They did NOT retrieve it from the site on February 5, 2008. That quote had been removed months earlier, and appeared nowhere on the site on February 5, 2008.
I am avowedly disgusted by the RIAA and hate them just as much as any card-carrying slashdotter, but I have to wonder if this is really a significant defeat. You're absolutely right that it's not unusual for a judge to grant a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
What is unusual -- in fact in 34 1/2 years of experience in litigation I don't think I've ever seen it happen -- is for some lawyer to be moronic enough to oppose. The RIAA lawyers are the only lawyers I have ever seen do such a thing. They've done it at least twice now, and lost both times.
And what is also unusual is for a member of the Bar to deliberately lie to a federal judge, because the consequences which can flow from that to the lawyer's career are huge. These lawyers deliberately lied to the Judge when they represented that I am an Electronic Frontier Foundation. They also lied to the Judge when they implied that the quote they'd extracted was from February 5, 2008, when in fact it was from months earlier.
I'd also like to know if RIAA might face any penalties for lying in their statements to the court. Does this count as perjury? It would certainly merit Rule 11 sanctions, and possible dismissal of their case.
Was the false association that the RIAA made between you and the RIAA ever set straight to the court? I don't know. It would be up to one of the parties to the litigation, or the EFF, to do so.
Re: Arguments
If you didn't enjoy it, you would have picked the wrong field..... Well I did pick the wrong field. But that's a discussion for another day.
Remember, (a) he's a geek too, and (b) I'm basically a nerd, although I've misplaced the pocket protectors which served me so well during my days at Bronx High School of Science.
Now that the writer's strike is over, you should shop your story in Hollywood. It's part Erin Brockovich, part "Anatomy of a Murder" with a "lawyer with a heart of gold" main character. Hollywood LOVES remakes. Let's wait until we get a happy ending to go with.
Off topic:
how do we, as non-lawyer types, bring some of the lawyers working for the RIAA up to their respective Bar Association for ethical/procedural violations? I would hope that would contain the RIAA better. I don't know. Maybe the Judges will do it for us.
once I read his posts, I was quite impressed and informed but also saddened by the way he was treated when he was first interviewed on Slashdot. Thank you, eldavojohn, for bringing a smile to my face, reminding me of that raucous interview and its aftermath in the comments section. But you needn't have been saddened by my treatment. I loved every minute of it. What you may not know about me is that I come from a family where there is nothing we loved more than a good argument. Combat is in my blood. I totally loved the experience of being interviewed and then roasted on Slashdot. I thrive in an environment where there is freedom to speak freely, because I believe that in a fair and open forum the truth will prevail.
Mr. Beckerman is writing about something that is near and dear to many slashdotters' hearts (mine included) You're right. The way I first heard about Slashdot was that one day I found a post on my blog about RIAA litigation getting clobbered by visitors from a place called "slashdot.org" where an amazing Talmudic debate was under way, in which various participants were citing to various segments of various litigation documents and transcripts. I said to myself
"what the heck is this? it looks like an internet discussion board but it's obviously something much different than that? and who are these people, they seem like lawyers, who else would be interested? but they seem smarter than lawyers? just as argumentative, but more logical?" So I asked my youngest son, who is an astrophysicist and techie, and he set me straight. And my life hasn't been the same since.
How many times on how many levels can one reference oneself. He submitted an article that was written by him about a court ruling on his work. I'm not dissing him, I'm just envious. Maybe someday, I'll figure out a way to write a fully recursive story. In my defense, I wasn't planning to submit this article. A friend had the idea, and twisted my arm to do it.
But now that I've done it, I'm glad I did, because I'm reading some of the funniest comments I've ever read, such as this one, this one, and this one. And the thread is only about 20 minutes old at this point, so I would say we're just getting warmed up.
The litigation reign of terror is really run by 4 companies, SONY BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. They are just using their so called trade association, the RIAA, to mask the illegal collusiveness of their arrangement.
Get some yourself.
How many people did Al Capone kill?
How many people has the RIAA tried to effectively kill by bankrupting them? How are you supposed to get health care in this country if the RIAA has taken all your money, and possibly any chance you had of getting a job or an education? It could easily be a death sentence.
But there's something much, much bigger than that. The music industry is one of a large group who are building and perpetuating a political system in which for-profit corporations control the government. It's not the only force involved in that, but it's doing its best along with the rest of them, and has tried to silence advocates of a bribe-free government. Look at the harm that that has brought us already, and the harm that it will continue to bring for many decades to come. I'm not equating the direct effects of the RIAA with those of Big Oil or healthcare or the Military industry or mining, logging, and other resource exploitation and processing, manufacturing, etc---how many deaths have they directly caused in order to protect their income? But any corporation that tries to make it easier for a corporation to control the government is indirectly contributing to a society in which there is no governmental interest in protecting individuals.
Al Capone would be astonished at the effectiveness of modern mob techniques. Thank you, fugue. As someone who talks to the RIAA's victims every day, and sees first hand the way it is ruining people's lives, I very much appreciate the substance of what you have said, and the eloquence with which you have expressed it. You're okay in my book.
a trade body that represents the majority of the USAs musical entertainers Didn't you read the article? The whole point of the article is that the RIAA -- contrary to its propaganda -- does NOT represent the entertainers, it just represents record company executives.
They are constantly beathing that drum, claiming to be looking out for the "artists, songwriters, [and] musicians" but that's just propaganda. If they admitted they were just looking out for record company executives, it wouldn't go over as well. Here they have shown their true colors.
Slashdot Mirror
They did NOT retrieve it from the site on February 5, 2008. That quote had been removed months earlier, and appeared nowhere on the site on February 5, 2008.
Sorry. In my previous post I omitted the word "attorney" following the word "Foundation".
What is unusual -- in fact in 34 1/2 years of experience in litigation I don't think I've ever seen it happen -- is for some lawyer to be moronic enough to oppose. The RIAA lawyers are the only lawyers I have ever seen do such a thing. They've done it at least twice now, and lost both times.
And what is also unusual is for a member of the Bar to deliberately lie to a federal judge, because the consequences which can flow from that to the lawyer's career are huge. These lawyers deliberately lied to the Judge when they represented that I am an Electronic Frontier Foundation. They also lied to the Judge when they implied that the quote they'd extracted was from February 5, 2008, when in fact it was from months earlier.
Of course not. This is the unofficial thread.
Uh oh. I've been exposed. My score on the test is "0".
No, that is not what he said.
Remember,
(a) he's a geek too, and
(b) I'm basically a nerd, although I've misplaced the pocket protectors which served me so well during my days at Bronx High School of Science.
But now that I've done it, I'm glad I did, because I'm reading some of the funniest comments I've ever read, such as this one, this one, and this one. And the thread is only about 20 minutes old at this point, so I would say we're just getting warmed up.
I'm proud to be in the vanguard of the struggle to save Earth from the clones.
You mean there are non-lawyers here?
Now you tell me.
The litigation reign of terror is really run by 4 companies, SONY BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. They are just using their so called trade association, the RIAA, to mask the illegal collusiveness of their arrangement.
The only thing they know to do is lose money.
They are constantly beathing that drum, claiming to be looking out for the "artists, songwriters, [and] musicians" but that's just propaganda. If they admitted they were just looking out for record company executives, it wouldn't go over as well. Here they have shown their true colors.