I notice that one form of trolling which takes place, every time we have a post on a litigation event in the RIAA cases, is that someone starts some thread about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, whether the money goes to the artists, etc.
I wish folks with moderation points would mod those posts as "off-topic".
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the litigations, which are not about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, but about whether morons with a lot of money in the bank and a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers have the right to be suing (a) innocent people for no reason at all, and (b) people who may have committed copyright infringement for excessive sums of money.
Seems to me that the hippies were brought down in the end because... I'm not buying into your, and the parent post's, generalizations about 'hippies'. Not all of us were into "drugs" etc. And I don't know what evidence you have that we were ever "brought down". We brought the Vietnam war to an end, implemented integration, changed social mores, had a huge impact on culture, have occupied the Presidency, and, in general, brought our values with us into the ensuing decades, and into every walk of life and every part of society in which we live and work.
So I beg to differ. We grew up, to be sure, as all people do. But we were not "brought down".
...the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders...
flaunt to exhibit ostentatiously scoff: treat with contemptuous disregard; "flout the rules"
No judge or lawyer can be expected to "know the law". I don't care if the judge knows all about FERPA or not. I do care that the judge knows that our system requires "notice" to the other side, so the other side can get a lawyer to look into it and bring the law to the judge's attention.
No, you're mixing together two different arguments.
The FERPA argument is: "The records are not discoverable under FERPA; the issuance of the subpoena was contrary to law. Period." The same point is made by the Oregon Attorney General in Arista v. Does 1-17.
The additional arguments for sanctions, which are separate and distinct from the FERPA argument, are that (a) the case is brought for improper purposes (publicity, intimidation, and discovery) and (b) the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders.
The discovery issue under (a) is that it's never proper to bring a lawsuit in federal court for the purpose of obtaining discovery. The "John Doe" cases are definitely brought for that purpose, because they are immediately dropped after the RIAA gets the information it was looking for. I.e., it is a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding. It is immaterial to the latter argument whether the discovery is or is not barred by FERPA.
It amazes me that the schools have turned over any information. When I was working tech support for a school district hardly a day went by where we would run into an administrative roadblock because of FERPA, and all the privacy guarantees it gives to students. I think the reason it's happened is because the proceedings are ex parte: i.e., they're behind closed doors, without prior notice to the students or to the college. Had the discovery motion been made on notice, the university and students would have had a chance to educate the judge about FERPA and other privacy statutes. Certainly the RIAA isn't doing that.
So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.
I believe that Judge Karas would require the plaintiffs to prove that an "offer" actually took place.... which of course it never did. So yes it sets the bar higher than the RIAA's ridiculous "making available" theory.
However, the decision is problematic because it dispenses with (a) the need to make detailed factual allegations in the complaint, and (b) the requirement that there be an actual dissemination of actual copies, to the public, by a sale or other transfer of ownership or by a license, lease, or lending.
Just a personal question about your specific cases:
Are your case judgments decided by a jury or a sole judge? In your experience, which do you think is better? We haven't gotten anywhere near a trial yet. When and if we do, it would be a jury trial.
I understand that you're afraid, this is just a person difference between you and me. In this case, however, I have to ask, what good is money if you've sold your principles? It's possible that you could retire with a clear conscience, but I would have a very hard time living with myself knowing that I admitted guilt that didn't exist, and worse, not trying to prevent others from being similarly abused. Well spoken, hassanchop. We're cut from the same cloth. That's the way I was raised, and the way I've tried to live my life.
There is no person on slashdot I respect more than you, and I'm glad you're doing what you're doing. I'm fighting a bunch of other battles, and this isn't one that matters enough to me to risk the other things I'm doing. A person has to choose which fights are worth it.
I'm reminded of a line from J. D. Salinger: "any fool can die for a cause, but it takes a lot more work to live for one." You're no fool, and that's why you're winning your fight -- one to which I've contributed, as it happens. But I know it's not a fight in which I could participate: given my circumstances, the potential loss outweighs any potential gain. I understand, and I meant it when I said that your point was made both "eloquently and fairly". And Lord knows one has to pick one's fights.
But what I am saying is that for these few instances in my life where I reacted out of fear rather than out of principle, I have carried a burden on my shoulders that is not acceptable. I have regrets about those moments, and no regrets about the others where I stood up for what is right. Yes you can't jump into every fight. But when circumstances place you in a position that you must either fight back or become an appeaser, I personally would rather take the risk of fighting back than the risk of appeasement.
In the RIAA saga, people like Patti Santangelo, Tanya Andersen, Debbie Foster, and Marie Lindor are true American heroes. They didn't look for a fight; the fight found them. And they refused to back down from a bully.
While I'd like to think that many people are as stoic as you, I certainly am not: I'm within 10 years of retiring, quite early because I've spent the last 15 years putting everything I can in savings and investments rather than buying new cars. I'd sure hate to lose all that and have to work until 70. Sure, risking that is part of making the world a better place, but it's not rational to expect that most, or even many, people will bet their personal future to make the world a little tiny bit better. It's a matter of proportion: I don't drive 100 miles an hour because that has a very poor risk/reward ratio -- I endanger many people and only get where I was going a short while earlier. But, likewise, it would also be stupid for me, personally, to throw away my future to be a single data point in the fight against big corporations. I don't like saying this, but faced between surrendering, even if I was in the right, and losing everything I've worked for this last 15 years, I wouldn't even hesitate. While I think you have eloquently and fairly made the case for your outlook, I would rather be dead than live like that.
by Ohio University. Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was the number one target of the RIAA. Until, that is, it paid $60,000 plus $16,000 a year for the 'filtering' software its expert witness's company was peddling -- then suddenly the subpoenas stopped. Not a single subpoena since Ohio University started paying off the mob.
I didn't think that the Attorney General for the State of Oregon used those words to describe Media Sentry's business (although I stand to be corrected), although they undoubtedly used them quite accurately in describing Media Sentry's conduct. Don't take my word for it. Once you've read the quotes in the blog post to which I linked, and the AG's papers, to which I linked in the blog post, you will have been "corrected".
Is your question is rhetorical or sarcastic; I seriously didn't know how to take it. It was neither rhetorical nor sarcastic.
In answer however, yes I believe that any of the Attorney's General in the US are very capable of making over the top statements. Don't you?:) From my experience the legal staff of an attorney general's office is quite conservative in its draftsmanship. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine.
this suit reads as inredibly amateurish to me As a professional who's been writing and reading litigation complaints for 34 1/2 years it seemed quite professional to me.
, and if I were the judge I would get pretty irritated by being repeatedly told what to think If you were the judge you would know that in an adversary system such as ours it is part of a litigation attorney's job to 'tell the judge what to think'... i.e., to argue why the judge should agree with his or her position. A complaint which just listed facts, but did not present the theories and conclusions which would make those facts actionable -- i.e. which would warrant the Court granting the plaintiff the relief sought -- would be a poor complaint indeed.
All day long the judge hears attorneys saying what the judge should think. The judge listens, and then after reviewing the facts and the law and -- yes -- the arguments, the judge comes to whatever conclusion he or she finds to be the appropriate one.
A judge would never hold it against a lawyer that he or she tried to 'tell the judge what to think'; if judges felt that way, all 30,000 of the RIAA's complaints would have been thrown out, because they have no facts at all in them, and do nothing other than 'tell the judge what to think'. See, e.g. Interscope v. Rodriguez.
"illegal, flawed and personally invasive" That description is quite consistent with exactly what the Attorney General for the State of Oregon had to say about MediaSentry's investigations. Do you think the Attorney General for the State of Oregon is in the habit of saying things that are 'over the top'?
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that one form of trolling which takes place, every time we have a post on a litigation event in the RIAA cases, is that someone starts some thread about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, whether the money goes to the artists, etc.
I wish folks with moderation points would mod those posts as "off-topic".
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the litigations, which are not about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, but about whether morons with a lot of money in the bank and a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers have the right to be suing (a) innocent people for no reason at all, and (b) people who may have committed copyright infringement for excessive sums of money.
So I beg to differ. We grew up, to be sure, as all people do. But we were not "brought down".
scoff: treat with contemptuous disregard; "flout the rules"
Sorry. Thanks for correcting me.
A few good decisions from judges would shut the whole thing down.
No judge or lawyer can be expected to "know the law". I don't care if the judge knows all about FERPA or not. I do care that the judge knows that our system requires "notice" to the other side, so the other side can get a lawyer to look into it and bring the law to the judge's attention.
A federal judge is not supposed to sign orders where the other side has not been given prior notice.
No, you're mixing together two different arguments.
The FERPA argument is: "The records are not discoverable under FERPA; the issuance of the subpoena was contrary to law. Period." The same point is made by the Oregon Attorney General in Arista v. Does 1-17.
The additional arguments for sanctions, which are separate and distinct from the FERPA argument, are that (a) the case is brought for improper purposes (publicity, intimidation, and discovery) and (b) the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders.
The discovery issue under (a) is that it's never proper to bring a lawsuit in federal court for the purpose of obtaining discovery. The "John Doe" cases are definitely brought for that purpose, because they are immediately dropped after the RIAA gets the information it was looking for. I.e., it is a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding. It is immaterial to the latter argument whether the discovery is or is not barred by FERPA.
So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.
I believe that Judge Karas would require the plaintiffs to prove that an "offer" actually took place.... which of course it never did. So yes it sets the bar higher than the RIAA's ridiculous "making available" theory.
However, the decision is problematic because it dispenses with (a) the need to make detailed factual allegations in the complaint, and (b) the requirement that there be an actual dissemination of actual copies, to the public, by a sale or other transfer of ownership or by a license, lease, or lending.
Well I can be trusted not to be doing an April Fool's joke.
That's because I have no sense of humor.
Thanks, Morgan. Hope you get modded up for providing all that useful information.
I think the judge would require the plaintiffs to prove that defendant did something affirmatively to "offer" the files.
But what I am saying is that for these few instances in my life where I reacted out of fear rather than out of principle, I have carried a burden on my shoulders that is not acceptable. I have regrets about those moments, and no regrets about the others where I stood up for what is right. Yes you can't jump into every fight. But when circumstances place you in a position that you must either fight back or become an appeaser, I personally would rather take the risk of fighting back than the risk of appeasement.
In the RIAA saga, people like Patti Santangelo, Tanya Andersen, Debbie Foster, and Marie Lindor are true American heroes. They didn't look for a fight; the fight found them. And they refused to back down from a bully.
by Ohio University. Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was the number one target of the RIAA. Until, that is, it paid $60,000 plus $16,000 a year for the 'filtering' software its expert witness's company was peddling -- then suddenly the subpoenas stopped. Not a single subpoena since Ohio University started paying off the mob.
I personally think anything over 22 hours a day is excessive.
Fortunately I have things in perspective.
Page and line please. The document is 109 pages.
All day long the judge hears attorneys saying what the judge should think. The judge listens, and then after reviewing the facts and the law and -- yes -- the arguments, the judge comes to whatever conclusion he or she finds to be the appropriate one.
A judge would never hold it against a lawyer that he or she tried to 'tell the judge what to think'; if judges felt that way, all 30,000 of the RIAA's complaints would have been thrown out, because they have no facts at all in them, and do nothing other than 'tell the judge what to think'. See, e.g. Interscope v. Rodriguez.
The case is also against the big 4 record companies, and the illegal investigators, and the illegal collectors.