To those readers here at Slashdot and on my blog who brought this error to my attention, I express my profound gratitude.
And to all of you who may have been misled by my post, I apologize profusely.
As it turns out....the order is a standard form commonly used in Minnesota's federal court for settlement conferences. Although I have almost 35 years of litigation experience, none of that experience has been in Minnesota.
Again, sorry, folks, for my mistake.
Meanwhile, as to the substance of the order, it's still a great order; I wish the courts in which I do practice had been using it. It still requires each of the record companies to produce one of its 'officers' or 'managing agents' with decisionmaking 'power'. That means Mr. Oppenheim and the lawyers are not in control.
NYCL, would you favor us with your opinion regarding what you think will happen at the settlement meeting?
If it goes forward, the Judge will lean on each party to soften its position, and get rid of the case.
For one thing, is it clear who the settlement will favor?
Most likely the settlement would be for a small payment by defendant. Most likely all parties will be unhappy with it.
How unusual is an order like this, and why do you think the judge entered it?
In my experience it is quite unusual, and the judge entered into to try to avoid another taxpayer funded circus serving no appropriate purpose. The courts have much more serious things to attend to than some lady allegedly downloading 24 MP3 files.
And why is it so important that Oppenheim can't represent the RIAA at the meeting?
Because he and his lawyer friends have been churning these cases to the detriment of everyone except themselves.
Presumably he was only following executive orders anyway.
I think the actual relationship is somewhat more subtle than that. Yes the record company executives authorized this, but both they and Oppenheim and the lawyers Oppenheim hired were all acting to the detriment of the companies themselves. Yes they had authority to do it. But they weren't giving their clients sound advice. And the record companies were being played for the suckers. Highly 'aggressive' clients are easy prey.
It's beyond me too. In Brooklyn several years ago the Magistrate Judge ordered the "principals" of the record companies to attend an in-person settlement conference. When the day came, however, the only person who showed was Matthew Oppenheim, who is not even an employee of any of those companies. If I was the judge I would have thrown their case out, due to their flagrant disobedience of his order. Instead, the judge said "okay" and said he was accepting Oppenheim as a "principal" of all of the companies, and the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.
hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...
That is correct. They are not going to 'skip' this. They will probably try to avoid it, by getting the best settlement they can get in advance of the hearing... but if they don't settle, they will show, and I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.
What I find encouraging is that INI fought for the constitutional rights of its readers. Too many internet companies these days take a neutral position... i.e. cave.
no doctor hates science, and the medical profession as a whole are champions of scientific thinking when most other professions have yet to be introduced to the concept.
I agree.
Unfortunately this is severely mitigated by two groups - lawyers and patients.
The original article could equally be titled 'why lawyers hate science' - as the parent says, many judgements against doctors are based on whether something could have been done, not whether there was evidence to support doing it, or even whether it would have been effective.
That is sheer and utter nonsense.
Patients come to doctors with the expectation that something will be done
What's wrong with that?
and a significant part of medicine is allaying the fears and anxieties of the patient.
1. That's not the "medicine" part, that's hand holding. And any way 2. What's wrong with that?
The cover-your-ass imperative imposed by lawyers
The only "imperative" imposed by the courts is that "reasonable care" be applied? Why is that so terrible? Why is that so onerous? Most medical care is far, far above that relatively low standard.
and the demands of anxious patients significantly skew treatment away from the scientific ideal
Nonsense.
- the desire to make money (while also significant) is a distant third, and largely reflects that monetary incentives in private medicine do not match well with the interests of the patient (i.e. a systemic funding problem).
Oh yeah and the insurance companies' financial interests do match up?
But the title of the original article - implying that doctors hate science - is utter crap.
To all of those who need a reminder....always consider your sources, and be VERY wary of medical advice given on the internet.
First, you CAN have cancer of the cervix after hysterectomy...not all hysterectomies involve removing the cervix. Second, if you have a hysterectomy for cervical cancer, you still need screening: See this PubMed Article [nih.gov] Third, the literature for screening after hysterectomy for benign disease is still evolving. See this PubMed Article [nih.gov]
OP is a troll, I would say, and the title is alarmist and misleading. Evidence based medicine has been around for a while, the trouble is it is very expensive and difficult to perform, and just as hard to implement.
If you want my opinion, the article sounded suspiciously like insurance company propaganda. The doctor is the one person in the equation who basically has the same vested interest the patient has -- keeping the patient alive.
The cost effectiveness arguments she makes are bunk. E.g., if the old line drugs for schizophrenia are so great, why haven't they worked? And why is dehydrating someone the best way of treating high blood pressure? Give me a break.
Politicians may hate science, and certainly the health insurance companies hate science, and both like to think in terms of cost effectiveness, unless of course it's their own health that's at stake, in which case they want the best "science" available. And maybe some journalists hate science if they've absorbed enough behind the scenes insurance lobby propaganda.
But of all the groups mentioned in the article, it is the doctors who hate science least, and who are most about trying to find the right answer, the right answer meaning the one that is best for the patient's health, as opposed to the insurance company's bank account.
(And in case you're wondering, I'm not a doctor, and have never even had any relative or personal friend who is a doctor; but I do remember my first doctor, who had, under a large glass dome, a giant gold microscope, which occupied the central place of honor in his office... a clear homage to his love and reverence for Science. And in practice he cared for the lives of his patients as though they were his own. And I guess they were.).
I am not aware of any other area of the law that has been flooded with "frivolous lawsuits". The only such flood of which I am aware is the flood of 40,000 frivolous lawsuits brought by the RIAA against ordinary working Americans.
General tort law does not have the structural problem these cases have; in general tort cases there is an insurance company which has abundant resources with which to defend the insured.
with douche bag outfits like the RIAA, SCO and Microsoft around, it looks like the lawyers are (as usual) going to do just fine. No layoffs in that "profession"
Not so. Lawyers have been getting laid off in droves. I am sure the RIAA lawyers are, or will be, among them. I only hope their prospective employers read my blog.
First: what everybody else is saying re "just say no".
Second: if there are good people working there, then good for them, the layoff is an opportunity and incentive for each and every one of them to go find a morally acceptable job which won't ruin their health with buried guilt.
I do not know of any law that effectively deters frivolous litigation, which is why I expect that the laws you will point to are ineffective to deter frivolous litigation. If you take the trouble to name them, I will not just 'claim' they are ineffective, I will demonstrate to you why they are ineffective. If you'd like to learn something, fine. If you prefer to beat your gums and remain ignorant, well that's fine too.
You took the words right out of my mouth, with that subject line. Seriously.
The RIAA has been swaggering around like they're Jack Bauer [wikimedia.org] for years now, with all the self-justification that goes along with the reference, but instead of chasing terrorists, or even true "criminals" (copyright violation is really a civil law matter, not a criminal law matter), they're chasing down little kids, moms or grandmas who don't even know what BitTorrent or P2P is, let alone consciously making a decision to use it (kids or grandkids in this case), etc.; if they were chasing down Russian mobsters selling knock-off CDs to fund their other illegal activities then I can see some of it, but they're NOT. Even most of the artists they're claiming to protect don't want much of anything to do with them! It's about time the RIAA legal machine was dismantled, and the pieces destroyed, preferably with fire. They're a relic of a time and a business model whose usefulness and relevance has long since past; it's time for the music industry to stop being in denial about it, embrace the fact that downloading of music is a reality, a genie that can't be put back into it's bottle, and stop beating a dead horse.
Oh, and memo to the music industry: Please start backing and producing music that doesn't suck, k? We're sick to death of the crap you've been turning out lately.
Yep, in all 40,000 cases I've never once seen one that involved actual copyright 'piracy' (the term they are so fond of throwing around). The only real pirates, other than the ones from Somalia, are the RIAA lawyers, who are engaged in a racket akin to extortion.
Now THIS is the kind of stuff I like to hear!!! Thanks for the update Ray!!!
In my book the real thanks go to these guys, who took on this case, for the sake of principle, and have been doing a first-rate job ever since. They've taken about 15 penniless college students under their wings, and have really taken the fight to the RIAA. Lawyers like Steve Robertson and the Robertson Medlin firm bring honor to my profession.
Generally speaking, if someone is slandering me, I'd rather just find a way to stop the slander than to have an obligation to seek damages. Which is, to my mind, the major advantage of something like the DMCA. Frankly, DMCA takedown notices are vastly superior to actually having lawsuits for damages at every single case of infringement. Now I'm all for reform and a system whereby spurious notices can be treated as the harassment they are. But on the other hand, a system in place that facilitates merely stopping the activity rather than seeking damages and punishment seems to me desirable.
Yes if you felt someone were slandering you, I suppose that is what you would like to do. But what if they weren't slandering you at all? What if they were merely expressing negative opinions of you? Or what if they were saying factual things which were in fact true but uncomfortable to you? Do you really think you should carry the day just because you send a DMCA notice, or because you have more money to expend on legal fees?
In our society the law should, and does, stay the hell out of most discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
To those readers here at Slashdot and on my blog who brought this error to my attention, I express my profound gratitude.
And to all of you who may have been misled by my post, I apologize profusely.
As it turns out....the order is a standard form commonly used in Minnesota's federal court for settlement conferences. Although I have almost 35 years of litigation experience, none of that experience has been in Minnesota.
Again, sorry, folks, for my mistake.
Meanwhile, as to the substance of the order, it's still a great order; I wish the courts in which I do practice had been using it. It still requires each of the record companies to produce one of its 'officers' or 'managing agents' with decisionmaking 'power'. That means Mr. Oppenheim and the lawyers are not in control.
NYCL, would you favor us with your opinion regarding what you think will happen at the settlement meeting?
If it goes forward, the Judge will lean on each party to soften its position, and get rid of the case.
For one thing, is it clear who the settlement will favor?
Most likely the settlement would be for a small payment by defendant. Most likely all parties will be unhappy with it.
How unusual is an order like this, and why do you think the judge entered it?
In my experience it is quite unusual, and the judge entered into to try to avoid another taxpayer funded circus serving no appropriate purpose. The courts have much more serious things to attend to than some lady allegedly downloading 24 MP3 files.
And why is it so important that Oppenheim can't represent the RIAA at the meeting?
Because he and his lawyer friends have been churning these cases to the detriment of everyone except themselves.
Presumably he was only following executive orders anyway.
I think the actual relationship is somewhat more subtle than that. Yes the record company executives authorized this, but both they and Oppenheim and the lawyers Oppenheim hired were all acting to the detriment of the companies themselves. Yes they had authority to do it. But they weren't giving their clients sound advice. And the record companies were being played for the suckers. Highly 'aggressive' clients are easy prey.
this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one!
Well you're part right.
It was written by a lawyer.
But he does not desperately want to be a lawyer; in fact he would prefer to be just about anything else.
Please give me the case number so I can verify what you're saying. If it's true, then I read too much into it.
Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what happens if they don't follow it to the letter?
It would never happen, but if it were to happen, the judge would throw the case out and grant the defendant her attorneys fees and costs.
Ray - keep up the good work, it looks like we're heading for the endgame now....
Thanks. Yes it looks to me like we are in, or close to, the endgame.
How they got away with this before is beyond me.
It's beyond me too. In Brooklyn several years ago the Magistrate Judge ordered the "principals" of the record companies to attend an in-person settlement conference. When the day came, however, the only person who showed was Matthew Oppenheim, who is not even an employee of any of those companies. If I was the judge I would have thrown their case out, due to their flagrant disobedience of his order. Instead, the judge said "okay" and said he was accepting Oppenheim as a "principal" of all of the companies, and the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.
hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...
That is correct. They are not going to 'skip' this. They will probably try to avoid it, by getting the best settlement they can get in advance of the hearing... but if they don't settle, they will show, and I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.
My guess is that Oppenheim's barred from negotiations.
He wouldn't be barred from attending. He just won't be in control, as he is normally permitted to be.
It means they'll probably drop the case to avoid the trouble.
That would be the smart play, wouldn't it? But then again... they're not known for choosing the smart play, are they?
My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.
I can assure you that if they do show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable.
What I find encouraging is that INI fought for the constitutional rights of its readers. Too many internet companies these days take a neutral position... i.e. cave.
Re: A related article was just posted on nytimes If anyone is interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/health/02scans.html?hp=&pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]
(a) Coincidence or
(b) organized health insurance industry propaganda campaign?
no doctor hates science, and the medical profession as a whole are champions of scientific thinking when most other professions have yet to be introduced to the concept.
I agree.
Unfortunately this is severely mitigated by two groups - lawyers and patients. The original article could equally be titled 'why lawyers hate science' - as the parent says, many judgements against doctors are based on whether something could have been done, not whether there was evidence to support doing it, or even whether it would have been effective.
That is sheer and utter nonsense.
Patients come to doctors with the expectation that something will be done
What's wrong with that?
and a significant part of medicine is allaying the fears and anxieties of the patient.
1. That's not the "medicine" part, that's hand holding. And any way
2. What's wrong with that?
The cover-your-ass imperative imposed by lawyers
The only "imperative" imposed by the courts is that "reasonable care" be applied? Why is that so terrible? Why is that so onerous? Most medical care is far, far above that relatively low standard.
and the demands of anxious patients significantly skew treatment away from the scientific ideal
Nonsense.
- the desire to make money (while also significant) is a distant third, and largely reflects that monetary incentives in private medicine do not match well with the interests of the patient (i.e. a systemic funding problem).
Oh yeah and the insurance companies' financial interests do match up?
But the title of the original article - implying that doctors hate science - is utter crap.
On that we can agree.
To all of those who need a reminder....always consider your sources, and be VERY wary of medical advice given on the internet. First, you CAN have cancer of the cervix after hysterectomy...not all hysterectomies involve removing the cervix. Second, if you have a hysterectomy for cervical cancer, you still need screening: See this PubMed Article [nih.gov] Third, the literature for screening after hysterectomy for benign disease is still evolving. See this PubMed Article [nih.gov] OP is a troll, I would say, and the title is alarmist and misleading. Evidence based medicine has been around for a while, the trouble is it is very expensive and difficult to perform, and just as hard to implement.
Thank you for injecting some rationality.
If you want my opinion, the article sounded suspiciously like insurance company propaganda. The doctor is the one person in the equation who basically has the same vested interest the patient has -- keeping the patient alive.
The cost effectiveness arguments she makes are bunk. E.g., if the old line drugs for schizophrenia are so great, why haven't they worked? And why is dehydrating someone the best way of treating high blood pressure? Give me a break.
Politicians may hate science, and certainly the health insurance companies hate science, and both like to think in terms of cost effectiveness, unless of course it's their own health that's at stake, in which case they want the best "science" available. And maybe some journalists hate science if they've absorbed enough behind the scenes insurance lobby propaganda.
But of all the groups mentioned in the article, it is the doctors who hate science least, and who are most about trying to find the right answer, the right answer meaning the one that is best for the patient's health, as opposed to the insurance company's bank account.
(And in case you're wondering, I'm not a doctor, and have never even had any relative or personal friend who is a doctor; but I do remember my first doctor, who had, under a large glass dome, a giant gold microscope, which occupied the central place of honor in his office... a clear homage to his love and reverence for Science. And in practice he cared for the lives of his patients as though they were his own. And I guess they were.).
I am not aware of any other area of the law that has been flooded with "frivolous lawsuits". The only such flood of which I am aware is the flood of 40,000 frivolous lawsuits brought by the RIAA against ordinary working Americans.
General tort law does not have the structural problem these cases have; in general tort cases there is an insurance company which has abundant resources with which to defend the insured.
with douche bag outfits like the RIAA, SCO and Microsoft around, it looks like the lawyers are (as usual) going to do just fine. No layoffs in that "profession"
Not so. Lawyers have been getting laid off in droves. I am sure the RIAA lawyers are, or will be, among them. I only hope their prospective employers read my blog.
First: what everybody else is saying re "just say no". Second: if there are good people working there, then good for them, the layoff is an opportunity and incentive for each and every one of them to go find a morally acceptable job which won't ruin their health with buried guilt.
That's what I say. Let them find honest work.
I do not know of any law that effectively deters frivolous litigation, which is why I expect that the laws you will point to are ineffective to deter frivolous litigation. If you take the trouble to name them, I will not just 'claim' they are ineffective, I will demonstrate to you why they are ineffective. If you'd like to learn something, fine. If you prefer to beat your gums and remain ignorant, well that's fine too.
How are large record companies even useful nowadays?
Well they provide quite a bit of employment to some otherwise unemployable lawyers. Doesn't that count for something.
I couldn't find a link or any information to go about it in the article; Do you know any details about how we can show support?
Sure, send these guys a check with instructions to apply it to Ms. Moursy's case!
You took the words right out of my mouth, with that subject line. Seriously. The RIAA has been swaggering around like they're Jack Bauer [wikimedia.org] for years now, with all the self-justification that goes along with the reference, but instead of chasing terrorists, or even true "criminals" (copyright violation is really a civil law matter, not a criminal law matter), they're chasing down little kids, moms or grandmas who don't even know what BitTorrent or P2P is, let alone consciously making a decision to use it (kids or grandkids in this case), etc.; if they were chasing down Russian mobsters selling knock-off CDs to fund their other illegal activities then I can see some of it, but they're NOT. Even most of the artists they're claiming to protect don't want much of anything to do with them! It's about time the RIAA legal machine was dismantled, and the pieces destroyed, preferably with fire. They're a relic of a time and a business model whose usefulness and relevance has long since past; it's time for the music industry to stop being in denial about it, embrace the fact that downloading of music is a reality, a genie that can't be put back into it's bottle, and stop beating a dead horse. Oh, and memo to the music industry: Please start backing and producing music that doesn't suck, k? We're sick to death of the crap you've been turning out lately.
Yep, in all 40,000 cases I've never once seen one that involved actual copyright 'piracy' (the term they are so fond of throwing around). The only real pirates, other than the ones from Somalia, are the RIAA lawyers, who are engaged in a racket akin to extortion.
Now THIS is the kind of stuff I like to hear!!! Thanks for the update Ray!!!
In my book the real thanks go to these guys, who took on this case, for the sake of principle, and have been doing a first-rate job ever since. They've taken about 15 penniless college students under their wings, and have really taken the fight to the RIAA. Lawyers like Steve Robertson and the Robertson Medlin firm bring honor to my profession.
Generally speaking, if someone is slandering me, I'd rather just find a way to stop the slander than to have an obligation to seek damages. Which is, to my mind, the major advantage of something like the DMCA. Frankly, DMCA takedown notices are vastly superior to actually having lawsuits for damages at every single case of infringement. Now I'm all for reform and a system whereby spurious notices can be treated as the harassment they are. But on the other hand, a system in place that facilitates merely stopping the activity rather than seeking damages and punishment seems to me desirable.
Yes if you felt someone were slandering you, I suppose that is what you would like to do. But what if they weren't slandering you at all? What if they were merely expressing negative opinions of you? Or what if they were saying factual things which were in fact true but uncomfortable to you? Do you really think you should carry the day just because you send a DMCA notice, or because you have more money to expend on legal fees?
In our society the law should, and does, stay the hell out of most discussion.