I am by no means defending this action, but... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing?
If you're asking me whether I'm surprised they're resisting it, no I'm not. If I did what they do for a living, I'd be ashamed too. The last thing I would want is for the world -- including my friends and relatives -- to see what I do.
But it's not really possible for me to imagine myself in their shoes, because -- having been born of a human mother -- I would never be in their shoes and -- being a lawyer and a gentleman -- would never do the things they do.
Okay, wise guy...I think I just swallowed my false teeth guffawing.
Well being modded "Funny" is, for me, a rarity, so I feel good about that. Except of course about the teeth.
Now, are you gonna take my case against yourself, or what?!?!?
You'd lose.
I do admire your ability to separate work from play
Haven't been good at that lately, every since I got into this war with the RIAA. My idea of play lately has been to hang out on Slashdot, which is not so different than what I do for a living -- i.e. argue, defend myself from abuse, try to make it clear what the law is, etc.
but at the same time being able to get your viewpoint across without compromising your clients, cases, or career in the whole process of upholding a cause by effective* means.
See, my play is a lot like my work.
Kudos, sir!
BTW, thanks for all your contributions here on/., and more importantly for your 'real world' efforts in court.
There is a reason I added you to my friends list...keep up the good fight. (your website is the only one I disable Adblock+, and NoScript extensions in Firefox 100%
Thanks
as I also donate any income tax refunds to the EFF-I believe in the cause and am not afraid to support it)
They are a wonderful organization. The only thing I have against them is that they got me into this mess.
Summary:
The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.
Maybe their reason for secrecy is much more benign. Maybe they're just upset that they can't have the exclusive distribution rights to the Court's feed.
And with that, a million voices on Slashdot suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
The only voices that would be silenced would be those of the very few who might think that a man who's devoted the past 34 years of his life to the rule of law would be in favor of infringing upon someone's legal rights. In fact, it is hard for me to imagine anyone on Slashdot who would sincerely have believed anything else.
Granted, but then why are they only avoiding Austin?
Why they would violate the order, and flagrantly violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on a daily basis, for 4 years... is a question I can't answer. You would have to ask them.
The reason they were avoiding Austin is no doubt that the judges who issued they order that's been violated would probably hold them in contempt and might even put them in jail.
this is what kills me, and why their business is such a damned train wreck. They are letting people with no [expleteive deleted] business sense make the decisions (namely the legal teams)...
Exactly. The lawyers have been running this operation for their own benefit.
I don't look at it as "governments" or "organizations". The decisions are made by human beings. In today's world too many corporations allow the human beings in charge of the corporations to get away with murder, something like the fox being in charge of the hen house. The idiots who drove these companies into the ground aren't interested in the companies; they're interested in their own careers.
That has to be one of the best summaries I've ever read on slashdot. I didn't even have to RTFA and I am up to speed on the story.
Interesting you should say that, because I was agonizing over it. I felt maybe I put in too much stuff. But I didn't know how to convey the import of their running away with their tail between their legs, without explaining the background. Glad you feel that I'd done it right.
As far as I'm concerned, you're asking half of the Great Imponderable Question. I'll add the other half:
1) They can't be making any money off this.
Losing money hand over fist.
The kinds of people they sue aren't among the wealthier members of society.
Usually.
There's a big difference between getting a judgment and actually collecting the money.
That's right. And each default judgment cost them plenty.
2) It's not acting as a deterrent. People are still out there doing what they do as recording sales continue to fall.
So I'm told.
So the other half of the question is: Why do they keep doing this?
My theory is that (1) a corporation is managed by its management, (2) the management in the case of the big 4 record companies are total failures, and (3) this campaign was based on a premise that they fabricated to deflect attention from their own failure: that the existence of p2p file sharing software is the sole reason for their failure. They had to push the campaign to try to pretend they believed in the premise.
I respectfully disagree. You seem to define "democracy" as "absolute dictatorship by the majority"; I don't know where you get that definition from, but I do not accept it. It renders the term meaningless.
The term "democracy" means government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Not only do I see nothing inconsistent between that concept and the concept of protection of the rights of minorities, I cannot imagine the concept of democracy surviving without protection of the rights of minorities. Minorities are people too.
Neither do I think there is anything inconsistent between our representative 'republican' form of government and democracy, and I think the founding fathers made it quite clear that it was their view that -the only legitimate form of government was government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and -the organization they were creating was intended to serve that goal rather than to be an end of itself.
I am no longer up to date on my history of Ancient Greece, but if it is true that the Athenians defined "democracy" as "absolute dictatorship by the majority", then what they had was not democracy but a failed attempt at democracy.
Your view is not supported by the writings of the founding fathers, the constitution, the pledge of allegiance, or indeed by anything except a slowly morphing definition of the word "democracy".
The term "democracy" means "government by the people". I.e. a government which exists for the benefit of, and is ultimately controlled by, the people. No more and no less. It neither excludes nor includes or republics, nor does it exclude or include any particular economic system. It does not encompass anarchy, mob rule, tyranny of the majority, or suppression of minorities. Neither does it exclude the form of 'representative republic' which we have created, nor does it exclude certain other forms of government which might or might not be democratic in their practice.
As to the relationship between the notion of democracy and the actual republic itself, it is evident from any unjaundiced reading of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that our founding fathers intended -- by the creation of this 'representative republic' -- to achieve a democracy, and further contemplated that the purpose of the republic was to serve democracy.
I think they did a great job of making that quite clear, so that the only way to conclude that this is a republic instead of a democracy, rather than a republic which is legally required to be a democracy, is to ignore the framers' unmistakable intent.
Not only did they express their intent quite clearly, I am also of the opinion that they did an excellent job of creating a good legal vehicle for the protection and furtherance of democracy, since it is usually in the violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than in adherence to them, that we depart from protecting democratic principles.
So that is why I say I live in a democracy. Because the republic in which I live is required to be a democracy.
Seems I didn't watch out. The rights of the copyright owner are (#4 to #6 are not interesting here):
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Somewhere else it says:
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication.
So the facts are:
1. "Publication" is some term used somewhere in copyright law, probably for some good reason.
2. "Distribution" by someone other than the copyright holder is illegal.
3. "Distribution" constitutes "Publication"
4. "Offer to distribute" constitutes "Publication"
The faulty conclusion is that "Publication" by someone other than the copyright holder and therefore "Offer to distribute" by someone other than the copyright holder is always illegal. If the lawmakers would have wanted that "making available" is illegal then they would have added the a sentence similar to "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes distribution" to (3) above. They didn't.
gnasher, if you keep on reading the statute like that, the RIAA will consider you a subversive. How dare you invoke the actual law? Thomas Pelletti and his colleagues never bothered with that.
Slashdot Mirror
I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing?
If you're asking me whether I'm surprised they're resisting it, no I'm not. If I did what they do for a living, I'd be ashamed too. The last thing I would want is for the world -- including my friends and relatives -- to see what I do.
But it's not really possible for me to imagine myself in their shoes, because -- having been born of a human mother -- I would never be in their shoes and -- being a lawyer and a gentleman -- would never do the things they do.
Okay, wise guy...I think I just swallowed my false teeth guffawing.
Well being modded "Funny" is, for me, a rarity, so I feel good about that. Except of course about the teeth.
Now, are you gonna take my case against yourself, or what?!?!?
You'd lose.
I do admire your ability to separate work from play
Haven't been good at that lately, every since I got into this war with the RIAA. My idea of play lately has been to hang out on Slashdot, which is not so different than what I do for a living -- i.e. argue, defend myself from abuse, try to make it clear what the law is, etc.
but at the same time being able to get your viewpoint across without compromising your clients, cases, or career in the whole process of upholding a cause by effective* means.
See, my play is a lot like my work.
Kudos, sir! BTW, thanks for all your contributions here on /., and more importantly for your 'real world' efforts in court.
There is a reason I added you to my friends list...keep up the good fight. (your website is the only one I disable Adblock+, and NoScript extensions in Firefox 100%
Thanks
as I also donate any income tax refunds to the EFF-I believe in the cause and am not afraid to support it)
They are a wonderful organization. The only thing I have against them is that they got me into this mess.
PS Red Orbit looks neat.
The ruling is not about copyright law. The ruling is about the people's right to know what goes on in government, including the courts.
Summary: The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.
Maybe their reason for secrecy is much more benign. Maybe they're just upset that they can't have the exclusive distribution rights to the Court's feed.
they have really ugly lawyers?
No. Like most aliens who walk among us impersonating humans, they have modified their appearance.
I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised?
That's easy.
Exposure of these proceedings gives information to those who must defend future cases, thus reducing their defense costs.
I am opposed to copyright infringement.
And with that, a million voices on Slashdot suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
The only voices that would be silenced would be those of the very few who might think that a man who's devoted the past 34 years of his life to the rule of law would be in favor of infringing upon someone's legal rights. In fact, it is hard for me to imagine anyone on Slashdot who would sincerely have believed anything else.
Anyway, would you condemn copyright infringement -- for the record?
Yes I am opposed to copyright infringement.
So you subscribe to the same dishonest debate tactic.
Theft is a synonym for stealing.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. I am not aware of a synonym for it.
The RIAA uses the terms "piracy" and "stealing" in referring to copyright infringement, but do so inaccurately, as part of their propaganda.
the /. crew
So you are attempting to lump together everybody on Slashdot who is not you as "the /. crew"? Strange.
Granted, but then why are they only avoiding Austin?
Why they would violate the order, and flagrantly violate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on a daily basis, for 4 years... is a question I can't answer. You would have to ask them.
The reason they were avoiding Austin is no doubt that the judges who issued they order that's been violated would probably hold them in contempt and might even put them in jail.
this is what kills me, and why their business is such a damned train wreck. They are letting people with no [expleteive deleted] business sense make the decisions (namely the legal teams)...
Exactly. The lawyers have been running this operation for their own benefit.
I don't look at it as "governments" or "organizations". The decisions are made by human beings. In today's world too many corporations allow the human beings in charge of the corporations to get away with murder, something like the fox being in charge of the hen house. The idiots who drove these companies into the ground aren't interested in the companies; they're interested in their own careers.
Nothing wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property.
I have not seen any one saying there is something "wrong with a copyright music owner protecting their property".
If you read the judges' order you won't find the words "in Austin" there.
That has to be one of the best summaries I've ever read on slashdot. I didn't even have to RTFA and I am up to speed on the story.
Interesting you should say that, because I was agonizing over it. I felt maybe I put in too much stuff. But I didn't know how to convey the import of their running away with their tail between their legs, without explaining the background. Glad you feel that I'd done it right.
As far as I'm concerned, you're asking half of the Great Imponderable Question. I'll add the other half: 1) They can't be making any money off this.
Losing money hand over fist.
The kinds of people they sue aren't among the wealthier members of society.
Usually.
There's a big difference between getting a judgment and actually collecting the money.
That's right. And each default judgment cost them plenty.
2) It's not acting as a deterrent. People are still out there doing what they do as recording sales continue to fall.
So I'm told. So the other half of the question is: Why do they keep doing this?
My theory is that (1) a corporation is managed by its management, (2) the management in the case of the big 4 record companies are total failures, and (3) this campaign was based on a premise that they fabricated to deflect attention from their own failure: that the existence of p2p file sharing software is the sole reason for their failure. They had to push the campaign to try to pretend they believed in the premise.
I see a very bright outlook for Apogee Telecom's ISP business this year.
Yes, I think their willingness to stand up for the rule of law is something to be proud of. And I think people will respect that.
it could have been rather comical to see RIAA go up before a judge that had told them to stop the bundling
.Yes. It would have been priceless.
No, it was entirely my fault. I was working from memory. The correct name is "Rhode Island College".
As a RI resident, I can pretty confidently say that there no "College of Rhode Island".
Sorry about that. You are of course correct. It's "Rhode Island College". My apologies.
A person my age should no longer work from memory.
I respectfully disagree. You seem to define "democracy" as "absolute dictatorship by the majority"; I don't know where you get that definition from, but I do not accept it. It renders the term meaningless.
The term "democracy" means government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Not only do I see nothing inconsistent between that concept and the concept of protection of the rights of minorities, I cannot imagine the concept of democracy surviving without protection of the rights of minorities. Minorities are people too.
Neither do I think there is anything inconsistent between our representative 'republican' form of government and democracy, and I think the founding fathers made it quite clear that it was their view that
-the only legitimate form of government was government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and
-the organization they were creating was intended to serve that goal rather than to be an end of itself.
I am no longer up to date on my history of Ancient Greece, but if it is true that the Athenians defined "democracy" as "absolute dictatorship by the majority", then what they had was not democracy but a failed attempt at democracy.
Your view is not supported by the writings of the founding fathers, the constitution, the pledge of allegiance, or indeed by anything except a slowly morphing definition of the word "democracy".
The term "democracy" means "government by the people". I.e. a government which exists for the benefit of, and is ultimately controlled by, the people. No more and no less. It neither excludes nor includes or republics, nor does it exclude or include any particular economic system. It does not encompass anarchy, mob rule, tyranny of the majority, or suppression of minorities. Neither does it exclude the form of 'representative republic' which we have created, nor does it exclude certain other forms of government which might or might not be democratic in their practice.
As to the relationship between the notion of democracy and the actual republic itself, it is evident from any unjaundiced reading of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that our founding fathers intended -- by the creation of this 'representative republic' -- to achieve a democracy, and further contemplated that the purpose of the republic was to serve democracy.
I think they did a great job of making that quite clear, so that the only way to conclude that this is a republic instead of a democracy, rather than a republic which is legally required to be a democracy, is to ignore the framers' unmistakable intent.
Not only did they express their intent quite clearly, I am also of the opinion that they did an excellent job of creating a good legal vehicle for the protection and furtherance of democracy, since it is usually in the violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than in adherence to them, that we depart from protecting democratic principles.
So that is why I say I live in a democracy. Because the republic in which I live is required to be a democracy.
Seems I didn't watch out. The rights of the copyright owner are (#4 to #6 are not interesting here): (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; Somewhere else it says: "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. So the facts are: 1. "Publication" is some term used somewhere in copyright law, probably for some good reason. 2. "Distribution" by someone other than the copyright holder is illegal. 3. "Distribution" constitutes "Publication" 4. "Offer to distribute" constitutes "Publication" The faulty conclusion is that "Publication" by someone other than the copyright holder and therefore "Offer to distribute" by someone other than the copyright holder is always illegal. If the lawmakers would have wanted that "making available" is illegal then they would have added the a sentence similar to "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes distribution" to (3) above. They didn't.
gnasher, if you keep on reading the statute like that, the RIAA will consider you a subversive. How dare you invoke the actual law? Thomas Pelletti and his colleagues never bothered with that.