Well I'm really glad to hear that NYCL gets as much fun out of slashdot as we get reading his posts on here.
One thing this whole saga has highlighted to me is the power of the web in bringing (great?) minds together in a common cause.
I don't think any of the interested parties - apart from the RIAA - would be as well informed and knowledge without the free sharing of ideas that has happened here, which somehow seems ironic.
Lets hope that the payback we get for all the hours we have jointly "wasted" here is to make the world a sightly better place.
T.B.
I try not to think about such larger issues as whether we will or will not succeed in making the world a slightly better place, because there are too many variables over which I have no control. History will do what it will; I just want to be on the right side of it. Win, lose, or draw, I just want to have done the right thing.
Don't even think about it. If you think actually having to deal with low lifes like Timothy Reynolds is a nice way to make a living, let me disabuse you of that right now. It's no fun.
Undoubtedly, the things they want to ask Oppenheim about have nothing to do with his work as a lawyer, they have to do with his work as a "principal" of the record companies, which he has himself represented himself to be.
If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.
You may not be "rabid and foaming at the mouth" but your quiet, temperate expression of your point of view nevertheless fails to stand up to scrutiny. For example you say,
The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?
1. You're engaging in the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy. "If they sued someone, they must have a good reason for it." Well that's bunk. (a) Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing. (b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.
2. You're assuming that there's "meat" in the RIAA cases, when there is not.
3. You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.
4. You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.
5. You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.
6. You're assuming that damages should be awarded based on distribution when there is no EVIDENCE of distribution.
Your arguments are as illogical as those the RIAA lawyers advance, and are similar or identical to those the RIAA lawyers advance.
Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments. When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.
Your means of expression may be quiet, but the lack of logic in your statements strikes a jarring note.
"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court... had never been raised in the lower court."
If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?
That's easy. Because the 1st Circuit doesn't want to waste its time reviewing something that might not have had to be reviewed. The Judge's second order has already obviated 90% of the argument the RIAA's lawyers made in their petition.
Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."
That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?
You're not supposed to go to an appeals court on arguments you never made in the lower court. It's a waste of their time, and it's not fair to the lower court judge. What it means for the RIAA's petition is that it's unfounded.
Maybe the true reason for fighting the televising is that the RIAA lawyers are now so unholy that they can no longer be caught on any type of recording device?
Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia?
And how have we not slapped them all in jail under the RICO laws yet?
They sure seem like the exact same thing to me...
About the only real diffrence i see at all is the real mafia has some sense of honor and respect.
And thats really stretching it.
Gertner noted that the decision did not limit streaming to the Berkman Center's Web site, saying RIAA also is free to subscribe to the CVN recording and to make it available to the public at a Web site of its choosing, provided that the group observes conditions already set by the court, including streaming unedited material.Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too, assholes!"
yes she is
which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?
We, generally speaking, are only smarter than your average lawyer as pertains to computers, the internet, technology, or other generally geeky/nerdy topic. I'm sure your average lawyer would thoroughly trounce us on other less geek-centric topics.
Well, we're going off topic here, but I will tell you that in my experience: -in the world of science and math one will occasionally come upon a genius -in the legal world, in 34 years of encountering thousands of lawyers, I have met many reasonably intelligent people, but only 1 genius.
It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?
People who have no respect for the truth can say anything. Eventually, I have found, at least in the world of litigation, their lies catch up to them.
By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!
I would think this strategy runs the risk of insulting the judge.
You mean going to an appeals court and telling them that she is acting totally outside the jurisdiction of a federal judge and flagrantly violating the law?
I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer.
May well be so. I only came into the fight because of my hatred of bullies, and because these bullies were so obviously wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, and immoral and unprofessional in their behavior.
You might have otherwise heard of my alter ego, Ray what's-his-name, in other contexts, but probably not in this context.
I only first discovered Slashdot when one of my litigation documents in Elektra v. Santangelo got 'Slashdotted' one day in the Summer of 2005. I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers. It looked like an ordinary message board, but it obviously was a whole 'nother thing.
Things haven't been quite the same since.
1. Spend a lot of time on Slashdot. 2. Get the word out. 3. Have a lot of fun. 4. ??? 5. No profit whatsoever (in the financial sense).
I'm not questioning should Mr. Oppenheim be deposed only that if procedurally the RIAA have valid points on their objections? Even if they were technical like the place of deposition, fee, subject matter, etc.
In response to your question I know nothing about the underlying facts, however in my experience (a) one does not need to subpoena a person who is a "principal" of a corporate plaintiff, which Mr. Oppenheim has represented that he is, (b) there is nothing in the rules or caselaw to warrant the application for sanctions, and (c) I doubt that I have ever seen a set of papers from this law firm which has not contained intentional misstatements of fact. So I await with interest the papers which I imagine will be submitted by Prof. Nesson, which I am sure will state the facts correctly.
Mr. Oppenheim is a shadowy figure, who changes his stripes according to what he thinks the judge wants to hear. I.e., he will say whatever is most advantageous for him to say. He has claimed at various times to be:
-the client
-the client representative
-the industry representative
-the principal
-the only person in the world who has settlement authority
-the attorney
It is clearly true that he was the person who has controlled these cases, and who had complete authority to settle the cases. He is the enforcer of whatever unholy agreement these 4 supposed competitiors made among themselves, and he is instrumental in whatever trickery was developed to ensure that only the Big 4 -- and no other RIAA members -- were permitted to participate in this litigation war. He is the enforcer.
He is clearly an appropriate person to be deposed.
I second this! Ray, please translate a bit for us poor unfortunates. A little color commentary would be nice, too!
Sorry about that, but the reality is... I don't have the time to do good writing. I don't get paid for this. My highest priority in the blogging part of my life is to get the facts and the litigation documents out, and let the rest of the world handle the commentary. If I got a million dollar grant to spend more time writing I'd do it but I don't see that happening any time soon. I can't even get many people to buy an MP3 from one of my affiliate advertisers.
People compare me to PJ. You shouldn't. She's a great journalist; I'm not in her league. I'm just a lawyer who tripped across a wave of litigation bullying, and realized that the internet might help to slightly counterbalance one of the bad guys' strategic advantages -- their information monopoly.
What PJ and I have in common is that we've both taken advantage of the federal courts' transition to electronic filing to give our readers actual primary source material to read, and in so doing to honor, rather than insult as many other news sources do, our readers' intelligence.
Other than that, my amateur-hour work shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as her deservedly award-winning web site.
RIAA's lawyers actually wrote this in the threat: "Defendent's repeated failures to follow basic rules of procedure is making this case far more expensive and time consuming than it should be." hmm... I'd almost say something like, Plaintiff's repeated contortions of basic rules of procedure is making multiple cases far more expensive and time consuming than it should be.
First they get the live online-coverage of one of these processes postponed. Now they try to legally blackmail the defense lawyer. What's next?
"That's an awfully nice courtroom you have here, your honor. Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to it?"
Damn you, meister3r. What are you doing? Trying to give them ideas?
Actually they've already taken action against the judge, by filing their petition for "mandamus or prohibition". Mandamus and prohibition aren't like ordinary appeals, where the lawyer is saying the judge made a legal error and that the judgment or order should be reversed. They are "extraordinary" writs which would only be granted where the judge totally screwed up and acted totally beyond her authority, and you are asking the appeals court to order the judge to do something or stop doing something.
Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.
Pathetic RIAA.
whisper_jeff, you really hit it on the head. I see you've already been modded to +5 Funny. I wish you could be modded to +10 Funny AND Accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I'm really glad to hear that NYCL gets as much fun out of slashdot as we get reading his posts on here. One thing this whole saga has highlighted to me is the power of the web in bringing (great?) minds together in a common cause. I don't think any of the interested parties - apart from the RIAA - would be as well informed and knowledge without the free sharing of ideas that has happened here, which somehow seems ironic. Lets hope that the payback we get for all the hours we have jointly "wasted" here is to make the world a sightly better place. T.B.
I try not to think about such larger issues as whether we will or will not succeed in making the world a slightly better place, because there are too many variables over which I have no control. History will do what it will; I just want to be on the right side of it. Win, lose, or draw, I just want to have done the right thing.
You almost make me want to be a lawyer
Don't even think about it. If you think actually having to deal with low lifes like Timothy Reynolds is a nice way to make a living, let me disabuse you of that right now. It's no fun.
Undoubtedly, the things they want to ask Oppenheim about have nothing to do with his work as a lawyer, they have to do with his work as a "principal" of the record companies, which he has himself represented himself to be.
If you aren't rabid and foaming at the mouth, and try to get at the deeper issue, the immediate thought is "troll". Not the intelligent, "Talmudic" discussion NewYorkCountryLawyer alluded to.
You may not be "rabid and foaming at the mouth" but your quiet, temperate expression of your point of view nevertheless fails to stand up to scrutiny. For example you say,
The meat of these lawsuits are over blatant copyright infringement. If there wasn't massive file sharing going on, there wouldn't be these lawsuits. I'm not defending all of the actions of RIAA and the people they represent, but the basic question is the same: Can they defend themselves against illegal sharing of music or not?
1. You're engaging in the "where there's smoke there's fire" fallacy. "If they sued someone, they must have a good reason for it." Well that's bunk. (a) Their "methods" are frought with inaccuracy. My estimate is that more than HALF of the people they pursue NEVER did any file sharing. (b) They have no proof that anyone did any downloading. (c) They have no proof that anyone committed a "distribution" under the Copyright Act. But they sue anyway.
2. You're assuming that there's "meat" in the RIAA cases, when there is not.
3. You're assuming that where file sharing has taken place, the file sharing amounted to a copyright infringement.
4. You're assuming that every time there has been a copyright infringement, there needs to be a lawsuit.
5. You're assuming that a damages theory which seeks from 2300 to 450,000 times the actual damage sustained is appropriate.
6. You're assuming that damages should be awarded based on distribution when there is no EVIDENCE of distribution.
Your arguments are as illogical as those the RIAA lawyers advance, and are similar or identical to those the RIAA lawyers advance.
Which is why a knowledgeable reader who has read the litigation documents and judicial decisions in some of these cases would conclude that your argument is far from "Talmudic". I've been privileged to have participated in Talmudic arguments. When I use the term I mean an argument based on principle and law and sincerity, struggling to determine what is right and most consistent with the law, not one based on expediency or smooth talk not founded on substance attempting to win something.
Your means of expression may be quiet, but the lack of logic in your statements strikes a jarring note.
"arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court ... had never been raised in the lower court."
If this is a writ of prohibition how is it relevant?
That's easy. Because the 1st Circuit doesn't want to waste its time reviewing something that might not have had to be reviewed. The Judge's second order has already obviated 90% of the argument the RIAA's lawyers made in their petition.
Judge Gertner's observation that the arguments raised by the RIAA in the appeals court, relating to the manner of administering the broadcast, had never been raised in the lower court."
That sounds bad. Anyone know what this actually means for the case?
You're not supposed to go to an appeals court on arguments you never made in the lower court. It's a waste of their time, and it's not fair to the lower court judge. What it means for the RIAA's petition is that it's unfounded.
Maybe the true reason for fighting the televising is that the RIAA lawyers are now so unholy that they can no longer be caught on any type of recording device?
You might be right. Let me think about that.
Someone explain to me exactly how the riaa and their like are not the exact same thing as the mafia? And how have we not slapped them all in jail under the RICO laws yet? They sure seem like the exact same thing to me... About the only real diffrence i see at all is the real mafia has some sense of honor and respect. And thats really stretching it.
Well this writer on Dow Jones Market Watch agrees with you.
Gertner noted that the decision did not limit streaming to the Berkman Center's Web site, saying RIAA also is free to subscribe to the CVN recording and to make it available to the public at a Web site of its choosing, provided that the group observes conditions already set by the court, including streaming unedited material. Gertner's effectively saying "You can stream it yourselves too, assholes!"
yes she is
which pretty much negates all of the RIAA's objections to a biased venue for hosting the stream, doesn't it?
Indeed it does
We, generally speaking, are only smarter than your average lawyer as pertains to computers, the internet, technology, or other generally geeky/nerdy topic. I'm sure your average lawyer would thoroughly trounce us on other less geek-centric topics.
Well, we're going off topic here, but I will tell you that in my experience:
-in the world of science and math one will occasionally come upon a genius
-in the legal world, in 34 years of encountering thousands of lawyers, I have met many reasonably intelligent people, but only 1 genius.
It's rather strange - do they think the judge in the case has no knowledge of proper procedure? Or is it a simple delaying tactic? In how many different ways can Oppenheim claim to be affiliated with the lawsuits without revealing his actual role in the litigation campaign?
People who have no respect for the truth can say anything. Eventually, I have found, at least in the world of litigation, their lies catch up to them.
By the way, thanks for bringing the information to light - we all have to work for a living, but this stuff is too interesting to ignore!
I have the same problem.
I would think this strategy runs the risk of insulting the judge.
You mean going to an appeals court and telling them that she is acting totally outside the jurisdiction of a federal judge and flagrantly violating the law?
I remember at least one case the RIAA lost where the other party filed for legal expenses to be paid by the RIAA.
2 of which I am aware. Atlantic v. Andersen $108,000, Capitol v. Foster $68,000.
Doesn't seem too smart.
Smart hasn't exactly been their strong suit.
I bet if RIAA had stuck to suing copyright infringers, none of us would have ever heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer.
May well be so. I only came into the fight because of my hatred of bullies, and because these bullies were so obviously wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, and immoral and unprofessional in their behavior.
You might have otherwise heard of my alter ego, Ray what's-his-name, in other contexts, but probably not in this context.
I only first discovered Slashdot when one of my litigation documents in Elektra v. Santangelo got 'Slashdotted' one day in the Summer of 2005. I traced the backlink to this place I'd never heard of, where an intelligent Talmudic discussion was going on, among a bunch of people who seemed kind of like lawyers, but who clearly were not lawyers, but who seemed smarter than lawyers. It looked like an ordinary message board, but it obviously was a whole 'nother thing.
Things haven't been quite the same since.
1. Spend a lot of time on Slashdot.
2. Get the word out.
3. Have a lot of fun.
4. ???
5. No profit whatsoever (in the financial sense).
So what they are actually doing is some kind of legal suicide attack?
What they've been doing the past 5 1/2 years has been a legal suicide attack.
The only survivors are their law firms.
I'm not questioning should Mr. Oppenheim be deposed only that if procedurally the RIAA have valid points on their objections? Even if they were technical like the place of deposition, fee, subject matter, etc.
No there is no merit to any of their contentions.
In response to your question I know nothing about the underlying facts, however in my experience (a) one does not need to subpoena a person who is a "principal" of a corporate plaintiff, which Mr. Oppenheim has represented that he is, (b) there is nothing in the rules or caselaw to warrant the application for sanctions, and (c) I doubt that I have ever seen a set of papers from this law firm which has not contained intentional misstatements of fact. So I await with interest the papers which I imagine will be submitted by Prof. Nesson, which I am sure will state the facts correctly.
if the allegations in their motion are true
You must be new here.
Mr. Oppenheim is a shadowy figure, who changes his stripes according to what he thinks the judge wants to hear. I.e., he will say whatever is most advantageous for him to say. He has claimed at various times to be:
-the client
-the client representative
-the industry representative
-the principal
-the only person in the world who has settlement authority
-the attorney
It is clearly true that he was the person who has controlled these cases, and who had complete authority to settle the cases. He is the enforcer of whatever unholy agreement these 4 supposed competitiors made among themselves, and he is instrumental in whatever trickery was developed to ensure that only the Big 4 -- and no other RIAA members -- were permitted to participate in this litigation war. He is the enforcer.
He is clearly an appropriate person to be deposed.
I second this! Ray, please translate a bit for us poor unfortunates. A little color commentary would be nice, too!
Sorry about that, but the reality is... I don't have the time to do good writing. I don't get paid for this. My highest priority in the blogging part of my life is to get the facts and the litigation documents out, and let the rest of the world handle the commentary. If I got a million dollar grant to spend more time writing I'd do it but I don't see that happening any time soon. I can't even get many people to buy an MP3 from one of my affiliate advertisers.
People compare me to PJ. You shouldn't. She's a great journalist; I'm not in her league. I'm just a lawyer who tripped across a wave of litigation bullying, and realized that the internet might help to slightly counterbalance one of the bad guys' strategic advantages -- their information monopoly.
What PJ and I have in common is that we've both taken advantage of the federal courts' transition to electronic filing to give our readers actual primary source material to read, and in so doing to honor, rather than insult as many other news sources do, our readers' intelligence.
Other than that, my amateur-hour work shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as her deservedly award-winning web site.
RIAA's lawyers actually wrote this in the threat: "Defendent's repeated failures to follow basic rules of procedure is making this case far more expensive and time consuming than it should be." hmm... I'd almost say something like, Plaintiff's repeated contortions of basic rules of procedure is making multiple cases far more expensive and time consuming than it should be.
Hmm. I would say something like that.
First they get the live online-coverage of one of these processes postponed. Now they try to legally blackmail the defense lawyer. What's next?
"That's an awfully nice courtroom you have here, your honor. Wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to it?"
Damn you, meister3r. What are you doing? Trying to give them ideas?
Actually they've already taken action against the judge, by filing their petition for "mandamus or prohibition". Mandamus and prohibition aren't like ordinary appeals, where the lawyer is saying the judge made a legal error and that the judgment or order should be reversed. They are "extraordinary" writs which would only be granted where the judge totally screwed up and acted totally beyond her authority, and you are asking the appeals court to order the judge to do something or stop doing something.
Someone either sounds nervous, or a poor loser.
Or both.
Your Honor, we would like you to impose sanction against him. He's not supposed to fight back. Please punish him for fighting back. Our strategy doesn't work when intelligent lawyers fight back. This must be put to an end right now.
Pathetic RIAA.
whisper_jeff, you really hit it on the head. I see you've already been modded to +5 Funny. I wish you could be modded to +10 Funny AND Accurate.