In contrast, thinking about society, political organization, and the meaning of terms like "democracy" is clearly not your strong suit.
Actually they're very closely related. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean you have a 'stronger suit' than I. Sorry you differ with my opinion that we live in a democracy. Your view that it is not technically a "democracy" but a representative republic is nothing new; I have heard it expressed throughout the years and it is of course one valid way of looking at it.
But the way I look at it, it is a democracy.
If you think your erudition and credentials are superior to mine, and that that provides your opinion with a greater weight, I can only say that that is not a very 'democratic' way of looking at things. In fact it is quite "Republican" (with a capital "R"). But we'll never know about your credentials as long as you remain ensconced behind an "Anonymous Coward" log in.
We are not a democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot).
We are a representative Republic which protects the rights of the minority, or the individual.
As far as I am concerned, it is a democracy which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority or the individual. I do not believe there is such a thing as democracy without protecting the rights of the minority or the individual. How can there be government 'of the people, by the people, or for the people', if 'the people' were to be afraid to freely associate, and freely express themselves? I do not consider your definition of democracy -- tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot -- to be correct.
I understand what you're saying. And I've heard that view expressed many times. I just happen to have a contrary opinion.
That's the problem with the RIAA's lawyers. In my opinion, they crossed the ethics line. I can get behind advocating for a client you don't agree with. I can't get behind breaking the law, misrepresenting facts, and filing suits without an adequate basis.
Democracy has never been shown to work as a national government
Yes it is one of the least convenient forms of governance.
and I frankly don't believe it can.
I don't know if it can or can't; I just know that it has to.
I live in a representative republic.
Not me. I live in a democracy.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is a bad idea.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is the greatest idea the human race ever had.
I've reread the thread
Well you're even more of a glutton for punishment than I am.
in hopes there was an actual argument that I missed, or a disagreement with a policy Obama intends to enact. All I can find is the shrill and unfounded claim that Obama will lie as bad or worse than the Bush/Cheney camp has lied for the last 8 years.
You are engaging in fallacious reasoning on this point. I do not have to 'disagree with a policy' the President-Elect intends to enact in order to criticize one of his appointments. I am critical of his appointment of Thomas Pelletti because I do not think Mr. Pelletti is of good enough character to hold the position to which he is being appointed. I have no idea what policies Obama will enact, and I do not even think Mr. Pelletti will be enacting any policies at all. I just criticize the appointment. That doesn't make me shrill. And my criticism is not unfounded.
This is not disagreeing with what he's doing or has done, this is simple minds hating without reason.
I don't hate Mr. Obama. I have high hopes form him. And I don't disagree with his policies because I don't know what they are yet.
I said he was incorrect. A civil lawyer does not have to accept any case he doesn't want to accept. Each and every one of the RIAA lawyers is fully and personally responsible for what he or she has done. There is nothing about being a lawyer which excuses their behavior.
those settlement letters are losing their effectiveness every time RIAA gets their crappy legal theories shot down. And that costs the people less money overall.
Justice is not a waste of money, it's all of the passive settling that people did. They gave up a little money, collectively, to avoid being personally hit for a bunch of money.
Exactly. Every "settlement" payment was just adding fuel to the fire, encouraging them to go after other people. And every time someone refused to settle, they were helping to bring about an end of the madness.
Hi, Mr Beckerman, or anyone who is happy to answer me.
Is the district court ruling the highest that can stop the RIAA?
What's going to stop the RIAA from aiming even higher, such as...?
* Supreme court (Does it deal with such, um, trivial cases?)
* Lobbying
* Getting laws amended
* Put people in congress
* Put people in the President's team
What's going to stop other big companies from doing similar things in future?
Beats me. I have no idea what's going to stop them, or other big companies, from doing similar things in the future. Hopefully, when these sociopaths crawl out again from under their rocks, there will be other people like me and like all the defendants and other lawyers who have fought back, to stand up and fight them again.
Ray,
First, thank you for (a) your work on behalf of the RIAA's targets (b) your explanations to those of us not legally trained on the details of these suits.
That said, with the RIAA walking away, what is the likelihood of recovering costs?
There is no likelihood, since Mr. Brennan never showed up.
And if this is a de-facto dismissal-with-prejudice, does this set any sort of precedence for the other active cases?
I've been reading these stories for years and wanted to thank you for the good work you have all done.
It's changed my perspective and my families purchasing habits with music. Everyone I speak with knows I don't purchase music when the RIAA will benefit from it.
I go to sites such as secondspin.com, gametz.com or amazon.com marketplace and purchase second hand music if I must have that song. Also I've been using google to find independents to purchase directly online.
The internet is a liberating tool. Another reason I'm hoping it becomes like public roads. Everyone should have it available and fast. This way we can punish organizations such as these guys by taking our money elsewhere.
Over the last few years I've also switched my home computers to Ubuntu Linux (kicking Microsoft out) and replaced Concast Internet with a local provider. Similar reasons. I don't like their poor attitude and won't do business with them.
This is the only way everyday people will get these companies attention. Perhaps they will figure it out. Then again, perhaps they will be the ones asking for a bail out as well.
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
On behalf of the folks who have suffered so much from this long RIAA nightmare, thank YOU for being so conscientious about being sure not to do business with the bad guys. I keep a list of independent music sources for consumers such as yourself.
The indies are far more honest and reasonable; they give the music away on websites and via P2P, using the music itself as a reason for you to buy other things (CDs, t-shirts, etc).
Indies also sell their music, and anyone who professes to hate the RIAA should be sure to buy music from indie performers.
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice.
Under the Federal Rules, a second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. This is the second case against Mr. Brennan, the first being the case in which they sued him as a John Doe, obtained a subpoena, learned his name and address, and then dismissed. So it would appear to me that this is 'with prejudice' even though they have labeled it 'without prejudice'. In any event, I don't think they're going to mess with Judge Janet Bond Atherton again, any time soon.
Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court.
Yeah. Mostly against children, students, grandparents, stroke victims, the homeless, the deceased, welfare mothers, people on Social Security Disability, home health aides, etc. His track record against parties who can afford lawyers is nothing to write home about.
No disrespect, but so you ahve a link or citation where this man is telling people to do those thing of his own volition?
No disrespect but do you have so little understanding of the legal process that you think I would have access to internal conversations and emails of lawyers on the other side?
I could go on forever answering that question. For starters
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.
Detestable? What evidence do you have that this man *set* RIAA policy, rather than carrying it out?
Last I checked, Copyright is still a cherished law of the land outside of Slashdot, and the RIAA had the right to sue people for infringement.
Now, it was a stubbornly stupid move (step 1, kill your customers, step 2, ???, step 3, profit!), but why would specific attorneys be painted with the brush for enacting the policy?
As an example, David Boies [wikipedia.org] was lauded for defending Napster, representing the DOJ vs. Microsoft on Antitrust, yet was retained by the SCO group in recent years. Does that make him detestable?
You miss the whole point of my involvement in these cases. I have no problem with recording companies enforcing their sound recording copyright laws. It is the way in which their lawyers have gone about it that I find detestable: -rushing to commence unnecessary litigations -signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence -making false statements of fact -making false representations about the law -using financial might to crush innocent people -attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts -deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.
Any lawyer who signs on for this type of brutality is not a lawyer in my book.
Any lawyer who led this type of brutality is bad news... because he has no conscience.
I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush.
Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.
I am not a racist and I supported Obama.
But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.
I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business.
I thought that's called the free market.
Actually... no it isn't. 'Free market' would be if the 4 companies competed against each other, rather than colluding together on everything behind the apron strings of the 'RIAA'.
Slashdot Mirror
Ray, please stick to law. You're good at it.
Thanks.
In contrast, thinking about society, political organization, and the meaning of terms like "democracy" is clearly not your strong suit.
Actually they're very closely related. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean you have a 'stronger suit' than I. Sorry you differ with my opinion that we live in a democracy. Your view that it is not technically a "democracy" but a representative republic is nothing new; I have heard it expressed throughout the years and it is of course one valid way of looking at it.
But the way I look at it, it is a democracy.
If you think your erudition and credentials are superior to mine, and that that provides your opinion with a greater weight, I can only say that that is not a very 'democratic' way of looking at things. In fact it is quite "Republican" (with a capital "R"). But we'll never know about your credentials as long as you remain ensconced behind an "Anonymous Coward" log in.
We are not a democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). We are a representative Republic which protects the rights of the minority, or the individual.
As far as I am concerned, it is a democracy which is supposed to protect the rights of the minority or the individual. I do not believe there is such a thing as democracy without protecting the rights of the minority or the individual. How can there be government 'of the people, by the people, or for the people', if 'the people' were to be afraid to freely associate, and freely express themselves? I do not consider your definition of democracy -- tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot -- to be correct.
I understand what you're saying. And I've heard that view expressed many times. I just happen to have a contrary opinion.
That's the problem with the RIAA's lawyers. In my opinion, they crossed the ethics line. I can get behind advocating for a client you don't agree with. I can't get behind breaking the law, misrepresenting facts, and filing suits without an adequate basis.
Thanks for expressing it so well, Zordak.
Mr. Beckerman, I don't live in a democracy.
I do.
I don't like democracy.
I like democracy.
Democracy has never been shown to work as a national government
Yes it is one of the least convenient forms of governance.
and I frankly don't believe it can.
I don't know if it can or can't; I just know that it has to.
I live in a representative republic.
Not me. I live in a democracy.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is a bad idea.
The howling masses screaming about every single action the president-elect takes are the only proof I need that democracy is the greatest idea the human race ever had.
I've reread the thread
Well you're even more of a glutton for punishment than I am.
in hopes there was an actual argument that I missed, or a disagreement with a policy Obama intends to enact. All I can find is the shrill and unfounded claim that Obama will lie as bad or worse than the Bush/Cheney camp has lied for the last 8 years.
You are engaging in fallacious reasoning on this point. I do not have to 'disagree with a policy' the President-Elect intends to enact in order to criticize one of his appointments. I am critical of his appointment of Thomas Pelletti because I do not think Mr. Pelletti is of good enough character to hold the position to which he is being appointed. I have no idea what policies Obama will enact, and I do not even think Mr. Pelletti will be enacting any policies at all. I just criticize the appointment. That doesn't make me shrill. And my criticism is not unfounded.
This is not disagreeing with what he's doing or has done, this is simple minds hating without reason.
I don't hate Mr. Obama. I have high hopes form him. And I don't disagree with his policies because I don't know what they are yet.
Even the destitute can find a lawyer who will represent them, given a decent change of winning.
Only if it's the type of case that lawyers customarily handle on a contingent fee basis, such as personal injury.
It uses the term "making available for distribution"
The law says nothing of the kind. It is something the lawyers for the RIAA and the MPAA made up out of whole cloth.
I said he was incorrect. A civil lawyer does not have to accept any case he doesn't want to accept. Each and every one of the RIAA lawyers is fully and personally responsible for what he or she has done. There is nothing about being a lawyer which excuses their behavior.
those settlement letters are losing their effectiveness every time RIAA gets their crappy legal theories shot down. And that costs the people less money overall. Justice is not a waste of money, it's all of the passive settling that people did. They gave up a little money, collectively, to avoid being personally hit for a bunch of money.
Exactly. Every "settlement" payment was just adding fuel to the fire, encouraging them to go after other people. And every time someone refused to settle, they were helping to bring about an end of the madness.
I'm getting a little tired of the relentless bashing of the guy a genuine majority of the country elected.
If you're tired of that, then you're tired of democracy.
I voted for him, and I don't care if every other person in the country voted for him and elected him unanimous proclamation.
He is president, not king. And when we disagree with something he does, we're going to let him know about it.
Hi, Mr Beckerman, or anyone who is happy to answer me. Is the district court ruling the highest that can stop the RIAA? What's going to stop the RIAA from aiming even higher, such as...? * Supreme court (Does it deal with such, um, trivial cases?) * Lobbying * Getting laws amended * Put people in congress * Put people in the President's team What's going to stop other big companies from doing similar things in future?
Beats me. I have no idea what's going to stop them, or other big companies, from doing similar things in the future. Hopefully, when these sociopaths crawl out again from under their rocks, there will be other people like me and like all the defendants and other lawyers who have fought back, to stand up and fight them again.
Ray, First, thank you for (a) your work on behalf of the RIAA's targets (b) your explanations to those of us not legally trained on the details of these suits. That said, with the RIAA walking away, what is the likelihood of recovering costs?
There is no likelihood, since Mr. Brennan never showed up.
And if this is a de-facto dismissal-with-prejudice, does this set any sort of precedence for the other active cases?
No, but the February 13, 2008, decision did.
I've been reading these stories for years and wanted to thank you for the good work you have all done. It's changed my perspective and my families purchasing habits with music. Everyone I speak with knows I don't purchase music when the RIAA will benefit from it. I go to sites such as secondspin.com, gametz.com or amazon.com marketplace and purchase second hand music if I must have that song. Also I've been using google to find independents to purchase directly online. The internet is a liberating tool. Another reason I'm hoping it becomes like public roads. Everyone should have it available and fast. This way we can punish organizations such as these guys by taking our money elsewhere. Over the last few years I've also switched my home computers to Ubuntu Linux (kicking Microsoft out) and replaced Concast Internet with a local provider. Similar reasons. I don't like their poor attitude and won't do business with them. This is the only way everyday people will get these companies attention. Perhaps they will figure it out. Then again, perhaps they will be the ones asking for a bail out as well. Thanks again and keep up the great work!
On behalf of the folks who have suffered so much from this long RIAA nightmare, thank YOU for being so conscientious about being sure not to do business with the bad guys. I keep a list of independent music sources for consumers such as yourself.
The RIAA is where musicians go to lose moo-lah, not make it.
I guess you do know a little something about the "Big 4" recording companies, and how they operate.
You sound like an RIAA investigator.
I believe it's ... illegal in the U.S. for a lawyer to refuse a case based on their personal opinions one way or the other
You are 100% incorrect.
The indies are far more honest and reasonable; they give the music away on websites and via P2P, using the music itself as a reason for you to buy other things (CDs, t-shirts, etc).
Indies also sell their music, and anyone who professes to hate the RIAA should be sure to buy music from indie performers.
What the RIAA has realized is that the lawsuits are ineffective (duh, big surprise, dumbasses)
Digital music guy Steve Meyer just came out with a good article on that subject.
I think the issue now is whether the RIAA can dismiss the case at this point without prejudice.
Under the Federal Rules, a second voluntary dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits. This is the second case against Mr. Brennan, the first being the case in which they sued him as a John Doe, obtained a subpoena, learned his name and address, and then dismissed. So it would appear to me that this is 'with prejudice' even though they have labeled it 'without prejudice'. In any event, I don't think they're going to mess with Judge Janet Bond Atherton again, any time soon.
Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court.
Yeah. Mostly against children, students, grandparents, stroke victims, the homeless, the deceased, welfare mothers, people on Social Security Disability, home health aides, etc. His track record against parties who can afford lawyers is nothing to write home about.
No disrespect, but so you ahve a link or citation where this man is telling people to do those thing of his own volition?
No disrespect but do you have so little understanding of the legal process that you think I would have access to internal conversations and emails of lawyers on the other side?
I could go on forever answering that question. For starters
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.
Detestable? What evidence do you have that this man *set* RIAA policy, rather than carrying it out? Last I checked, Copyright is still a cherished law of the land outside of Slashdot, and the RIAA had the right to sue people for infringement. Now, it was a stubbornly stupid move (step 1, kill your customers, step 2, ???, step 3, profit!), but why would specific attorneys be painted with the brush for enacting the policy? As an example, David Boies [wikipedia.org] was lauded for defending Napster, representing the DOJ vs. Microsoft on Antitrust, yet was retained by the SCO group in recent years. Does that make him detestable?
You miss the whole point of my involvement in these cases. I have no problem with recording companies enforcing their sound recording copyright laws. It is the way in which their lawyers have gone about it that I find detestable:
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.
Any lawyer who signs on for this type of brutality is not a lawyer in my book.
Any lawyer who led this type of brutality is bad news... because he has no conscience.
I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush. Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.
I am not a racist and I supported Obama.
But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.
Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!
Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.
I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business.
I thought that's called the free market.
Actually... no it isn't. 'Free market' would be if the 4 companies competed against each other, rather than colluding together on everything behind the apron strings of the 'RIAA'.