I was really surprised to see your preemptive strike against those damned Mucking Forons, but it appears that it was necessary, and and they still came anyway.
Like night follows day, as soon as they hear about another RIAA suit against a defenseless person, they come out from under their rocks to proclaim that bringing garbage lawsuits against poor and disabled people is fine. So it's become quite predictable. Who these people are, I really can't fathom, but I certainly wouldn't care to have a beer with them.
1. You're misusing the term "pirate". In copyright law parlance, a copyright pirate is someone who reproduces a large number of exact copies for resale and commercial gain. NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates". See, e.g. US Dept of Justice brief (pdf) at page 4 and footnote 4 on page 5; see also decision of Judge Michael J. Davis at pp. 40-43.
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Had she bothered, in any way, to try and defend herself, to tell them how sick she was, sure, we can accuse them of sinking to new lows.
I had a case where the client suffered from severe Multiple Sclerosis, could only get around in an electric wheelchair, and suffered from severe depression. And the woman was totally innocent, had never even heard of file sharing. We begged the RIAA to drop the case. Even the judge begged them to drop the case. They refused.
I knew when I posted this that a certain significant minority of Slashdotters, or AC's, would come out of the woodwork saying that the defendant's illness and poverty are irrelevant, so I'll say this once: -I'm a lawyer -I don't bring lawsuits against helpless people -I wouldn't accept any client who wanted me to do that -yes she is innocent, as anyone knows who RTFA -it is not really newsworthy that she is innocent because of the 40,000 people sued by the RIAA, probably 20,000 to 30,000 are innocent -yes defendant's illness makes it harder for her to deal with the case and defend it -yes defendant's illness makes it more morally opprobrious to sue her, without at least investigating beforehand to make sure she is in fact liable for copyright infringement, especially when -- as in these cases -- the plaintiffs' actual damages are probably in the neighborhood of $3 or $4 -yes it matters that she is sick and impoverished because being subjected to a lawsuit gives such people more anxiety and depression, and more severely impairs their health, than it would to someone who is healthy and has plenty of money -these types of cases demonstrate more vividly than others how ridiculous, cruel, and immoral the RIAA's suits are, and what an embarrassment they are to the federal court system which has permitted them to exist -yes her poverty and illness and depression were factors in her failing to respond on time, since it is usually impossible for someone in her position to get a lawyer to take her case.
And to those of you who think that it's okay to bring suits against helpless people, I repeat what I've said to you before; that is not a legal question, it's a moral question. And if you really believe what you're saying, you have different morals than I have. And if you think it's okay, my personal moral evaluation is as follows: you can rot in hell along with the RIAA ghouls who do this sort of thing.
Historically copyright lawyers acted like gentlemen and ladies, and if they came across a minor transgression, especially a noncommercial one, they offered to enter into a cease and desist agreement. Lawyers are supposed to avoid, not precipitate, litigation.
Also, if they were to insist upon financial recompense, it would ordinarily be a sum that bore some relationship to economic reality, not the extortionate sums the RIAA lawyers demand of their victims.
I use "RIAA" as shorthand for EMI, Universal, SONY BMG, and Warner Bros, and their affiliates. They own no copyrights in the music but they do own sound recording copyrights.
This litigation campaign is not an RIAA thing. It is a collusive activity between these 4 companies, hiding behind their trade association as a front for their conduct in order to protect it from antitrust scrutiny.
Yeah, I have a hunch this is more about answering the investigator's questions than making fancy arguments about why it's okay for MediaSentry to act illegally. My guess is that Oppenheim's appearance will just help the investigators find some additional respondents, including Oppenheim himself.
Ray, I want to be clear and say I wasn't trying to dish you shit, you do a great service for freedom and common sense...
I knew that Frosty, you didn't have to say it; that's why I said "thank you". You were making a constructive -- and definitely true -- comment. You put out a plea for help, and in response a bunch of our friends here have generously given to their time to provide me with very specific tips on how to improve it, and some even offered their services to help me out. I've got a whole lot more information today than I did yesterday. So we are more than cool, I owe you one.
Hey... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
Could be. Are you referring to a typical zombie, or do you think he has more vampirical leanings?
Typical zombie. I think of vampires as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion.
do you have anything specific in mind when you talk about a more competent technological investigation
I know people who do technological copyright infringement investigation, involving peer to peer file sharing, for a living. To them, the RIAA's methods are a cause for mirth and laughter. See, e.g., expert witness report of Prof. Johan Pouwelse and his Expert Witness Declaration in Foundation v. Nederland, which explain why.
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I would have liked that. "Funny" mods are hard for me to come by; my sense of humor has never been one of my strong points.
What alternative legal means can the RIAA/MPAA use to protect copyright and copyrighted content?
That's easy. 1. Do a competent technological investigation. 2. Hire competent and honorable lawyers. 3. If you obtain evidence of someone actually infringing your copyrights, send them a cease and desist letter and ask them to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement. 4. If a proven infringer refuses to enter into a cease and desist agreement, sue him or her, in a lawsuit supported by actual evidence, based upon actual legal theories.
Hey... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
The answer is the same for the RIAA.
Wow, what a fair and reasonable approach. The RIAA would never buy it.
I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized...
Of course there are many. But for that they would have had to hire (a) competent technology people and (b) honest lawyers, (c) at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way.
You are of course 100% right about that. I wasn't being 'insightful' or 'informative', I was just expressing my gratitude. But the thing is, sometimes when I do that I get modded down as 'redundant', so this just kind of evens things out.
I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant.
And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.
Thanks, ScrewMaster. I've restored the PayPal payment button in the sidebar here. The last time someone suggested that, over $900 came in, which was very pleasant. (Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising is that it doesn't cost people anything. They're going to need to buy things anyway, so just by making sure they buy it through one of my links, they help me out, and it doesn't cost them anything.)
I don't know how much money you make from all the amazon links, but I personally find them distracting, which takes away from your valuable content.
Thanks very, very much for all of the valuable advice.
I make almost nothing from the affiliate ads, but hope springs eternal. I spend so much uncompensated time doing the blog, I'm hoping people will buy stuff through the links and offset some of that.
The site (template) looks good. Clear, clean, with enough air.
The content just misses basic formatting.
The pictures are not thumbnailed, but resized via html/css, which is very unprofessional.
The text is formatted in the style of the last millennium. There are even tags in it. A clear sign that the developer's skills are completely outdated.
In fact the whole content misses any correctly used semantic markup, and uses no CSS.
And I would recommend a non-serif font for the normal text (better to read on the screen), and the Georgia font for headlines, tough. Looks better.:)
If someone gave me 50, I'd fix the whole markup mess in an evening. A complete redesign would cost 400 tough (but is not required).
Thank you very much! Couple of questions: 1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture? 2. What should I do instead of using font tags? 3. What is semantic markup? 4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else. PS There is no 'developer' just one unqualified unschooled amateur... moi.
Slashdot Mirror
I was really surprised to see your preemptive strike against those damned Mucking Forons, but it appears that it was necessary, and and they still came anyway.
Like night follows day, as soon as they hear about another RIAA suit against a defenseless person, they come out from under their rocks to proclaim that bringing garbage lawsuits against poor and disabled people is fine. So it's become quite predictable. Who these people are, I really can't fathom, but I certainly wouldn't care to have a beer with them.
1. You're misusing the term "pirate". In copyright law parlance, a copyright pirate is someone who reproduces a large number of exact copies for resale and commercial gain. NONE of the RIAA cases against noncommercial users involve "piracy" or "pirates". See, e.g. US Dept of Justice brief (pdf) at page 4 and footnote 4 on page 5; see also decision of Judge Michael J. Davis at pp. 40-43.
2. These cases don't happen because there's something wrong with copyright law; they happen because the RIAA has been disregarding the law, and the judges have usually let them get away with it.
Had she bothered, in any way, to try and defend herself, to tell them how sick she was, sure, we can accuse them of sinking to new lows.
I had a case where the client suffered from severe Multiple Sclerosis, could only get around in an electric wheelchair, and suffered from severe depression. And the woman was totally innocent, had never even heard of file sharing. We begged the RIAA to drop the case. Even the judge begged them to drop the case. They refused.
I know of many other stories like that.
How can you blindly file lawsuits against people you know nothing about?
Thank you. A civilized person. How refreshing after reading several posts suggesting that this sort of thing is okay.
It is not okay in the America I come from.
I knew when I posted this that a certain significant minority of Slashdotters, or AC's, would come out of the woodwork saying that the defendant's illness and poverty are irrelevant, so I'll say this once:
-I'm a lawyer
-I don't bring lawsuits against helpless people
-I wouldn't accept any client who wanted me to do that
-yes she is innocent, as anyone knows who RTFA
-it is not really newsworthy that she is innocent because of the 40,000 people sued by the RIAA, probably 20,000 to 30,000 are innocent
-yes defendant's illness makes it harder for her to deal with the case and defend it
-yes defendant's illness makes it more morally opprobrious to sue her, without at least investigating beforehand to make sure she is in fact liable for copyright infringement, especially when -- as in these cases -- the plaintiffs' actual damages are probably in the neighborhood of $3 or $4
-yes it matters that she is sick and impoverished because being subjected to a lawsuit gives such people more anxiety and depression, and more severely impairs their health, than it would to someone who is healthy and has plenty of money
-these types of cases demonstrate more vividly than others how ridiculous, cruel, and immoral the RIAA's suits are, and what an embarrassment they are to the federal court system which has permitted them to exist
-yes her poverty and illness and depression were factors in her failing to respond on time, since it is usually impossible for someone in her position to get a lawyer to take her case.
And to those of you who think that it's okay to bring suits against helpless people, I repeat what I've said to you before; that is not a legal question, it's a moral question. And if you really believe what you're saying, you have different morals than I have. And if you think it's okay, my personal moral evaluation is as follows: you can rot in hell along with the RIAA ghouls who do this sort of thing.
Historically copyright lawyers acted like gentlemen and ladies, and if they came across a minor transgression, especially a noncommercial one, they offered to enter into a cease and desist agreement. Lawyers are supposed to avoid, not precipitate, litigation.
Also, if they were to insist upon financial recompense, it would ordinarily be a sum that bore some relationship to economic reality, not the extortionate sums the RIAA lawyers demand of their victims.
I assume that if MediaSentry ends up in some serious hot water this could affect a lot of lawsuits.
Like maybe ALL of the lawsuits.
Slight correction: RIAA holds no copyrights
I use "RIAA" as shorthand for EMI, Universal, SONY BMG, and Warner Bros, and their affiliates. They own no copyrights in the music but they do own sound recording copyrights.
This litigation campaign is not an RIAA thing. It is a collusive activity between these 4 companies, hiding behind their trade association as a front for their conduct in order to protect it from antitrust scrutiny.
Yeah, I have a hunch this is more about answering the investigator's questions than making fancy arguments about why it's okay for MediaSentry to act illegally. My guess is that Oppenheim's appearance will just help the investigators find some additional respondents, including Oppenheim himself.
Ray, I want to be clear and say I wasn't trying to dish you shit, you do a great service for freedom and common sense...
I knew that Frosty, you didn't have to say it; that's why I said "thank you". You were making a constructive -- and definitely true -- comment. You put out a plea for help, and in response a bunch of our friends here have generously given to their time to provide me with very specific tips on how to improve it, and some even offered their services to help me out. I've got a whole lot more information today than I did yesterday. So we are more than cool, I owe you one.
Hey ... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
Could be. Are you referring to a typical zombie, or do you think he has more vampirical leanings?
Typical zombie. I think of vampires as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion.
do you have anything specific in mind when you talk about a more competent technological investigation
I know people who do technological copyright infringement investigation, involving peer to peer file sharing, for a living. To them, the RIAA's methods are a cause for mirth and laughter. See, e.g., expert witness report of Prof. Johan Pouwelse and his Expert Witness Declaration in Foundation v. Nederland, which explain why.
zappepcs.... just wanted to thank you for that signature. Can't believe you did that. I am awe struck.
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I would have liked that. "Funny" mods are hard for me to come by; my sense of humor has never been one of my strong points.
What alternative legal means can the RIAA/MPAA use to protect copyright and copyrighted content?
That's easy.
1. Do a competent technological investigation.
2. Hire competent and honorable lawyers.
3. If you obtain evidence of someone actually infringing your copyrights, send them a cease and desist letter and ask them to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement.
4. If a proven infringer refuses to enter into a cease and desist agreement, sue him or her, in a lawsuit supported by actual evidence, based upon actual legal theories.
Hey ... for all we know this Oppenheim guy is Satan. I mean, it would explain a lot.
I don't know. I think of Satan as somewhat more personable and persuasive, and having a lot more passion. I think of Mr. Oppenheim more as the living dead.
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.) Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center. For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win." If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves. The answer is the same for the RIAA.
Wow, what a fair and reasonable approach. The RIAA would never buy it.
I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized...
Of course there are many. But for that they would have had to hire
(a) competent technology people and
(b) honest lawyers,
(c) at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way.
You are of course 100% right about that. I wasn't being 'insightful' or 'informative', I was just expressing my gratitude. But the thing is, sometimes when I do that I get modded down as 'redundant', so this just kind of evens things out.
I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant. And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.
Thanks, ScrewMaster. I've restored the PayPal payment button in the sidebar here. The last time someone suggested that, over $900 came in, which was very pleasant. (Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising is that it doesn't cost people anything. They're going to need to buy things anyway, so just by making sure they buy it through one of my links, they help me out, and it doesn't cost them anything.)
Thank you very, very much, JustinOpinion..... I'm really getting an education here. This is great!!!
I don't know how much money you make from all the amazon links, but I personally find them distracting, which takes away from your valuable content.
Thanks very, very much for all of the valuable advice.
I make almost nothing from the affiliate ads, but hope springs eternal. I spend so much uncompensated time doing the blog, I'm hoping people will buy stuff through the links and offset some of that.
The site (template) looks good. Clear, clean, with enough air. The content just misses basic formatting. The pictures are not thumbnailed, but resized via html/css, which is very unprofessional. The text is formatted in the style of the last millennium. There are even tags in it. A clear sign that the developer's skills are completely outdated. In fact the whole content misses any correctly used semantic markup, and uses no CSS. And I would recommend a non-serif font for the normal text (better to read on the screen), and the Georgia font for headlines, tough. Looks better. :)
If someone gave me 50, I'd fix the whole markup mess in an evening. A complete redesign would cost 400 tough (but is not required).
Thank you very much! Couple of questions:
1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture?
2. What should I do instead of using font tags?
3. What is semantic markup?
4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else.
PS There is no 'developer' just one unqualified unschooled amateur... moi.
Could someone please introduce Ray Beckerman to a decent CMS and donate some design work so his site doesn't hurt the eyes?
Why thank you.
How lang has he been Prince of Darkness? I bet not since 1979 [youtube.com]!
Trust me on this one.