You're wasting your breath with that guy. He's some kind of RIAA fanboi. I've seen many posts of his, and he never fails to take the RIAA's side on every issue.
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
The RIAA is not a party to the cases, it just runs the cases. I use it as shorthand for the big 4 record companies and their affiliates, who are the named plaintiffs.
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again.
Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come.
The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen.
In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
Yeah, but it's really about the money. Just because they're too stupid to figure out how to make money, even though they had the best head start of anybody, doesn't mean it's not about the money.
I must admit I was under the (false, now I see) impression that the RIAA was making a profit from the out-of-court settlements.
I believe you are correct that they are making money, or at least breaking even, on the settlements. But I believe they are losing money on the default judgment cases (which probably represent 75% of the cases), and losing tons of money on the contested cases. My guess is that their legal and investigative costs are 2 or 3 times what they're bringing in from the out-of-court settlements. And they're bringing in virtually nothing from litigation.
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment...
When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected.
So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions?
I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Yes I've had to think about those types of questions. I think about them before I write them. The area that's required the most restraint is that I can't talk about my litigation ideas until they have been memorialized in publicly filed litigation documents. No I don't worry about judges reading my arguments, because my arguments here are the same as the arguments I make in my litigation documents. And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.
It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA:) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
Thanks for your kind words, penguinchris. One of the problems with headlines on Slashdot is that they have to be very short. I struggle with that on almost every submission. It would be much easier for submitters to provide accurate headlines if we had more space to work with.
The people complaining about the look of the blog are complaining about my "post pages". These looked real messy when you get to the end of the post and then everything that's supposed to be in the sidebar is splashed across the whole page.
So I went and found out how to disable "post pages". And I think it looks a lot better now. Now, what's in the sidebar stays in the sidebar, where it belongs.
Don't you think Zebulon Brodie would have been better off just letting it go? By bringing the lawsuit he's bringing all this negative publicity down upon his allegedly dirty Dunkin' Donuts.
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade.
Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Thing is, this kind of thing is coming up more and more, all across the country. The real problem is that most people who are victimized by this pernicious practice have no way in the world of getting -- or affording -- first amendment legal counsel to represent them, much less top drawer legal representation like Paul Levy and Public Citizen. Also they only find out about it usually a couple of days before their identities are about to be divulged. I had a case in New York where my client was one of about half a dozen people whose identities were being sought. I made a motion to quash the subpoena. The corporation seeking the identities just dropped their claim against my client and went after the other 5, who didn't have legal representation. It's another inappropriate example of bullies using "ex parte" litigation, Nom.... sound familiar?
Slashdot Mirror
You're wasting your breath with that guy. He's some kind of RIAA fanboi. I've seen many posts of his, and he never fails to take the RIAA's side on every issue.
Yes. Except it was said by one of the bad guys who was trying to inflame mob rule and take down the rule of law.
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
Thanks, sootman. Very much appreciated.
The RIAA is not a party to the cases, it just runs the cases. I use it as shorthand for the big 4 record companies and their affiliates, who are the named plaintiffs.
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again. Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come. The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen. In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
Yeah, but it's really about the money. Just because they're too stupid to figure out how to make money, even though they had the best head start of anybody, doesn't mean it's not about the money.
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
1. The order is not an appealable order.
2. The RIAA has asked the Judge for permission to appeal.
But apparently, they have yet to run out of cash.
Yeah. Whenever they need cash, all they have to do is skim some more from the artists.
I must admit I was under the (false, now I see) impression that the RIAA was making a profit from the out-of-court settlements.
I believe you are correct that they are making money, or at least breaking even, on the settlements. But I believe they are losing money on the default judgment cases (which probably represent 75% of the cases), and losing tons of money on the contested cases. My guess is that their legal and investigative costs are 2 or 3 times what they're bringing in from the out-of-court settlements. And they're bringing in virtually nothing from litigation.
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment... When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected. So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions? I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Yes I've had to think about those types of questions. I think about them before I write them. The area that's required the most restraint is that I can't talk about my litigation ideas until they have been memorialized in publicly filed litigation documents. No I don't worry about judges reading my arguments, because my arguments here are the same as the arguments I make in my litigation documents. And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
No, he is country.
And the RIAA lawyers are a little bit rock & roll.
No. They're gangsta.
If you are still reading, NYCL, could the RIAA's actions be considered contempt of court?
Sure sounds like it to me.
According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say?
I don't know. They're not very good at math, or law.
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support. It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
Thanks for your kind words, penguinchris. One of the problems with headlines on Slashdot is that they have to be very short. I struggle with that on almost every submission. It would be much easier for submitters to provide accurate headlines if we had more space to work with.
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
NYCL is a L (from NYC), and therefore is going to be careful what he says.
Unlike the L's the RIAA uses.
I just had an epiphany.
The people complaining about the look of the blog are complaining about my "post pages". These looked real messy when you get to the end of the post and then everything that's supposed to be in the sidebar is splashed across the whole page.
So I went and found out how to disable "post pages". And I think it looks a lot better now. Now, what's in the sidebar stays in the sidebar, where it belongs.
Nah.... the first time I learned how to make a link, I knew: this is great stuff.
But how do I do that when my links are configured to show up blue?
According to RIAA Radar it's not "RIAA-free".
Make that James J. Brink.
Don't you think Zebulon Brodie would have been better off just letting it go? By bringing the lawsuit he's bringing all this negative publicity down upon his allegedly dirty Dunkin' Donuts.
One of the primary jobs of a good libel lawyer is to advise his client when NOT to sue.
We're a nation, nay, maybe world run mostly by bullies it seems these days. I don't know if this has always been the case, but it doesn't seem like something that will ever fade. Don't you ever feel like just giving up somedays? I respect you for your efforts, but...
No I never do.
Your question reminds me of this passage from "Casablanca"
RICK
Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.
VICTOR
You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.
Thing is, this kind of thing is coming up more and more, all across the country. The real problem is that most people who are victimized by this pernicious practice have no way in the world of getting -- or affording -- first amendment legal counsel to represent them, much less top drawer legal representation like Paul Levy and Public Citizen. Also they only find out about it usually a couple of days before their identities are about to be divulged. I had a case in New York where my client was one of about half a dozen people whose identities were being sought. I made a motion to quash the subpoena. The corporation seeking the identities just dropped their claim against my client and went after the other 5, who didn't have legal representation. It's another inappropriate example of bullies using "ex parte" litigation, Nom.... sound familiar?
His name is James E. Brink. He's in Pittsburgh, PA. I think you're going to have to send him a check by snail mail.