For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual
For me the real news is that the lawyer cared that there was an error. Normally, to these people, that would not be cause for dropping a case, since they are always misrepresenting the facts. You use the word "embarrassing"; this is a foreign concept to most RIAA lawyers. The part of their brains that is capable of feeling shame appears to have been surgically removed.
It really sucks when you hire someone that turns out to
have integrity and won't roll over and be your lackey.
Sounds like RIAA could not afford to properly vet this lawyer.
Yeah. If he's going to be squeamish about little details like getting the facts straight, he won't have the RIAA as a client for very long.
I don't think so. I really think this collection lawyer is new to the process, and just realized his clients lied to him. The RIAA's main lawyers wouldn't care about that. This guy might be more of a regular lawyer, who does care about that.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
As I see it, it is.
So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?
Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.
Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.
The MPAA brings frivolous suits too, just less of them. It makes the same frivolous arguments and supports the RIAA in its frivolous suits, sometimes submitting amicus curiae briefs on behalf of their brethren. To its credit, in its cases against individuals, (a) it seems to do a little homework -- unlike its RIAA brethren -- prior to bringing suit, and (b) it uses lawyers more nearly resembling human beings who are permitted to negotiate more reasonable settlements.
The RIAA's actions continue to provide amusement for me. But it's all increasingly irrelevant in my life.
The substance has never been relevant to my life, either. But when schoolyard bullies gang up on some defenseless person... it is relevant to your life and to mine. That is what brought me into this fight.
Which makes this particular round of briefing, where the RIAA goons are completely overmatched, some good "amusement".
Question for Mr. Beckerman: I'm pretty sure precedents are related to district/jurisdiction, so a precedent set in the 1st circuit wouldn't apply to any of the other circuits. If this goes through, will it only stand in that particular circuit or could it be used (and cited as precedent) in any court nationwide?
It's a binding precedent only in the First Circuit. However, depending on what it says, it could be persuasive authority everywhere else.
Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not?
The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
Judge Gertner's decision is a significant precedent that will be helpful to all lawyers representing RIAA defendants who want to open the proceedings to public scrutiny. The briefs that have been submitted by the amici curiae will also be great ammunition. And if the 1st Circuit blasts the RIAA, then that will be a super precedent.
Submitting parties are Associated Press, New York Times, Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., Gannett Co. Inc., The Hearst Corp., Incisive Media, National Public Radio, NBC Universal Inc., Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The E.W. Scripps Co., Tribune Co., and Washington Post Digital.
NBC Universal is a sister company of one of the plainiffs, UMG Recordings, since both are owned in whole or in part by Vivendi/Universal.
Am I the only person to find it interesting that in this confrontation, NBC Universal -- a subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal -- is fighting against UMG Recordings -- another subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal?
Faced with exposure to the daylight, they'll just drop the case. They always drop the case when the kid whose lunch money they're trying to steal actually fights back.
Sorry for comparing you, all I meant was that a small summary at the bottom telling us what has happened in a bit more detail would be nice.
There is no need to go to groklaw's detail but I would just like to follow the cases you have on the site but to me you might as well scribble on a page in random colours for all the sense legal documents make.
From my experience reading journalists' accounts of cases I've worked on over the years, I've often been astonished about how false and misleading their coverage usually is. Usually the reason is not that they were trying to mislead, but that they did just what you're asking me to do, which is to dumb it down for the masses to help them 'understand'. Usually the result is that the readers 'understand' it, but their understanding happens to be wrong.
I really want to avoid falling into that. But I will endeavor to do as you say, and try to put in something making it more understandable to those less familiar with legal terminology.
On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents.
As the person who actually hosts the litigation documents, and can read the backlinks, I can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. While it is true that visitors from Fark or Reddit or Digg are more likely than not to skip reading the litigation documents, a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.
And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.
Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified.
Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.
Yeah well the RIAA lawyers tore those pages out of the law books.
They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.
Are you aware that in strongly contested cases they have relied on such tactics as (a) investigating high school classmates at the local high school and (b) having an investigator impersonating a 10 year old's grandmother making a call to the child's school?
Are you aware that there is almost nothing about their lawsuits that is "legal".
Are you aware that they are engaged in illegal investigations?
Are you aware that they have hired retired police officers to advise defendants that copyright infringement is a criminal matter?
Are you aware that their conduct often borders on, or crosses the boundary into, extortion?
Are you aware that they knowingly bring, and the continue to prosecute, sham lawsuits against people who they know have not infringed their copyrights?
Are you aware that their lawyers on a daily basis sign court documents which they know are false?
Are you aware that they have been deliberately violating a court order since 2004?
Are you aware that they have been deliberately flouting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
If I thought their conduct was "legal" I would resign from the Bar immediately, because I wouldn't be a part of a legal system that condoned their vile conduct.
However, the reality is that they violate the law on a daily basis, just like other organized criminals to whom we are analogizing them.
You have to go back and read the legal documents, particularly the proposed counterclaims and defenses and the defendant's motions to amend and to add the RIAA and to amend his pleadings.
Slashdot Mirror
Finding a lawyer that cares about the law might not be newsworthy, but finding one (probably accidently!) employed by the RIAA *IS* newsworthy.
Yes, I find it 'stop the presses' newsworthy.
For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual
For me the real news is that the lawyer cared that there was an error. Normally, to these people, that would not be cause for dropping a case, since they are always misrepresenting the facts. You use the word "embarrassing"; this is a foreign concept to most RIAA lawyers. The part of their brains that is capable of feeling shame appears to have been surgically removed.
It really sucks when you hire someone that turns out to have integrity and won't roll over and be your lackey. Sounds like RIAA could not afford to properly vet this lawyer.
Yeah. If he's going to be squeamish about little details like getting the facts straight, he won't have the RIAA as a client for very long.
Is it really that bad in your profession Ray?
Not at all. It's just that the RIAA's lawyers represent the bottom of my profession. IMNSHO.
I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.
And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.
They are learning the lessons.
I don't think so. I really think this collection lawyer is new to the process, and just realized his clients lied to him. The RIAA's main lawyers wouldn't care about that. This guy might be more of a regular lawyer, who does care about that.
As it turns out that one was settled too.
Yeah, but we don't hear about those lawsuits as much as about RIAA suits. Do you have any links?
The only MPAA v. End User case I know of that wasn't quickly settled is this one, but for all I know that one's been settled too.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
As I see it, it is. So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?
Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.
Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.
Who would you take a case to? The DOJ? Oh wait, the DOJ and the RIAA are basically clones now.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
The MPAA brings frivolous suits too, just less of them. It makes the same frivolous arguments and supports the RIAA in its frivolous suits, sometimes submitting amicus curiae briefs on behalf of their brethren. To its credit, in its cases against individuals, (a) it seems to do a little homework -- unlike its RIAA brethren -- prior to bringing suit, and (b) it uses lawyers more nearly resembling human beings who are permitted to negotiate more reasonable settlements.
The RIAA's actions continue to provide amusement for me. But it's all increasingly irrelevant in my life.
The substance has never been relevant to my life, either. But when schoolyard bullies gang up on some defenseless person... it is relevant to your life and to mine. That is what brought me into this fight.
Which makes this particular round of briefing, where the RIAA goons are completely overmatched, some good "amusement".
Question for Mr. Beckerman: I'm pretty sure precedents are related to district/jurisdiction, so a precedent set in the 1st circuit wouldn't apply to any of the other circuits. If this goes through, will it only stand in that particular circuit or could it be used (and cited as precedent) in any court nationwide?
It's a binding precedent only in the First Circuit. However, depending on what it says, it could be persuasive authority everywhere else.
Considering the popularity of this case and the argument the judge has made, couldn't pretty much any other defense lawyer in any other case make the same request? RIAA wants to educate the public, so why not? The RIAA either accepts it and goes through with the case, or they drop the case altogether. It's win-win. It's like we have the plans to the Death Star!
Judge Gertner's decision is a significant precedent that will be helpful to all lawyers representing RIAA defendants who want to open the proceedings to public scrutiny. The briefs that have been submitted by the amici curiae will also be great ammunition. And if the 1st Circuit blasts the RIAA, then that will be a super precedent.
The actual brief is now online.
Submitting parties are Associated Press, New York Times, Courtroom Television Network, Dow Jones & Co., Gannett Co. Inc., The Hearst Corp., Incisive Media, National Public Radio, NBC Universal Inc., Radio-Television News Directors Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The E.W. Scripps Co., Tribune Co., and Washington Post Digital.
NBC Universal is a sister company of one of the plainiffs, UMG Recordings, since both are owned in whole or in part by Vivendi/Universal.
Am I the only person to find it interesting that in this confrontation, NBC Universal -- a subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal -- is fighting against UMG Recordings -- another subsidiary of Vivendi/Universal?
Faced with exposure to the daylight, they'll just drop the case. They always drop the case when the kid whose lunch money they're trying to steal actually fights back.
I would say you've got their number.
I don't see it. I don't see any news in the article at all. I don't see where there's any confirmation of any agreement with anyone.
I gave honest and meaningful answers
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself. In my opinion your answers were dishonest and meaningless, and were not in fact answers at all.
I responded to everything you put to me.
Yes you responded with nothing but conclusions and opinions and argument, but with zero facts or legal authority.
Do you work for the RIAA's law firm?
Sorry for comparing you, all I meant was that a small summary at the bottom telling us what has happened in a bit more detail would be nice. There is no need to go to groklaw's detail but I would just like to follow the cases you have on the site but to me you might as well scribble on a page in random colours for all the sense legal documents make.
From my experience reading journalists' accounts of cases I've worked on over the years, I've often been astonished about how false and misleading their coverage usually is. Usually the reason is not that they were trying to mislead, but that they did just what you're asking me to do, which is to dumb it down for the masses to help them 'understand'. Usually the result is that the readers 'understand' it, but their understanding happens to be wrong.
I really want to avoid falling into that. But I will endeavor to do as you say, and try to put in something making it more understandable to those less familiar with legal terminology.
On Slashdot? Hardly anybody reads the legal documents.
As the person who actually hosts the litigation documents, and can read the backlinks, I can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. While it is true that visitors from Fark or Reddit or Digg are more likely than not to skip reading the litigation documents, a substantial majority of the visitors from Slashdot actually do read the litigation documents, and spend time doing so.
And most Slashdotters, when pressed, are able to back up their arguments with substantiation, unlike yourself.
Basically, the Massachusetts rules say that courtroom proceedings may be broadcast if they fall into certain categories "or by order of the court", which is generally taken to mean that the court can allow other proceedings to be broadcast at it's discretion. The RIAA wants to read that rule as "and by order of the court", limiting the court to allowing broadcasting only of the categories specified. Also, when the RIAA appeals to the rules of the Judicial Conference, it glosses over the fact that the Judicial Conference has no authority to dictate rules to the courts under it and that no court under it has actually adopted it's proposed prohibition on broadcasting proceedings.
Yeah well the RIAA lawyers tore those pages out of the law books.
They're operation is entirely legal, and, if they have a problem with a person, they don't rely on violence, or threats thereof, in order resolve their disputes. Instead, they use the court system like we are all supposed to when negotiation fails. Also, unlike the mafia, they make all their money from legitimate business that contributes to society around them.
Are you aware that in strongly contested cases they have relied on such tactics as (a) investigating high school classmates at the local high school and (b) having an investigator impersonating a 10 year old's grandmother making a call to the child's school?
Are you aware that there is almost nothing about their lawsuits that is "legal".
Are you aware that they are engaged in illegal investigations?
Are you aware that they have hired retired police officers to advise defendants that copyright infringement is a criminal matter?
Are you aware that their conduct often borders on, or crosses the boundary into, extortion?
Are you aware that they knowingly bring, and the continue to prosecute, sham lawsuits against people who they know have not infringed their copyrights?
Are you aware that their lawyers on a daily basis sign court documents which they know are false?
Are you aware that they have been deliberately violating a court order since 2004?
Are you aware that they have been deliberately flouting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
If I thought their conduct was "legal" I would resign from the Bar immediately, because I wouldn't be a part of a legal system that condoned their vile conduct.
However, the reality is that they violate the law on a daily basis, just like other organized criminals to whom we are analogizing them.
You have to go back and read the legal documents, particularly the proposed counterclaims and defenses and the defendant's motions to amend and to add the RIAA and to amend his pleadings.