand-front war" to "shooting fish in a barrel". Few of the RIAA driftnet targets have the time or resources to mount a defense, let alone proceed with a trial.
I honestly don't think them streaming video is at all relevant. Courtrooms are open to the public, and often open to cameras -- unless there is a compelling reason that what is said in the courtroom needs to be kept secret from the public.....
I agree.
You're right that this court has already seemingly determined that there's nothing wrong with the actual act of streaming court arguments, as evidenced by them doing so themselves.
Correct.
That doesn't mean they can't impartially hear arguments over whether or not there is something specific to this case that would deserve that protection.
Correct.
As far as changing venue, I'm pretty sure that's not an option for an appeal.
Certainly not in this case. It might be if all of the judges were shareholders in one of the parties, or something like that.
Changes of venue are for when they don't feel they can get a fair trial--and since they're the plaintiffs and brought suit in this particular jurisdiction themselves, I'd say that argument flies out the window pretty immediately. That said, this isn't a trial -- this is an appeal of a particular order made by the trial judge. The best I could see them doing is recusing themselves, but I've also never heard any precedent of an entire court recusing itself from a decision. It would be highly unlikely if it's even possible.
So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.
I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.
Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.
What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?
You've expressed it perfectly. And no, there's never been anything like this insanity before. Which is why, I think, the courts were caught off guard by it. Had they been more vigilant, like the courts of Canada and the Netherlands, this would have been nipped in the bud 5 1/2 years ago.
Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speaking, but this particular situation raises the rather interesting prospect of a venue change or something similar. Unless of course Ray says otherwise.
I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him. But I thinks there's as much chance of a 'change of venue' as a snowball in hell. The fact that a particular appellate court has indicated a certain view of the law would not constitute a ground for change of venue. That is what appellate courts are supposed to do, interpret the law.
I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.
Now that you put it that way, I guess you're right.
See, I learned a valuable lesson here: there's some good in everybody, even RIAA lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
A little off topic, but I wonder what if anything the RIAA actually has accomplished from all these years of lawsuits. People hate them, is the money coming in at all?
They've accomplished absolutely nothing except:
1. enriching their lawyers and
2. bringing 4 record companies closer to obsolescence.
As an organization dedicated to the rights of computer users and their interaction with copyrighted works, we are concerned with the RIAA's attempt to redefine copyright law through legal proceedings against individuals who are generally unable to defend themselves.
"defending the defendant's Due Process defense"
This sentence construction is indefensible!
I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
Agreed Jane. And I think it's quite newsworthy that the Free Software Foundation has jumped into the fray, recognizing that the RIAA's tactic is to try to rewrite copyright law by suing defenseless people.
There is always a motion for leave to file amicus brief filed with the amicus brief. The amicus brief itself is attached. That is the only filing.
At least the laws about copyright infringement here were passed by a popularly elected, semi-almost-functioning legislature. We should be blaming ourselves for electing politicians that pass laws mandating criminal penalties in this instant.
Yes but I don't think there have been any elections where a choice between Democrat and Republican would have made a difference on that issue. So it's pretty tough to blame us, the voters.
Actually you DO see monopolies all the time in the US. The only thing is, you don't realize that they're monopolies.
The vast majority of people do realize that they are monopolies. The problem is that the government, since 1981, has been enslaved by its corporate overlords.
societies do not need to be terrorized with this dimwit copyright crusade by their governments against their own people
I for one welcome the control of our RIAA overlords, and their kind offer to permit the defendant to reduce his "restitution" by making a "public service announcement" to help them make more money.
This was a white-collar crime.
This kid doesn't have a collar. He wears t-shirts. Like we do.
I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him.
Waitasec, I thought this WAS Ray... unless... My God, you're dictating your Slashdot posts to your secretary. You magnificent bastard.
No nothing as cool as that. I was just trying to be funny -- i.e. as NYCL I'll go ask Ray what he thinks. Unfortunately, NYCL and Ray and Ray's secretary are all the same guy.
Thanks, rts. Much appreciated. Your advice is sound. Probably what I should be doing is hiring some more NYCL's to assist me. Then I would have more time for living and for my family.
If there was doubt before, there is none now...You are one of us....
Thanks. help us!!!! How do you find the time to juggle all of the balls you have in mid-air?????
By neglecting my family and myself.
[I, for one , am glad you are currently juggling the balls!]
I, for one, am not so sure.
No, really!???
Really by neglecting my family and myself.
I check out your blog
Thank you
, check /., and other online sources...
Thank you for staying well informed; it's the primary reason I enjoy it here more than other places on the internet.
But I've often wondered how much sleep you average per week/month.
Not nearly as much as I should be getting; I could use a sabbatical.
Are you an android or AI??*
No, more like Robocop. Remnants of a human being, reassembled by special fibers; in my case the fibers are made of anger.
(keep juggling
Thank you
, IMHO-your doing great!!!)
IMHO if I was doing great I would have made the judges understand a long time ago what a line they've been handed; most tech people, and most well read people, understand. But I have yet to get the judges to understand, although they seem to be starting to wake up. *maybe I'm just lazy, but how do you keep up???
I haven't studied the Staples v. Noonan case, so I don't know if it is in error or not. I do know that if it held that truth is not an absolute defense to defamation, in any of the 50 states of these United States, it is in error.
In addition to asking for Mr. Kogill's imprisonment, the RIAA is asking the Judge to order Mr. Kogill to pay them $30,000 "restitution" and make a "public service announcement". I think directing Mr. Kogill to do a "public service announcement" for the RIAA would be "cruel and unusual punishment".
I guess you don't know what I mean by the word "absolute".
It is hard to imagine how a court which routinely streams its own oral arguments can rule that it is somehow inappropriate for similar oral arguments in the district court to be streamed as well."
You must be new to this world.
Yes I am new to it, have only been here 61 years. Still finding part of it rather strange... the human part.
RIAA and associates are working desperately to form future law by way of precedent. In doing so, they have violated and/or challenged more civil law than most people can dream of violating in an entire LIFETIME. Further, they have no problem with violating criminal law. The end justifies the means, and that end is future law. To RIAA, trampling the protocol of some court or another is just another bump in the road. Dictating how a trial will be conducted will soon be a RIAA prerogative, unless those courts get together, and put RIAA in their place NOW.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have been stunned by the passivity of so many judges to date. Only a minority have stood up to protect the integrity of the federal judicial process from the RIAA cheats.
I'd amend the "thousand-front war" to "shooting fish in a barrel". Few of the RIAA driftnet targets have the time or resources to mount a defense, let alone proceed with a trial.
Well put, magus.
I honestly don't think them streaming video is at all relevant. Courtrooms are open to the public, and often open to cameras -- unless there is a compelling reason that what is said in the courtroom needs to be kept secret from the public.....
I agree.
You're right that this court has already seemingly determined that there's nothing wrong with the actual act of streaming court arguments, as evidenced by them doing so themselves.
Correct.
That doesn't mean they can't impartially hear arguments over whether or not there is something specific to this case that would deserve that protection.
Correct.
As far as changing venue, I'm pretty sure that's not an option for an appeal.
Certainly not in this case. It might be if all of the judges were shareholders in one of the parties, or something like that.
Changes of venue are for when they don't feel they can get a fair trial--and since they're the plaintiffs and brought suit in this particular jurisdiction themselves, I'd say that argument flies out the window pretty immediately. That said, this isn't a trial -- this is an appeal of a particular order made by the trial judge. The best I could see them doing is recusing themselves, but I've also never heard any precedent of an entire court recusing itself from a decision. It would be highly unlikely if it's even possible.
Correct.
Obviously RIAA lawyers are planning to spontaneously burst into song and dance .....
Your imagery... the thought of RIAA lawyers singing and dancing. I wish I'd read that before, rather than after, lunch.
These are not people you would want to party with.
So, I just read an article off your website, and while it made good and obvious sense that the RIAA wouldn't want to be publicly embarrassed, I had never put together just how much control over the information they really have, and how crucial this control of information is to the legal campaign they're waging.
I mean, it's as if they're waging a thousand-front war and winning on the basis of a gimmicky weapon, and on each of the fronts, their enemies are completely unable to communicate with one another and unsure what strategies to pursue.
Who else is getting sued? Who else is even fighting the suit? Who else is settling? How much did they settle for? The only people who know the full details are the ones bringing the lawsuits. As best I can tell, from your writeup, it seems that even the COURTS don't know what's been done previously, as the RIAA brings motion after motion filled with reasons to join a number of cases that have already been denied several times.
What a brilliant and strange strategy. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't even think of another possible life example for something like this, never mind a legal one. Has anything like this ever been done before?
You've expressed it perfectly. And no, there's never been anything like this insanity before. Which is why, I think, the courts were caught off guard by it. Had they been more vigilant, like the courts of Canada and the Netherlands, this would have been nipped in the bud 5 1/2 years ago.
a defamation claim has no requirement regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the alleged statement or statements
In American law, truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim. Let me repeat that: absolute.
Of course not, but they might if he'd been hit by one. The fact that this court records/streams its proceedings means that the judges on it see no problem with it. Given that, it might be tough to expect them to hear RIAA's argument that there IS a problem with it in quite as unbiased as a way as maybe they should, just like a judge who'd been hit by a car might not be completely impartial during a hit-and-run case. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with streaming court cases, generally speaking, but this particular situation raises the rather interesting prospect of a venue change or something similar. Unless of course Ray says otherwise.
I don't know what Ray thinks but I'll ask him. But I thinks there's as much chance of a 'change of venue' as a snowball in hell. The fact that a particular appellate court has indicated a certain view of the law would not constitute a ground for change of venue. That is what appellate courts are supposed to do, interpret the law.
I think we should give credit to the RIAA. They no doubt realize that exposing children to the persistent irrationality of their arguments might retard their cognitive growth and reduce their faith in the legal system. In opposing the broadcast, they're just thinking of the children.
Now that you put it that way, I guess you're right.
See, I learned a valuable lesson here: there's some good in everybody, even RIAA lawyers.
I entreat you to please avoid using "stream", "streamed", and "streaming" seven times within as many lines of text.
Those responsible for streaming this stream of streaming streams have been streamed.
In Soviet Russia, it is the streams that would have been streamed, instead of the other way around.