Are you suggesting that Mediasentry is compromising other people's machines to do their thing...? I think the Attorney General for the State of Oregon has made that suggestion. As have a number of private litigants.
Are you suggesting that Mediasentry is compromising other people's machines to do their thing...? I think the Attorney General for the State of Oregon has made . As have a number of private litigants.
Dude, I hope you don't think I'm picking a fight with you over this. I keep responding to the other people, and you keep responding to me. =)
You've been cool and level-headed through this -- it's just everyone else who feels the need to chime in and hasn't actually read/understood what I wrote. I did NOT think you were picking a fight with me at all. I just wanted to support you in what you were saying, because it reflects my outlook. I never want people to just swallow things I say just because they might think well of me, because I never just blindly accept anything anyone says, no matter who they are. For me, the truth is what it's all about. And the way to get at the truth is to be skeptical and employ critical thinking. Mindless following of 'leaders' is a good path to fascism.
When I was a kid, I used to go to a "schul" (an Orthodox Jewish synagogue). The Rabbi was this famous, legendary, very revered person, who carried himself very humbly. It was a small congregation, mostly a few old men who practically worshipped the ground the Rabbi walked on. When he was reciting from the Torah (scroll containing Old Testament), which is hard because when you're reading directly from the Torah scroll no vowels are supplied, he would sometimes make a slight mistake. I was shocked when the congregants -- who revered this man -- shouted out the correct pronunciation. At first it seemed so rude to me, until I realized this was what he WANTED them to do. What it meant was the word was more important than any one of us. He wanted us to just be sure to get it straight what was in the Torah. It didn't matter if the correct word came from the most educated and scholarly among us, or if it came from the least of us... what mattered was getting the word.
If I'm in a room, and everyone in the room agrees with me, I don't smile and say "ah how nice to have consensus"; if everyone agrees with me, I worry.
In fact what happened here today is a textbook illustration. My initial story had a whopping mistake -- I believe it was the first such mistake I've made since I've been posting here on Slashdot. Some astute readers caught it -- realizing that the order was dated January 2, 2008, and the documents which I was calling "irrefutable proof" that MediaSentry had violated the order represented screen captures from 2007. I'm glad they caught the mistake. (I'm also glad I was able to come up with the other documents showing that it has in fact been violating the order.).
Ray, you're doing a great job. Your posts are always interesting and generate a lot of comments/discussion.
I've got a question for you though. Does the discussion actually generate much useful information for you (as a lawyer) that may lead you to re-evaluate strategies or directions in a case you're involved with?
Since you're still here I have to imagine that it's at least sometimes useful for getting technical details or just having many people thinking about the issues and coming up with some useful comments or suggestions. It's always healthy for one's mind to engage in discussion with smart people and to be exposed to many different viewpoints. And I do learn things, not much about law, but a lot about technology. It's like talking things out with friends; it's a good thing.
But if you want to know if it's a really smart use of my time, from a time management perspective, probably not. But everyone needs to have some fun.
You're talking about the second document I posted, which does show violations of the cease & desist order. The first one represented screen captures prior to the cease & desist order.
have I offended the orthodoxy by actually questioning one of the well known people here? I'd disagree with anyone claiming irrefutable proof and not showing it. Me too. There are no sacred cows in my book.
I go with what John Milton had to say about the robust questioning of "orthodoxy":
Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? The day I become deferential to orthodoxy, take me out and shoot me.
Well in this instance you're more of a lawyer than I am. I made a big mistake, reading "2007" for "2008". Here is my corrected story and here is my retraction on Slashdot. Sorry about that.
Thing is, I have been advised by another source of a violation of the cease and desist order, but don't at this time have documentation in my possession.
HOLY COW, Bob9900..... you're 100% right. Yes I read the documents but I READ THEM WRONG, equating 2007 with 2008. I've published a correction. I apologize to all, and I am grateful to you for having brought it to my attention. The motion is based on past violations of the statute, not on violations of the cease and desist order. (However, I have been informed by a reliable source that MediaSentry has violated the cease and desist order, but do not, at this time, have documentation to back it up.)
You are right that it would have been clearer if I linked separately to the *pdf -- the cease and desist order and the printouts -- which were the "irrefutable proof".
Seriously, when I first discovered Slashdot back in 2005.... I was stunned by what goes on here. There was some pretty interesting debating going on. My initial reaction was to think to myself: "who the heck are these people? i can tell they're not lawyers. but they seem kind of like lawyers, but a lot of them seem smarter than lawyers".
Then when I decided Slashdot was a keeper, and that I wanted to keep people here informed about what was happening, I made a deliberate and conscious decision to talk to them the same way I would talk to a fellow lawyer. And to give them access to the actual legal documents.
In the beginning I usually would submit links to the actual *pdf documents in addition to my blog posts. Then I found that some readers hated clicking on those *pdf links and getting their computers all overworked. So now I use the *pdf links themselves sparingly, and always (if I remember) with a warning that it's a *pdf file.
There's a general rule that any subpoena has to have a good faith evidentiary basis. While most Slashdotters are aware that MediaSentry's "evidence" doesn't meet that standard, and the Oregon Attorney Generalcertainly picked up on it, most judges -- in these ex parte discovery applications -- haven't. The fact that the evidence was procured through the commission of a crime may get Judge Gertner's attention, helping her to finally realize that the RIAA does NOT have a good faith evidentiary basis for its application.
Thank you, TheLuggage. Don't worry. I have an overabundance of good kharma. I do personally think that when it's the author of the story engaging in dialogue with people who have commented on the story, which is actually pretty rare from what I've seen, they should cut him a little slack on how high to set the bar on profundity. But... what the heck.
As I understand it, MediaSentry is not licensed in the state of Massachusetts period. That means that their previous behavior was illegal as well. The C&D is a legal tool to make it absolutely clear to someone doing an activity that their actions are illegal - it does not relieve them of responsibility for those actions before the C&D. I would say you "understand it" pretty well.
That was an unusual situation; you shouldn't generalize from one trial. I believe that the RIAA is mostly going to get killed in the jury trials, and so does the RIAA believe that, or else there would have been more than just one jury trial in 30,000 cases over 4 1/2 years.
1. The joinder is flatly prohibited under the federal rules.
2. Judge Gertner's automatic consolidation of each new RIAA case is, in my personal opinion, also contrary to law under these circumstances, and is certainly grossly unfair to the defendants.
So perhaps the courts should be requiring them to demonstrate the legitimateness of the claim first. Especially the highly-questionable joinder of unrelated cases solely for purposes of discovery, followed by dropping of the suit and re-filing individual suits. Exactly.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, shentino. My hunch is that that was an RIAA troll.
When I was a kid, I used to go to a "schul" (an Orthodox Jewish synagogue). The Rabbi was this famous, legendary, very revered person, who carried himself very humbly. It was a small congregation, mostly a few old men who practically worshipped the ground the Rabbi walked on. When he was reciting from the Torah (scroll containing Old Testament), which is hard because when you're reading directly from the Torah scroll no vowels are supplied, he would sometimes make a slight mistake. I was shocked when the congregants -- who revered this man -- shouted out the correct pronunciation. At first it seemed so rude to me, until I realized this was what he WANTED them to do. What it meant was the word was more important than any one of us. He wanted us to just be sure to get it straight what was in the Torah. It didn't matter if the correct word came from the most educated and scholarly among us, or if it came from the least of us... what mattered was getting the word.
If I'm in a room, and everyone in the room agrees with me, I don't smile and say "ah how nice to have consensus"; if everyone agrees with me, I worry.
In fact what happened here today is a textbook illustration. My initial story had a whopping mistake -- I believe it was the first such mistake I've made since I've been posting here on Slashdot. Some astute readers caught it -- realizing that the order was dated January 2, 2008, and the documents which I was calling "irrefutable proof" that MediaSentry had violated the order represented screen captures from 2007. I'm glad they caught the mistake. (I'm also glad I was able to come up with the other documents showing that it has in fact been violating the order.).
So we're cool.
But if you want to know if it's a really smart use of my time, from a time management perspective, probably not. But everyone needs to have some fun.
You're talking about the second document I posted, which does show violations of the cease & desist order. The first one represented screen captures prior to the cease & desist order.
OK now I do have documentation of violations of the cease and desist order in January and February, 2008, subsequent to the issuance of the January 2, 2008, cease and desist order, in LaFace v. Does 1-17.
Thanks, gnarly.
Sorry about that.
I go with what John Milton had to say about the robust questioning of "orthodoxy": Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? The day I become deferential to orthodoxy, take me out and shoot me.
Well in this instance you're more of a lawyer than I am. I made a big mistake, reading "2007" for "2008". Here is my corrected story and here is my retraction on Slashdot. Sorry about that.
Thing is, I have been advised by another source of a violation of the cease and desist order, but don't at this time have documentation in my possession.
HOLY COW, Bob9900..... you're 100% right. Yes I read the documents but I READ THEM WRONG, equating 2007 with 2008. I've published a correction. I apologize to all, and I am grateful to you for having brought it to my attention. The motion is based on past violations of the statute, not on violations of the cease and desist order. (However, I have been informed by a reliable source that MediaSentry has violated the cease and desist order, but do not, at this time, have documentation to back it up.)
MediaSentry was hired by the RIAA, not by MediaSentry. This was made clear in the declaration of the RIAA's Bradley Buckles in the UMG v. Lindor case.
I don't know, CodeBuster.
MediaSentry's criminal lawyers would probably know. Why don't you ask them?
You are right that it would have been clearer if I linked separately to the *pdf -- the cease and desist order and the printouts -- which were the "irrefutable proof".
Seriously, when I first discovered Slashdot back in 2005.... I was stunned by what goes on here. There was some pretty interesting debating going on. My initial reaction was to think to myself: "who the heck are these people? i can tell they're not lawyers. but they seem kind of like lawyers, but a lot of them seem smarter than lawyers".
Then when I decided Slashdot was a keeper, and that I wanted to keep people here informed about what was happening, I made a deliberate and conscious decision to talk to them the same way I would talk to a fellow lawyer. And to give them access to the actual legal documents.
In the beginning I usually would submit links to the actual *pdf documents in addition to my blog posts. Then I found that some readers hated clicking on those *pdf links and getting their computers all overworked. So now I use the *pdf links themselves sparingly, and always (if I remember) with a warning that it's a *pdf file.
Didn't mean to offend you. Was just attempting a little levity. As with most of my attempts at levity, it didn't work out.
There's a general rule that any subpoena has to have a good faith evidentiary basis. While most Slashdotters are aware that MediaSentry's "evidence" doesn't meet that standard, and the Oregon Attorney General certainly picked up on it, most judges -- in these ex parte discovery applications -- haven't. The fact that the evidence was procured through the commission of a crime may get Judge Gertner's attention, helping her to finally realize that the RIAA does NOT have a good faith evidentiary basis for its application.
Thank you, TheLuggage. Don't worry. I have an overabundance of good kharma. I do personally think that when it's the author of the story engaging in dialogue with people who have commented on the story, which is actually pretty rare from what I've seen, they should cut him a little slack on how high to set the bar on profundity. But... what the heck.
:)
No blogger.com gets all the credit.
Me, I'm not that clever.
The "irrefutable proof" is in the Exhibits (Cease & desist order, printouts) (pdf). Boy are you a lazy reader.
is that it appears that MediaSentry has been telling the State that it IS in compliance. Hmmmm.... could that be yet another crime?
That was an unusual situation; you shouldn't generalize from one trial. I believe that the RIAA is mostly going to get killed in the jury trials, and so does the RIAA believe that, or else there would have been more than just one jury trial in 30,000 cases over 4 1/2 years.
2. Judge Gertner's automatic consolidation of each new RIAA case is, in my personal opinion, also contrary to law under these circumstances, and is certainly grossly unfair to the defendants.