My limited understanding, which I can't guarantee to be 100% correct:
- Lots of ex parte hearings, the frequency of which seem to contradict the necessarily strong Constitutional limits on them. You can't just deny someone due process because it's convenient.
- The "making available" theory. These people are being sued not for copyright infringement but the potential infringement of others. Like you point out.
- The use of unlicensed investigators.
I am with others who say (and generally trust NYCL on this as well) that this is an abuse of the system. They have an automated approach to finding alleged infringers and issuing subpoenas. Even though these cases are mishandled, and the RIAA is relying on a shaky legal theory and evidence that shouldn't be admitted, they're making up for quality with quantity. It's certainly been said before, but this is not unlike spamming the courts.
Well, for someone with a "limited understanding", you did pretty well there. I don't know if I could have summed it up as well myself.
Every person who defends the RIAA's bringing of these oppressive lawsuits says "I'm not a fan of the RIAA's tactics". Strange. If you're not a fan of the RIAA's tactics, why would you be defending them?
The world's biggest and most disrespectful unpaid RIAA apologist is in the house, ready to pounce upon another disabled and defenseless victim of the RIAA onslaught. Of course the next thing out of his mouth will be how much he hates the RIAA and MPAA whose cause he so fervently supports. I wish he would go back to designing video games, which he probably copied from others.
Hi Ray,
Reading through this thread, the number of comments made by morally retarded idiots is depressing. I just wanted to say once again, as far as most of us here are concerned, you are a superhero complete with a big flappy cape. We luv ya. Keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks, jeko. Don't worry. With these kids joining the fight, nothing will stop me until we win.
Some posts accuse me of 'bias' against the RIAA. I don't really understand. Yes I detest them and their lawyers and other running dogs, but this isn't based on some preconception, or general mistrust or malevolence, or something I read in the papers. It is based on their deeds.
If you want me to pretend to be objective and dispassionate about a gang of bullies and extortionists, who on a daily basis lie about the facts and try to twist the law... tough.
Anyone who knows me knows exactly where I stand on this issue, and where I am coming from, so no one is misled by my bias.
On my blog on a daily basis, sometimes many times a day, I present the actual underlying litigation documents, from both sides, so people can make up their own minds about how they feel, or about whether I'm making this stuff up.
As for me, I know how I feel. I am in favor of the rule of law. And I am against bullies.
I'm sorry for the girl to have this illness, but having an illness doesn't mean you can't be sued and don't have to respond to legal notices.. I'm not saying she did it, but also I'm not saying she didn't. But by not responding to the lawsuit she just dug herself a deeper hole...
Yeah, but I worked for an ISP, and know that half of my customers had unsecured wireless networks, and that we didn't keep track of who had what IP address. I also administrated the tech bench and customers would bring their malware riddled pc in to get cleaned up, usually after the grandkids went home, and found all kinds of file sharing stuff on there. I can guarantee you that Grandma with her Billy Graham desktop didn't download Eminem using Shareaza.
Keep up the good work Ray, we need more lawyers like you.
Thanks GIL. And we need more people like you, too, getting the word out on the facts which the RIAA's lawyers and flacks lie about.
You spread a lot of misinformation in a relatively short post. 1. They don't have to file the lawsuits. 2. The lawsuit in the post isn't about getting information, it's a lawsuit to recover damages and an injunction. 3. There is no "crime". These are civil cases. 4. Most of the judges have NOT required the RIAA to come up with "evidence". 5. Most of the judges have not required the RIAA to come up with "identifying information". 6. The court does not "decide whether or not to push for discovery".
lawyers don't even fight 'right and wrong'. those are concepts for kids. lawyers fight legal vs non-legal (in criminal) or 'can I sue you can win' in civil. its only *sometimes* about such grand concepts as Right(tm) and Wrong(tm).
am I right?;)
There is no proof that the person whose name the internet account is in is the owner of all the computers connected, was the person who downloaded the items in question, or got the IP address 5 minutes after the idiots who "investigate" these matters
the crux of the problem is that there are still legal questions here. Now that she's in this legal fix, what is her recourse? Is there an effective legal defense that that would help her?
Thanks, Jeff. Well there is a strong public policy against default judgments, and she has a capable pro bono attorney, so it is a foregone conclusion that the default judgment will be vacated. And assuming the facts are as stated in the Pittsburgh article, she has a complete defense, and will win the case. The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
1. No we're not "in the same boat". I have a lot more experience seeing the pain in the eyes, and hearing the pain in the voices, of the victims of this terror campaign. And apparently I don't have your cold and dispassionate way of looking at it.
2. I have a simple "solution". The judges should apply the law, like this one and this one and this one. And if all federal judges just applied the law, this RIAA litigation plague would be over.
Please, Ray, for the benefit of those of us playing at home who may not have your superior moral knowledge and judgment, at what point should we wash our hands of legal recourse against a person for personal issues?
Interesting sophistry, but neither you nor I can discuss the entire universe of legal rights and wrongs and remedies. It suffices to say that anyone with half a brain who's been paying attention already knows that, wherever we want to draw the line, the RIAA lawsuits against ordinary people are way over that line.
Well put Ray!
I think it would be really hard to find a more decent and down to earth person as yourself, who champions the less fortunates cause.
I must admit I am always in admiration of the way you conduct yourself in an environment that can be as abrasive as/.
Kudos to you!
For all the other people who like to trivialize these issues, talks cheap, I have NO DOUBT that if it was you on the receiving end, your views would change considerably.
Well maybe it's because I came from a family where there was nothing we enjoyed more than a good argument. Slashdot feels like a family to me. And people who think it's okay to bully helpless people are, from my perspective, the black sheep.
Assuming that she IS guilty, what is a fair punishment per song, or per album?
She is not guilty, she is innocent. But to answer the larger question you ask: if a person had committed the copyright infringement alleged, the appropriate damages would be from 1 to 9 times the actual damages sustained, depending on the facts of the case. In most of the cases -- typically with 6 downloaded song files -- the damages would be approximately from $2.10 to $18.90, total.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the kind words, Ray. I really admire what you do, though I hope that someday things will improve enough that you won't have to do it!
Me too. It's work I wish I didn't have.
The fawning toady is still here?
My limited understanding, which I can't guarantee to be 100% correct:
- Lots of ex parte hearings, the frequency of which seem to contradict the necessarily strong Constitutional limits on them. You can't just deny someone due process because it's convenient.
- The "making available" theory. These people are being sued not for copyright infringement but the potential infringement of others. Like you point out.
- The use of unlicensed investigators.
I am with others who say (and generally trust NYCL on this as well) that this is an abuse of the system. They have an automated approach to finding alleged infringers and issuing subpoenas. Even though these cases are mishandled, and the RIAA is relying on a shaky legal theory and evidence that shouldn't be admitted, they're making up for quality with quantity. It's certainly been said before, but this is not unlike spamming the courts.
Well, for someone with a "limited understanding", you did pretty well there. I don't know if I could have summed it up as well myself.
I'm not a fan of the RIAA's tactics
Every person who defends the RIAA's bringing of these oppressive lawsuits says "I'm not a fan of the RIAA's tactics". Strange. If you're not a fan of the RIAA's tactics, why would you be defending them?
I wasn't asked what the law was, I was asked what would be fair.
The world's biggest and most disrespectful unpaid RIAA apologist is in the house, ready to pounce upon another disabled and defenseless victim of the RIAA onslaught. Of course the next thing out of his mouth will be how much he hates the RIAA and MPAA whose cause he so fervently supports. I wish he would go back to designing video games, which he probably copied from others.
Hi Ray, Reading through this thread, the number of comments made by morally retarded idiots is depressing. I just wanted to say once again, as far as most of us here are concerned, you are a superhero complete with a big flappy cape. We luv ya. Keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks, jeko. Don't worry. With these kids joining the fight, nothing will stop me until we win.
Some posts accuse me of 'bias' against the RIAA. I don't really understand. Yes I detest them and their lawyers and other running dogs, but this isn't based on some preconception, or general mistrust or malevolence, or something I read in the papers. It is based on their deeds.
If you want me to pretend to be objective and dispassionate about a gang of bullies and extortionists, who on a daily basis lie about the facts and try to twist the law... tough.
Anyone who knows me knows exactly where I stand on this issue, and where I am coming from, so no one is misled by my bias.
On my blog on a daily basis, sometimes many times a day, I present the actual underlying litigation documents, from both sides, so people can make up their own minds about how they feel, or about whether I'm making this stuff up.
As for me, I know how I feel. I am in favor of the rule of law. And I am against bullies.
Not that I'm defending the RIAA.
Then what were you doing?
IANNYCLBMHWCIOTT.
(I Am Not New York Country Lawyer But Maybe He Will Chime In On This Thread).
IANYCL.
SW?
I'm sorry for the girl to have this illness, but having an illness doesn't mean you can't be sued and don't have to respond to legal notices.. I'm not saying she did it, but also I'm not saying she didn't. But by not responding to the lawsuit she just dug herself a deeper hole...
Maybe you'll wind up in the same hole same day.
Yeah, but I worked for an ISP, and know that half of my customers had unsecured wireless networks, and that we didn't keep track of who had what IP address. I also administrated the tech bench and customers would bring their malware riddled pc in to get cleaned up, usually after the grandkids went home, and found all kinds of file sharing stuff on there. I can guarantee you that Grandma with her Billy Graham desktop didn't download Eminem using Shareaza. Keep up the good work Ray, we need more lawyers like you.
Thanks GIL. And we need more people like you, too, getting the word out on the facts which the RIAA's lawyers and flacks lie about.
You spread a lot of misinformation in a relatively short post.
1. They don't have to file the lawsuits.
2. The lawsuit in the post isn't about getting information, it's a lawsuit to recover damages and an injunction.
3. There is no "crime". These are civil cases.
4. Most of the judges have NOT required the RIAA to come up with "evidence".
5. Most of the judges have not required the RIAA to come up with "identifying information".
6. The court does not "decide whether or not to push for discovery".
lawyers don't even fight 'right and wrong'. those are concepts for kids. lawyers fight legal vs non-legal (in criminal) or 'can I sue you can win' in civil. its only *sometimes* about such grand concepts as Right(tm) and Wrong(tm). am I right? ;)
No you're not Right. You're Wrong.
Privileged in the legal sense means confidential.
It is also used in the sense of something being immune from suit.
There is no proof that the person whose name the internet account is in is the owner of all the computers connected, was the person who downloaded the items in question, or got the IP address 5 minutes after the idiots who "investigate" these matters
Picky picky.
The judge hadn't determined her innocence. He was just asking the RIAA to drop the case because of the woman's serious medical condition.
Aren't you supposed to have, you know, evidence that the person you're suing actually did what you're accusing them of?
If you worked at the RIAA's law firm and raised that question, they'd fire you.
the crux of the problem is that there are still legal questions here. Now that she's in this legal fix, what is her recourse? Is there an effective legal defense that that would help her?
Thanks, Jeff. Well there is a strong public policy against default judgments, and she has a capable pro bono attorney, so it is a foregone conclusion that the default judgment will be vacated. And assuming the facts are as stated in the Pittsburgh article, she has a complete defense, and will win the case. The problem is her attorney will have to work like a slave, without compensation, to make that happen.
1. No we're not "in the same boat". I have a lot more experience seeing the pain in the eyes, and hearing the pain in the voices, of the victims of this terror campaign. And apparently I don't have your cold and dispassionate way of looking at it.
2. I have a simple "solution". The judges should apply the law, like this one and this one and this one. And if all federal judges just applied the law, this RIAA litigation plague would be over.
Please, Ray, for the benefit of those of us playing at home who may not have your superior moral knowledge and judgment, at what point should we wash our hands of legal recourse against a person for personal issues?
Interesting sophistry, but neither you nor I can discuss the entire universe of legal rights and wrongs and remedies. It suffices to say that anyone with half a brain who's been paying attention already knows that, wherever we want to draw the line, the RIAA lawsuits against ordinary people are way over that line.
How many songs could you buy for the average settlement of downloading songs?
From 3030 to 3797 at Amazon, DRM-free.
Well put Ray! I think it would be really hard to find a more decent and down to earth person as yourself, who champions the less fortunates cause. I must admit I am always in admiration of the way you conduct yourself in an environment that can be as abrasive as /.
Kudos to you!
For all the other people who like to trivialize these issues, talks cheap, I have NO DOUBT that if it was you on the receiving end, your views would change considerably.
Well maybe it's because I came from a family where there was nothing we enjoyed more than a good argument. Slashdot feels like a family to me. And people who think it's okay to bully helpless people are, from my perspective, the black sheep.
Assuming that she IS guilty, what is a fair punishment per song, or per album?
She is not guilty, she is innocent. But to answer the larger question you ask: if a person had committed the copyright infringement alleged, the appropriate damages would be from 1 to 9 times the actual damages sustained, depending on the facts of the case. In most of the cases -- typically with 6 downloaded song files -- the damages would be approximately from $2.10 to $18.90, total.
Being a bigoted maggot, I fail to see what right you have to speak of decent people. ;-)
Well, since, as you say, you're a "bigoted maggot", I guess it doesn't matter what you "fail to see".