unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics).
I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.
I thank you for your input on that, Infoport. It would indeed be regrettable if the proceedings were not accessible from a practical standpoint. I'm going to bring your comment to the attention of the defendant's lawyers.
Have you ever seen a reflection of Dracula in a mirror?
No, because he has no soul.
Have you, or will you ever see televised pictures of RIAA folks.
No, because they have no souls.
Read the fine print in your camcorder manual: "This device is not able to capture images of folks with no souls."
I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?
Because a court case isn't supposed to be a popularity contest and it would bring lots of irrelevant posturing, arguments and expla[...]nations into the court room? One thing is being consistent about what you say in court and out of court, another is to turning it into another PR channel. The judge would have to rein them in endlessly to stick to the legal facts rather than trying to score points with the viewers.
Actually making one's case to a jury is not much different than making one's case to the public. The jury is composed of members from all walks of life, who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts, and have no relationship with the parties or their counsel. I.e., the community. Our judicial system was predicated upon the principle that the proceedings are open to the public. And with good reason. If one can expand the size of the public, it is all to the good.
NYCL, or other informed lawyers:
Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases?
There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.
I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is.
But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get...
15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like.
Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did).
When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again.
Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.
If, for example, the tech community could get a chance to watch the testimony of the RIAA's "expert" and "investigator", I think a lot of good input would be communicated to the defendant's lawyer. Which would be anathema to the RIAA's campaign, since its primary fuel is ignorance.
I think the original report was merely propaganda. They haven't stopped bringing lawsuits, they don't have any deals in place with any ISP's, and what the heck does the NYS Attorney General have to do with this issue? Which New York law was he enforcing? And against whom?
Wired, Wall Street Journal, and Associated Press were all told similar lies. I doubt that they were deliberately trying to help the RIAA lie, they just failed to investigate the facts. I don't think that they were necessarily bad guys for reporting that without checking into it. But it is important that, now that they know better, they take some action about meaningfully correcting the misinformation they helped to disseminate.
The majority of people I know seem to think that it's the RIAA doing all of this on their own.
In my opinion, the RIAA has nothing to do with it at all, except that it's allowed itself to be used as a front by 4 of its members: SONY BMG, EMI, Vivendi/Universal, and Warner Bros., and their affiliates. When I use the term "RIAA" I'm just using it as shorthand for the Big 4 record companies (I use the term "Big 4" advisedly, because they're getting smaller every day).
NYCL submitted the story. He's a practicing lawyer. Lawyers tend to choose their words carefully, so as to avoid getting sued for defamation.
I reckon that's about as strong a statement as he could make without the RIAA suing him.
I don't worry about the RIAA suing me. Were they to attempt that, they would be making a grave mistake, and I would probably have more fun than I've ever had in my professional life.
I do, however, take great pains to be accurate. Unlike the RIAA's lawyers, being truthful is important to me.
Whoa, time out! NYCL is the local Slashdot guru on all things RIAA and IIRC, been personally involved in the good fight for quite some time. I don't recall him ever advocating Scientology in the past. Several thousand knowledgable and well-researched posts to Slashdot on RIAA matters over a period of many years just to trick people into clicking on a Scientology ad today would have to constitute the most over-engineered setup of all time.
Not only have I never promoted Scientology, I wouldn't promote any religion, ever. I hate the whole concept of trying to sell one's own religion to others. Just as much as I hate the whole concept of trying to disparage someone else's religion.
Just for the record, the ad for Tom Cruise's web site was placed by Google AdSense, not by me. Also it had to do with his movies, and had nothing to do with his religion. But the Ghirardelli chocolate ad is an "affiliate ad" -- i.e., one that pays my blog a commission if someone were to click it on and buy some stuff...so I did, in fact, pick that one. Personally, I think Ghirardelli chocolate is great, and people might want to buy some as gifts around Christmastime.
that they stopped filing lawsuits "months ago" and haven't filed their mass lawsuits since early Fall, and that the last suit they filed was in August....I did a little investigating and found out that they've been filing tons of lawsuits right through last week.
Because the ISP's know damn well what will happen when people find out who they are.
Someone needs to dig this up fast and post it far and wide.
When these ISP's are raped by class action lawsuits and face customers bailing in droves, you will see a different tune.
Excellent point, plasmacutter. If one has a choice of ISP's, as most people do nowadays, why choose one that's in bed with the RIAA?
The multimedia corporations are out to destroy a competing system. Otherwise why go to the trouble to alienate your base? Filesharing does a complete endrun around them and they don't like it. And like any major threat those corporations are reacting accordingly. They can't buy or control it themselves so as a group, this time hiding under a shell name RIAA, MPAA, etc (you know conspiracy), have government control or destroy it.
You got it. Unfortunately for them, however, I think they've become obsolete, now that any kid with a video cam can make a film or tv show and get worldwide exposure, and any musician can reach the world with his or her music. So all their attempts at buying or controlling it or otherwise stuffing it back in the bottle, are futile.
Speaking as a P2P developer, this again raises the question of why the DMCA safeharbour provisions have never been applied by various defenses. (NYCL!) This change in behavior amounts to overly broad DMCA takedown notices, which conspicuously weren't part of RIAA scare tactics before.
1. If I was aware of a potential defense that was never articulated in a filed public legal document, I wouldn't discuss it with an anonymous stranger on Slashdot.
2. If you are so knowledgeable about this defense which all of the defendants' lawyers have overlooked, why don't you make your case for it now, and tell us what section or sections of the DMCA you are referring to, what other legal authority you have for it, and how it would be applicable to a person who is a engaged in file sharing over Limewire or Kazaa. That would be helpful.
I'm wondering how our friend NewYorkCountyLawyer feels, waking up to discover the legal war is over? Or is it? We're all suspicious of the RIAA but my mind harkens back to the pictures of the liberation of Paris in World War II. Wonder if NYCL feels that way?
Well my initial reaction is this:
If it's true... it's about time. Meanwhile, what about the unfortunates who are presently entangled already in these unjust lawsuits? Why won't the RIAA drop those cases too? If it was bad business to start them, why isn't it bad business to keep on throwing good money after bad? I hope consumers will remember this 5 1/2-year reign of terror, and will shun RIAA products, and I hope the legal profession will place a black mark next to the names of those "lawyers" who participated in this foul calumny.
If I have any additional thoughts I'll be appending them here in my "Editor's note".
They are, technically, out of court settlements. What differentiates them from the usual out of court settlement is:
-they are vastly disproportionate to any actual damage sustained; -the plaintiffs do not care whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, but demand a 'settlement' payment regardless; -the plaintiffs do not care whether the defendant has the resources to pay it; -the plaintiffs do not have sufficient evidence upon which to base a lawsuit; -they settlements are virtually nonnegotiable; -the defendant usually has no bargaining power, because the only alternatives to "settling" are usually (1) paying a hundred thousands of dollars or more to defend a $5000 lawsuit, and then being subjected to even higher monetary claims as punishment for having defended the case, (2) filing for bankruptcy, or (3) being humiliated by hopelessly trying to defend onesself.
I.e. they have little of the characteristics of normal "settlements", and all of the characteristics of "extortion" and "protection money".
PS You're wasting your breath trying to reason with that guy, as he's an RIAA toady.
Slashdot Mirror
Law is such an interesting mix of common sense and logic.
Except in RIAA cases, where there is, instead, an interesting dearth of common sense and logic.
unfortunately, Courtroom View Network is a subscriber-based service (read John Shin's supporting declaration), so only the paying public who already knows about the case will be able to view it. Granted, many people never watch CourtTV either, but a case such as this with issues that interested much of the general public has the potential to gather LOTS of viewers, educating a large segment of the population (both on the RIAA's agenda, and on their actual tactics). I fear that the hurdles put up by making people subscribe to CVN's service will influence many to not bother "tuning-in", especially in a culture where people are accustomed to "surfing", and previewing TV channels and websites before committing to the entire thing.
I thank you for your input on that, Infoport. It would indeed be regrettable if the proceedings were not accessible from a practical standpoint. I'm going to bring your comment to the attention of the defendant's lawyers.
Have you ever seen a reflection of Dracula in a mirror? No, because he has no soul. Have you, or will you ever see televised pictures of RIAA folks. No, because they have no souls. Read the fine print in your camcorder manual: "This device is not able to capture images of folks with no souls."
I think you folks are being insensitive here. Think about how the RIAA lawyers feel. How would you like it if you did for a living what they do for a living, and your friends, family, and neighbors -- even maybe your parents -- even maybe your children -- could see what you do? Or how would you like it if by offchance the tape was seen by a future prospective employer, who thought you had actually been practicing law?
Please have a little compassion.
Because a court case isn't supposed to be a popularity contest and it would bring lots of irrelevant posturing, arguments and expla[...]nations into the court room? One thing is being consistent about what you say in court and out of court, another is to turning it into another PR channel. The judge would have to rein them in endlessly to stick to the legal facts rather than trying to score points with the viewers.
Actually making one's case to a jury is not much different than making one's case to the public. The jury is composed of members from all walks of life, who are basically selected because they have no special knowledge of the legal issues or of the facts, and have no relationship with the parties or their counsel. I.e., the community. Our judicial system was predicated upon the principle that the proceedings are open to the public. And with good reason. If one can expand the size of the public, it is all to the good.
NYCL, or other informed lawyers: Why is there such a disdain and avoidance to audio/visual recording and dissemination about court cases?
There isn't. There is a growing trend towards it. Only the RIAA has "disdain" and "avoidance", since shining a light on things tends to encourage their mortal enemy... the Truth.
I really wish the motion would pass. Finally, we could extract soundbites from the RIAA's lawyers to show how ridiculous their position is. But my guess is that it's not going to happen: it's a long shot. Allowing media in the courtroom is the exception, not the rule. What I wish for, I usually don't get... 15 years ago, I used to buy CDs. I couldn't listen to the tracks ahead of time, often 90% of the album sucked. But I had to pay the $15 anyway. Now I buy my music legally, online, but I often just buy one song (99 cents), the ones I really like. Guess what, the RIAA's business is dying. They don't provide value anymore (if they ever did). When that happens to a corporation in America, you have two options: Change your business model, adapt and become competitive again. Or ask the government for a bailout. Dear RIAA, stop the lawsuits, just ask Uncle Sam for $100 billions. It's much easier and faster than your current approach.
If, for example, the tech community could get a chance to watch the testimony of the RIAA's "expert" and "investigator", I think a lot of good input would be communicated to the defendant's lawyer. Which would be anathema to the RIAA's campaign, since its primary fuel is ignorance.
I think the original report was merely propaganda. They haven't stopped bringing lawsuits, they don't have any deals in place with any ISP's, and what the heck does the NYS Attorney General have to do with this issue? Which New York law was he enforcing? And against whom?
"IP Watch" couldn't get any confirmation on any of this stuff.
It was just some kind of propaganda. Ask the lawyer in Greensboro, North Carolina, who has 15 cases to defend whether anything's changed.
I guess your name, "Anonymous Coward", says it all.
I throw myself on the mercy of the court.
The simple solution to this is to bankrupt the RIAA members.
I think they're doing that to themselves.
Just go to my Index of Litigation Documents, look at the names of the plaintiffs, and you'll have the names of the bad guys. It's as simple as that.
I was being facetious. The RIAA itself -- after lying under oath -- said they "misspoke".
Wired, Wall Street Journal, and Associated Press were all told similar lies. I doubt that they were deliberately trying to help the RIAA lie, they just failed to investigate the facts. I don't think that they were necessarily bad guys for reporting that without checking into it. But it is important that, now that they know better, they take some action about meaningfully correcting the misinformation they helped to disseminate.
The majority of people I know seem to think that it's the RIAA doing all of this on their own.
In my opinion, the RIAA has nothing to do with it at all, except that it's allowed itself to be used as a front by 4 of its members: SONY BMG, EMI, Vivendi/Universal, and Warner Bros., and their affiliates. When I use the term "RIAA" I'm just using it as shorthand for the Big 4 record companies (I use the term "Big 4" advisedly, because they're getting smaller every day).
NYCL submitted the story. He's a practicing lawyer. Lawyers tend to choose their words carefully, so as to avoid getting sued for defamation. I reckon that's about as strong a statement as he could make without the RIAA suing him.
I don't worry about the RIAA suing me. Were they to attempt that, they would be making a grave mistake, and I would probably have more fun than I've ever had in my professional life.
I do, however, take great pains to be accurate. Unlike the RIAA's lawyers, being truthful is important to me.
Whoa, time out! NYCL is the local Slashdot guru on all things RIAA and IIRC, been personally involved in the good fight for quite some time. I don't recall him ever advocating Scientology in the past. Several thousand knowledgable and well-researched posts to Slashdot on RIAA matters over a period of many years just to trick people into clicking on a Scientology ad today would have to constitute the most over-engineered setup of all time.
Not only have I never promoted Scientology, I wouldn't promote any religion, ever. I hate the whole concept of trying to sell one's own religion to others. Just as much as I hate the whole concept of trying to disparage someone else's religion.
EMI, SONY BMG Music, Vivendi/Universal, and Warner Bros. ... and their affiliates.
Just for the record, the ad for Tom Cruise's web site was placed by Google AdSense, not by me. Also it had to do with his movies, and had nothing to do with his religion. But the Ghirardelli chocolate ad is an "affiliate ad" -- i.e., one that pays my blog a commission if someone were to click it on and buy some stuff...so I did, in fact, pick that one. Personally, I think Ghirardelli chocolate is great, and people might want to buy some as gifts around Christmastime.
that they stopped filing lawsuits "months ago" and haven't filed their mass lawsuits since early Fall, and that the last suit they filed was in August....I did a little investigating and found out that they've been filing tons of lawsuits right through last week.
Because the ISP's know damn well what will happen when people find out who they are. Someone needs to dig this up fast and post it far and wide. When these ISP's are raped by class action lawsuits and face customers bailing in droves, you will see a different tune.
Excellent point, plasmacutter. If one has a choice of ISP's, as most people do nowadays, why choose one that's in bed with the RIAA?
The multimedia corporations are out to destroy a competing system. Otherwise why go to the trouble to alienate your base? Filesharing does a complete endrun around them and they don't like it. And like any major threat those corporations are reacting accordingly. They can't buy or control it themselves so as a group, this time hiding under a shell name RIAA, MPAA, etc (you know conspiracy), have government control or destroy it.
You got it. Unfortunately for them, however, I think they've become obsolete, now that any kid with a video cam can make a film or tv show and get worldwide exposure, and any musician can reach the world with his or her music. So all their attempts at buying or controlling it or otherwise stuffing it back in the bottle, are futile.
Speaking as a P2P developer, this again raises the question of why the DMCA safeharbour provisions have never been applied by various defenses. (NYCL!) This change in behavior amounts to overly broad DMCA takedown notices, which conspicuously weren't part of RIAA scare tactics before.
1. If I was aware of a potential defense that was never articulated in a filed public legal document, I wouldn't discuss it with an anonymous stranger on Slashdot.
2. If you are so knowledgeable about this defense which all of the defendants' lawyers have overlooked, why don't you make your case for it now, and tell us what section or sections of the DMCA you are referring to, what other legal authority you have for it, and how it would be applicable to a person who is a engaged in file sharing over Limewire or Kazaa. That would be helpful.
many of us who stopped buying their products will take a while to bring back into their fold - if ever
I hope it's never.
I'm wondering how our friend NewYorkCountyLawyer feels, waking up to discover the legal war is over? Or is it? We're all suspicious of the RIAA but my mind harkens back to the pictures of the liberation of Paris in World War II. Wonder if NYCL feels that way?
Well my initial reaction is this:
If it's true... it's about time. Meanwhile, what about the unfortunates who are presently entangled already in these unjust lawsuits? Why won't the RIAA drop those cases too? If it was bad business to start them, why isn't it bad business to keep on throwing good money after bad? I hope consumers will remember this 5 1/2-year reign of terror, and will shun RIAA products, and I hope the legal profession will place a black mark next to the names of those "lawyers" who participated in this foul calumny.
If I have any additional thoughts I'll be appending them here in my "Editor's note".
They are, technically, out of court settlements. What differentiates them from the usual out of court settlement is:
-they are vastly disproportionate to any actual damage sustained;
-the plaintiffs do not care whether the defendant is innocent or guilty, but demand a 'settlement' payment regardless;
-the plaintiffs do not care whether the defendant has the resources to pay it;
-the plaintiffs do not have sufficient evidence upon which to base a lawsuit;
-they settlements are virtually nonnegotiable;
-the defendant usually has no bargaining power, because the only alternatives to "settling" are usually (1) paying a hundred thousands of dollars or more to defend a $5000 lawsuit, and then being subjected to even higher monetary claims as punishment for having defended the case, (2) filing for bankruptcy, or (3) being humiliated by hopelessly trying to defend onesself.
I.e. they have little of the characteristics of normal "settlements", and all of the characteristics of "extortion" and "protection money".
PS You're wasting your breath trying to reason with that guy, as he's an RIAA toady.