To me, the whole analogy is useless. When I went to school, bullies did not operate under the noses of the school's teachers and administrators. They preyed on their victims before school, after school, off of school premises, on lunch breaks off of the school premises, and on weekends. If they ever did anything in schools it was in lonely stairwells. I never received any assistance or even notice of any kind from any teacher or administrator.
So to talk about some school administration coming in deus ex machina and helping the victims with some form of "discipline". The bullies I knew could care less about the school 'punishing' them; the worst thing the school could do would have been to expel them, which is what they would have wanted anyway.
Those of you who are talking about the 'school' punishing 'bullies' don't even know what a real bully is. Talk to someone who grew up in the mean streets of one of our big urban centers, and they'll tell you that this thread is nonsense.
When I talk about bullies I talk about vicious sociopathic vermin, who hunt in packs. And when I talk about fighting them, I always assume (a) you are overmatched, and (b) you will receive no help from anyone.. I make that assumption because that's the way it is when dealing with real bullies.
And there are basically 2 answers to how to deal with them. One is to run, if you are fast.
The RIAA is like a completely inept mugger:
They threaten people to hand over their money to them at the proverbial gunpoint, but instead of brandishing a Colt.45, they decide use a Flash Gordon ray gun.
What Mrs. Andersen is doing is the equivalent of taking the ray gun away, breaking as many bones of theirs as she can, and then taking *their* money. The RIAA has been trying to take people's money with largely baseless lawsuits for a while. Now, they get to see what it's like being on the business end of one of those lawsuits, with the exception that the other lawsuit is actually a *really* good one.
Sometimes I think that the RIAA's lawyers know they have no case (or at least a very shakey one), but just continue following orders because, regardless of the judgement, they still get paid. However,the same cannot be said for the RIAA.
Dow Jones News Service likened them to the not so inept Sopranos.
You don't know me at all if you think I mention that to "make waves"; I mention it because I think it makes the RIAA lawyers' conduct even more egregious. If you don't agree with me don't agree with me. As I said before it's a matter of values. If you don't share my values, don't.
Oh why didn't I go to law school? Everyone said: Computers are the future, you'll get rich! I could be in Monaco right now, having someone read slashdot's articles to me...
Interesting. I've often said to myself
Oh why didn't I study computer programming instead of going to law school. Everyone said: Computers are the future, you'll get rich! But no, I said I wasn't interested in getting rich, I wanted to help make the world a better place. Now look at me. How much better have I made the world? Meanwhile, I could be in the country, fishing by a lazy meandering stream.
There the analogy breaks down; my fantasies at the time did not include anything having to do with (a) being read to, or (b) Slashdot.
Spoken like a true/.'er!
Thanks for keeping us up to date and this breath of fresh, sweet air. *inhales deeply* Ahhh...fresh flowers and.. OMG!! Ponies!
Now let us hope that phase two works in Ms. Anderson's favor also, then we may be able to start seeing the RIAA monopoly crumble, or at least a better business model from them. Both for our sakes, and especially for the artist's sakes.
One of my best friends is a professional musician in a band, and they checked out signing with RIAA affiliated labels.(about four years ago) It would actually have cost them money to sign instead of make them money.(unless by some miracle they became popular overnight) Being smart guys,the band finally started their own distribution in addition to signing with an independent label that allows them to continue to do so. They are making a decent living with their music now instead of paying some label to be musicians.
Seriously, it seems everyone is in agreement here on that the system is broken, so what can we do to change it? I hear some people say "revolution" or some sort of extreme action (riots, killing people, etc), but there has to be a better way.
I'd like some good suggestions, writing letters apparently doesn't work.
The system isn't set up so that some bully can take advantage; that's one of the key issues with this sort of litigation - the RIAA is abusing the legal process to the point of quasi-legal extortion, all the while lobbying Congress for changes to the laws that will only protect RIAA (and MPAA) interests. They're not stupid - it's quite ingenious. They play the odds that people will settle and had it not been for something so egregious as the Anderson case, she'd be just another statistic. Being realistic, what has she won? The ability to pay legal bills for being wrongly sued, and will hopefully have the opportunity to have her day in court. That is how the system is designed. Now if you want to argue right versus wrong with regard to the RIAA's tactics, that's a different story.
I'm not so sure it's so "ingenious". Seems to me like their brilliant strategy is taking them right down the tubes.
NewYorkCountryLawyer for President! (I know, I know, this wasn't your case - I just felt like posting this.)
Now if that were the case, I would actually vote, for the first time since 1970.
I am deeply honored.
(By the way, I have never not voted. Even when I was in the hospital recovering from brain surgery, and wasn't allowed to sit up, my kids brought me an absentee ballot and helped me fill it out. Although the likelihood of me getting on the ballot is nonexistent, please do vote anyway. Worst comes to worst, you can do a write-in vote for Cmdr Taco).
"Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?"
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does.
The RIAA has been targeting people who are perceived as particularly poor and defenseless. They want people thinking, "My God, if they'll go after a five-year-old child for downloading one single song, they'll go crazy on me and my 50 songs." And they want to roll up a string of easy convictions and settlements. They know they can't actually prosecute more than the tiniest fraction of the cases, so the only hope they have of making a measurable impact on downloading is to intimidate people...especially the ones who might be inclined to download a single song from an otherwise-awful CD.
They know if they go after a big player, they'll have a fight on their hands, and they certainly don't want that. A loss could set their cause back.
Besides, they'd rather kick a puppy than a full-grown pit bull. That's because they're pricks.
Well spoken, hyades1. Couldn't have said it better myself.
this, because it is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of personal values.
There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.
As to those of you who feel this way I can only say this:
1. You are not my kind of people.
2. If you are lawyers, you are not my kind of lawyers, and in my opinion you are violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by exhibiting an indifference to the harm you cause.
3. The phrase that 'justice is blind' does NOT mean that it is indifferent to the suffering of those it affects, or that little people can be squashed by the wealthy in court; it means that the justice system has an obligation to protect the poor and the defenseless from the predations of the wealthy and powerful in court.
4. Those of you who are making these remarks about how Ms. Andersen's circumstances are irrelevant are probably the same people who love to dump on lawyers all the time. In point of fact, all good lawyers are compassionate, and will refrain from causing unnecessary harm to others with whom they come in contact. No good lawyer would have pursued the Tanya Andersen case.
oh, this has the making of a beautiful class action suit against RIAA
And then we'll hear all about how "the system works".
I'm surprised that no one here blames the legal system that enables the likes of the RIAA - if the system is setup in such a way that some bully can take advantage of people, they eventually will.
You are being unfair. I spent an awful lot of time I didn't have writing an article about how the legal system has not been 'working' well on these cases and what needs to be done to make it a more level playing field. And most Slashdotters who have posted on the RIAA cases have been of the view that the system 'does not work'.
People certainly should have a heart. I think you're reading rather a lot into my question, though.
The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant being disabled, or a single mother or on Social Security. Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?
Because it says something important about the rat bastards that the RIAA has dredged up to handle these cases for them.
I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?
Personally, I think it makes it a bit more disgusting that the completely innocent person you are torturing over a frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case, happens to be a disabled single mother of a small child whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Here's some background.
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
Wow, did I slip into a paralell universe or something? I'm hoisting a glass to the esteemed Mr. Beckerman tonight at JW's as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead.
I hope you can afford that new tie now, Ray;)
Whatever you're getting out of this, it isn't enough.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, sm62704, but these well earned fees go to my esteemed brothers and sisters at Lybeck Murphy in Mercer Island, Washington. And I am hoisting a glass to them for their outstanding and courageous victory.
this was on hackaday first... And this isn't the first time that Slashdot has essentially copied their posts
I can see where you might think that, because the Slashdot post was not released until after hackaday. But the reality is that the story was on p2pnet.net before it was on hackaday, and it was on Recording Industry vs. The People first of all. Just because the Slashdot post comes out after it was published on hackaday doesn't mean it was 'copied' from hackaday; it just means the post was in the Firehose and on the editors' screens at Slashdot for awhile, before it was published.
Actually you're a little bit off base with your analogy, Theo.
I'm into kung fu, rather than yoga.
And I'm a lowly novice, not a master.
But as to where Dhalsim is coming from generally, he seems like my kind of guy. I would be wearing symbols of the victims who need to be avenged, rather than the skulls of my vanquished enemies. Unfortunately my only super powers are (a) perseverence, and (b) the extra adrenaline one gets from being on the side of justice.
Thank you, prelelat. I'm glad you appreciated the Judges' Journal article. It took a lot of time to do, but I figured it was an invitation I just couldn't turn down. I am so psyched that the ABA's judicial publication recognized that the RIAA cases present an important 'access to justice' problem, and that the courts need to do something to level the playing field.
Slashdot Mirror
What I want to know is. What happens when the RIAA goes after someone who has a job?
They lose time from work.
I don't know if I should count Ray, because I only know him through his writings and interviews
I might not even be real.
To me, the whole analogy is useless. When I went to school, bullies did not operate under the noses of the school's teachers and administrators. They preyed on their victims before school, after school, off of school premises, on lunch breaks off of the school premises, and on weekends. If they ever did anything in schools it was in lonely stairwells. I never received any assistance or even notice of any kind from any teacher or administrator.
So to talk about some school administration coming in deus ex machina and helping the victims with some form of "discipline". The bullies I knew could care less about the school 'punishing' them; the worst thing the school could do would have been to expel them, which is what they would have wanted anyway.
Those of you who are talking about the 'school' punishing 'bullies' don't even know what a real bully is. Talk to someone who grew up in the mean streets of one of our big urban centers, and they'll tell you that this thread is nonsense.
When I talk about bullies I talk about vicious sociopathic vermin, who hunt in packs. And when I talk about fighting them, I always assume (a) you are overmatched, and (b) you will receive no help from anyone.. I make that assumption because that's the way it is when dealing with real bullies.
And there are basically 2 answers to how to deal with them. One is to run, if you are fast.
I'm not.
The RIAA is like a completely inept mugger: They threaten people to hand over their money to them at the proverbial gunpoint, but instead of brandishing a Colt .45, they decide use a Flash Gordon ray gun.
What Mrs. Andersen is doing is the equivalent of taking the ray gun away, breaking as many bones of theirs as she can, and then taking *their* money. The RIAA has been trying to take people's money with largely baseless lawsuits for a while. Now, they get to see what it's like being on the business end of one of those lawsuits, with the exception that the other lawsuit is actually a *really* good one.
Sometimes I think that the RIAA's lawyers know they have no case (or at least a very shakey one), but just continue following orders because, regardless of the judgement, they still get paid. However ,the same cannot be said for the RIAA.
Dow Jones News Service likened them to the not so inept Sopranos.
You don't know me at all if you think I mention that to "make waves"; I mention it because I think it makes the RIAA lawyers' conduct even more egregious. If you don't agree with me don't agree with me. As I said before it's a matter of values. If you don't share my values, don't.
Oh why didn't I go to law school? Everyone said: Computers are the future, you'll get rich! I could be in Monaco right now, having someone read slashdot's articles to me...
Interesting. I've often said to myself
Oh why didn't I study computer programming instead of going to law school. Everyone said: Computers are the future, you'll get rich! But no, I said I wasn't interested in getting rich, I wanted to help make the world a better place. Now look at me. How much better have I made the world? Meanwhile, I could be in the country, fishing by a lazy meandering stream.
There the analogy breaks down; my fantasies at the time did not include anything having to do with (a) being read to, or (b) Slashdot.
Spoken like a true /.'er!
Thanks for keeping us up to date and this breath of fresh, sweet air. *inhales deeply* Ahhh...fresh flowers and.. OMG!! Ponies!
Now let us hope that phase two works in Ms. Anderson's favor also, then we may be able to start seeing the RIAA monopoly crumble, or at least a better business model from them. Both for our sakes, and especially for the artist's sakes.
One of my best friends is a professional musician in a band, and they checked out signing with RIAA affiliated labels.(about four years ago) It would actually have cost them money to sign instead of make them money.(unless by some miracle they became popular overnight) Being smart guys,the band finally started their own distribution in addition to signing with an independent label that allows them to continue to do so. They are making a decent living with their music now instead of paying some label to be musicians.
New book just came out on that very subject: how musicians can make more money by NOT using record labels.
The shareholders are very rarely culpable for criminal offenses.
Yes but don't you think the record company shareholders have suffered enough?
Hopefully the dead rising from the grave won't happen or else the RIAA might start a more vigorous lawsuit campaign in suing even more dead people http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/
Actually, the undead are working for the RIAA, as its attorneys.
Seriously, it seems everyone is in agreement here on that the system is broken, so what can we do to change it? I hear some people say "revolution" or some sort of extreme action (riots, killing people, etc), but there has to be a better way. I'd like some good suggestions, writing letters apparently doesn't work.
15 simple suggestions.
The system isn't set up so that some bully can take advantage; that's one of the key issues with this sort of litigation - the RIAA is abusing the legal process to the point of quasi-legal extortion, all the while lobbying Congress for changes to the laws that will only protect RIAA (and MPAA) interests. They're not stupid - it's quite ingenious. They play the odds that people will settle and had it not been for something so egregious as the Anderson case, she'd be just another statistic. Being realistic, what has she won? The ability to pay legal bills for being wrongly sued, and will hopefully have the opportunity to have her day in court. That is how the system is designed. Now if you want to argue right versus wrong with regard to the RIAA's tactics, that's a different story.
I'm not so sure it's so "ingenious". Seems to me like their brilliant strategy is taking them right down the tubes.
NewYorkCountryLawyer for President! (I know, I know, this wasn't your case - I just felt like posting this.)
Now if that were the case, I would actually vote, for the first time since 1970.
I am deeply honored.
(By the way, I have never not voted. Even when I was in the hospital recovering from brain surgery, and wasn't allowed to sit up, my kids brought me an absentee ballot and helped me fill it out. Although the likelihood of me getting on the ballot is nonexistent, please do vote anyway. Worst comes to worst, you can do a write-in vote for Cmdr Taco).
"Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?"
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it does. The RIAA has been targeting people who are perceived as particularly poor and defenseless. They want people thinking, "My God, if they'll go after a five-year-old child for downloading one single song, they'll go crazy on me and my 50 songs." And they want to roll up a string of easy convictions and settlements. They know they can't actually prosecute more than the tiniest fraction of the cases, so the only hope they have of making a measurable impact on downloading is to intimidate people...especially the ones who might be inclined to download a single song from an otherwise-awful CD. They know if they go after a big player, they'll have a fight on their hands, and they certainly don't want that. A loss could set their cause back. Besides, they'd rather kick a puppy than a full-grown pit bull. That's because they're pricks.
Well spoken, hyades1. Couldn't have said it better myself.
this, because it is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of personal values.
There are some people who feel that the suffering and hardship caused to these defendants is strictly irrelevant, and that it is irrelevant whether their ability to defend themselves is impaired by disability or poverty.
As to those of you who feel this way I can only say this:
1. You are not my kind of people.
2. If you are lawyers, you are not my kind of lawyers, and in my opinion you are violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by exhibiting an indifference to the harm you cause.
3. The phrase that 'justice is blind' does NOT mean that it is indifferent to the suffering of those it affects, or that little people can be squashed by the wealthy in court; it means that the justice system has an obligation to protect the poor and the defenseless from the predations of the wealthy and powerful in court.
4. Those of you who are making these remarks about how Ms. Andersen's circumstances are irrelevant are probably the same people who love to dump on lawyers all the time. In point of fact, all good lawyers are compassionate, and will refrain from causing unnecessary harm to others with whom they come in contact. No good lawyer would have pursued the Tanya Andersen case.
oh, this has the making of a beautiful class action suit against RIAA
And then we'll hear all about how "the system works". I'm surprised that no one here blames the legal system that enables the likes of the RIAA - if the system is setup in such a way that some bully can take advantage of people, they eventually will.
You are being unfair. I spent an awful lot of time I didn't have writing an article about how the legal system has not been 'working' well on these cases and what needs to be done to make it a more level playing field. And most Slashdotters who have posted on the RIAA cases have been of the view that the system 'does not work'.
People certainly should have a heart. I think you're reading rather a lot into my question, though. The facts of the case do not in any way hinge on the defendant being disabled, or a single mother or on Social Security. Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?
Because it says something important about the rat bastards that the RIAA has dredged up to handle these cases for them.
It counts because her disability severely limited her economic means, and the RIAA tried to use this fact to bulldoze her into a settlement.
Well said. These bullies especially like people who are defenseless. See, e.g., my article in the Judges Journal, "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless".
I haven't RTFAs (or not all of them anyway - have you?). But I'm struggling to see why she is described as "innocent, disabled". Does the validity of the case or the settlement depend on her being disabled?
Personally, I think it makes it a bit more disgusting that the completely innocent person you are torturing over a frivolous, nonexistent, totally unnecessary, case, happens to be a disabled single mother of a small child whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Here's some background.
There seem to be a few people who don't think it should matter at all. Those aren't my kind of people. I think people should have a heart.
Make that Lybeck Murphy.
Wow, did I slip into a paralell universe or something? I'm hoisting a glass to the esteemed Mr. Beckerman tonight at JW's as I listen to a local band cover the Grateful Dead. I hope you can afford that new tie now, Ray ;)
Whatever you're getting out of this, it isn't enough.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, sm62704, but these well earned fees go to my esteemed brothers and sisters at Lybeck Murphy in Mercer Island, Washington. And I am hoisting a glass to them for their outstanding and courageous victory.
this was on hackaday first... And this isn't the first time that Slashdot has essentially copied their posts
I can see where you might think that, because the Slashdot post was not released until after hackaday. But the reality is that the story was on p2pnet.net before it was on hackaday, and it was on Recording Industry vs. The People first of all. Just because the Slashdot post comes out after it was published on hackaday doesn't mean it was 'copied' from hackaday; it just means the post was in the Firehose and on the editors' screens at Slashdot for awhile, before it was published.
Here's a good one
Actually you're a little bit off base with your analogy, Theo.
I'm into kung fu, rather than yoga.
And I'm a lowly novice, not a master.
But as to where Dhalsim is coming from generally, he seems like my kind of guy. I would be wearing symbols of the victims who need to be avenged, rather than the skulls of my vanquished enemies. Unfortunately my only super powers are (a) perseverence, and (b) the extra adrenaline one gets from being on the side of justice.
It's been done.
maybe you should stop trying to flame the one guy around here that actually goes out to make a difference. http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/29/2211235 as well as a million other posts about the subject. So why don't you look at more than the guys UID and back off. Because acting like a child makes you a newb no matter what your UID is. http://news.slashdot.org/search.pl?query=newyorkcountrylawyer
Thank you, prelelat. I'm glad you appreciated the Judges' Journal article. It took a lot of time to do, but I figured it was an invitation I just couldn't turn down. I am so psyched that the ABA's judicial publication recognized that the RIAA cases present an important 'access to justice' problem, and that the courts need to do something to level the playing field.