Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Judge Refuses To Sign RIAA 'Ex Parte' Order

Posted by Soulskill on Thu May 29, 2008 08:59 PM
from the wearing-out-their-legal-welcome dept.
Government The Courts News
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA just can't get enough of going after University of Maine students, but it appears that the judges in Portland, Maine, may be getting wise to the industry's lawyers' antics. RIAA counsel submitted yet another ex parte discovery order to the Court ('ex parte' meaning 'without notice'), in BMG v. Does 1-11, but this time the judge refused to sign, pointing out that there is no emergency since there is no evidence that records are about to be destroyed [PDF]. This is the same judge who has previously suggested the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the RIAA lawyers, accusing them of gamesmanship."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers 133 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Angered at the RIAA's 'gamesmanship' in joining multiple 'John Does' in a single case without any basis for doing so, a Magistrate Judge in Maine has suggested to the presiding District Judge in Arista v. Does 1-27 that the record companies and/or their lawyers should be fined under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules, for misrepresenting the facts. In a lengthy footnote to her opinion recommending denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint (PDF, see footnote 5), Judge Kruvchak concluded that 'These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined.' She noted that once the RIAA dismisses its 'John Doe' case it does not thereafter join the defendants when it sues them in their real names. Arista v. Does 1-27 is the same case in which student attorneys at the University of Maine Law School, "enthusiastic about being directly connected to a case with a national scope and significance", are representing undergrads targeted by the RIAA."
Submission: Judge refuses to sign RIAA 'ex parte' order by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Judge Refuses To Sign RIAA 'Ex Parte' Order 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • These guys... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by that_itch_kid (1155313) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:10PM (#23595255)
    The RIAA are getting stupider by the minute. It's high time they learned that people aren't going to take this shit sitting down for much longer.

    The more the courts resist their moves, the more people will stand up for their rights.

    • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anarke_Incarnate (733529) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:16PM (#23595285)
      Sadly, their tactics have been working.

      Even if you are innocent or think you have a good chance of being found not guilty, the time it will take out of your life, possibly having your good name tarnished and hurting your job or chances of income, the negativity on your credit to have a judgment against you, etc is enough to have people settle for a few thousand dollars they should not have had to pay.

        • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:58PM (#23595579)

          And how many people are actually innocent?


          But our justice system was founded on the principles of you are innocent until proven guilty, with a RIAA case, it is the exact opposite, you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are innocent, rather then the RIAA prove you are guilty. And some of the people have gotten fines put on them for very little solid evidence and all the evidence wasn't even enough to convict them (so someone had a few songs in their shared folders, but they can't even prove they are or were being shared!).

          • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2008, @11:57PM (#23596281)
            My guess is you're not an American. These are civil cases, not criminal. In that case, you aren't innocent until proven guilty, and there is no concept of "reasonable doubt". They just have to prove that its more likely that you did it than that you didn't. No one has been fined. A settlement is not a fine. Fines go to the government, settlements to the other party. You aren't convicted in civil court either. Either stop pretending to be an American, or take a civics class.

            • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Informative)

              by Kierthos (225954) on Friday May 30 2008, @03:25AM (#23597059) Homepage
              How is this flamebait? It's correct. Yeah, he could have been a little more friendly in his tone, but honestly, we can't have a /. story on an RIAA case without some nimrod getting criminal and civil cases confused.

              In civil cases, the burden of guilt is based on preponderance of evidence. In other words, if it is more likely then not that you committed the act in question, that is all that is required in a civil trial. This, BTW, is how O.J. Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman... although he was found not guilty in the criminal trial, the same evidence was used to find him liable for their deaths because the burden of proof was that much lighter.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
              The standard of proof is different, but I was definitely under the impression that you were still innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise it'd be a madhouse in which I could sue people and automatically win most of the time (without even making any arguments), just because they didn't have the wherewithal to defend themselves properly.

            • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by gnick (1211984) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:38PM (#23595875) Homepage

              But unlimited songs would probably cost quite much in the industries view, say 50 dollar / month or so
              Actually, it's about $12.99/month [rhapsody.com]... Some people just like to whine without exploring their legal options first because the criminal options are marginally cheaper and they like to play the part of a martyr whose piracy rights are being violated. If you want copywritten material, buy a copy. Otherwise, live without it (or boycott it if you feel the need to protest.)

              Here come the (-1 Troll) mods... Sig embarrassingly related.

              • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Interesting)

                by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Thursday May 29 2008, @11:07PM (#23596069)
                Well, it's "copyrighted", not "copywritten", which isn't even a word.

                And, no, some of us don't like to pay these bastards anything at all. I don't download illegally. I don't download legally. I don't buy CDs.

                Instead I gave $100 to the EFF. I'll probably give them more.

              • Re:These guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

                by MightyYar (622222) on Friday May 30 2008, @06:20AM (#23597731)
                But for $12.99 you get songs that you can only listen too on your computer or "approved devices". Of course, you can rip the streams but then you might as well just pirate since you are once again a dirty outlaw.

                I think that while you have an excellent point, when you pay money I think that most people would expect an experience that is superior to not paying money. Rhapsody certainly makes it easier to find music than the pirate methods, but it is a lot harder to use your music once you get it.

                I think that the original poster has a point - to get the same level of convenience as the pirate product, I expect the studios would be looking for more than the $12.99/month that Rhapsody gets.

            • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@worf.COMMAnet minus punct> on Friday May 30 2008, @12:44AM (#23596487)

              1) Of course they were being shared. Whether anyone took them up on their offer to share, and whether the person understood what they were doing... those are issues that are uncertain. But they were accessable for other people to download.

              Reasonable doubt doesn't factor in at all. It is a civil case, the standard of proof is "more likely than not". Which means you will need to explain why those files were publically shared.


              But is the offer to share the same thing as sharing?

              To overuse a car analogy, if you buy a car that can go >110MPH (basically the highest legal speed limit), are you guilty of speeding? And should the DMV just fine every driver for speeding anyhow, since I'm sure 99% of all drivers during their lives have exceeded the speed limit (even by 1MPH... or inadvertently, going downhill, for instance)?

              Just because you could, doesn't mean you did. More likely than not, the car in your driveway can exceed the speed limit. Why don't you explain why you have it, since you can be speeding?

                • Re:These guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by gnasher719 (869701) on Friday May 30 2008, @07:24AM (#23598053)

                  The point is the legal statutes of "making available" are absurd, and should be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional.
                  You are wrong. The law in this case is absolutely fine and dandy and very clear. However, the law about "making available" doesn't say what the RIAA wants the courts to believe it says. One high profile case is going back to the courts right now because the judge figured out that while a defendant (likely) made songs available for downloads, that wasn't "making available for further distribution" in the sense of copyright law. Because the judge was hoodwinked by the RIAA, he gave the wrong instructions to the jury, which therefore came to the wrong conclusions, so it has to go back to the court.

                  If you contacted a supermarket chain and offered them copies of Britney Spears' latest album so they can distribute them all over the country, that would be "making available for further distribution" in the sense of copyright law and would be illegal even if the supermarket chain doesn't accept your offer. If you offer the same album to ten thousand private citizens to download and keep, that is not "making available for further distribution" in the sense of the copyright law, even though the RIAA claims it is. As long as nobody accepts your offer and downloads the album, nothing illegal has happened.

                  • Re:These guys... (Score:4, Informative)

                    by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Friday May 30 2008, @09:22AM (#23599261) Homepage Journal

                    The law in this case is absolutely fine and dandy and very clear. However, the law about "making available" doesn't say what the RIAA wants the courts to believe it says. One high profile case is going back to the courts right now because the judge figured out that while a defendant (likely) made songs available for downloads, that wasn't "making available for further distribution" in the sense of copyright law. Because the judge was hoodwinked by the RIAA, he gave the wrong instructions to the jury, which therefore came to the wrong conclusions, so it has to go back to the court.
                    Thanks, gnasher, well put.

                    Actually there is no copyright infringement claim that can be based on even 'offering to distribute' as in the example you posited. The courts have clearly held that the distribution right does not come into play unless you actually disseminate the copies. E.g., one of the leading cases involved putting it in a catalogue, which was clearly an "offer to distribute". But since no items had actually been sold from the offending catalogue, the Court held that no case for infringement of the distribution right existed.

        • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fishbowl (7759) <nethack.cox@net> on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:23PM (#23595759)
          I'm waiting for the RIAA to claim infringement against something they don't actually represent the copyright (or mechanical license) to. One thing Copyright Law does a pretty good job of, is protecting you (the copyright holder) from other parties claiming your work as your own (and using that claim as a basis for litigation).
          I keep hoping they screw this up, and claim to represent some independent songwriter who will then press criminal charges.

        • All of them! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          > And how many people are actually innocent?

          Everyone is, until proven guilty.

          (Though you have a great point about criminalizing large segments of the population for profit.)

        • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Solandri (704621) on Friday May 30 2008, @12:42AM (#23596479)

          And how many people are actually innocent?

          I don't see the issue in that a few innocent people may get caught, I see the issue in that we are all criminals ;D
          (And I think it's to late for them to fix it, all crimes of copyright infrigement should just be statute-barrred.)

          Just to complete the thought: When a law makes the majority of the population criminal (or infringers), it's time to rethink the law.

          In China they have laws which everyone has to break to conduct business. The government uses these laws to arrest / imprison / execute whomever they feel like for whatever reason they feel like - if everyone is guilty of breaking the law, "innocent until proven guilty" becomes a moot point. Local officials use them to extort bribes from the populace. There's enormous potential for abuse of such laws.

        • Conscientious Objector (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30 2008, @01:05AM (#23596561)
          Sorry, but I am a conscientious objector. I do not share music, I refuse to buy any more CDs, instead, I rely on the massive compilation I collected in the 80s and 90s, and in the event that I just HAVE to have the latest Fall Out Boy single, I buy it on iTunes since I have the disposable income. But generally, if it's not on the radio, I refuse to continue to fund the economic terrorists that represent the RIAA and I pretty much eliminate "pop music" from my life as an objection to the RIAAs business practice. In effect, I'm a well-to-do Gen-Xer who votes with my wallet.

          I take issue with this heap o' crap because the RIAA is trying to criminalize MY behaviour. They fight against fair use and try to prevent me from transferring my CD collection to my iPod. They fight to criminalize my sharing" or music between my own media devices... the two tivos and 5 computers I own and share within my home.

          I abhor any and all court cases that imply that all potential "infringers" are guilty until proven innocent, as this represents a stereotypical assumption that the "criminals" are young kids who "rip off" the establishment through their deeds.

          This straw man argument actually DENIES my ability to vote with my wallet, as the courts presume that criminal violations have undermined the RIAAs business, when in fact, my boycott of their goods contributes to their market failure. However, my "voting with my wallet" is misrepresented as a "crime against the RIAA" that has cost them loss of revenue.

          Criminalization of a "loss of revenue" is an undue burden on our society and must not be tolerated.

    • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by masdog (794316) <masdog@gmaRASPil.com minus berry> on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:20PM (#23595311)

      The RIAA are getting stupider by the minute. It's high time they learned that people aren't going to take this shit sitting down for much longer. The more the courts resist their moves, the more people will stand up for their rights.

      The RIAA and their lawyers have one thing that most defendants don't have - bags of money to fund these suits. The goal isn't to win - those who fight the charges have shown that the RIAA doesn't have much of a leg to stand on - but to drag the cases to a settlement where they get some money.

      I don't think they would give this up - even with a string of defeats, they will eventually find a friendly judge or get enough laws passed in their favor to protect their antiquated business model.

      • Losers should pay (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hedwards (940851) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:35PM (#23595855)
        This is really why there needs to be some sort of change to the way that trials are conducted. It's really an embarrassment that one side so often outspends the other by such a huge amount. And it's considered to still be a fair trial.

        Seems to me moving loser pays system would make it a lot more difficult to abuse the system. Or potentially require the loser to pay the winner the cost of the winner's counsel plus the cost of the losers council as well. In cases where the loser had insufficient counsel it wouldn't add a whole lot but in cases where the loser brought in a lot of high priced attorneys to try and pull a fast one, they'd get a much large penalty. Of course require the winner to demonstrate that the size of the bill is reasonable for a case of that type.

        I think that the Judge refusing to sign the order was perfectly reasonable considering both the spurious nature of the suits as well as the other nefarious dealings of their unlicensed "investigator" mediasentry. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213 [slashdot.org]

        What I do wonder is if this goes where it looks like it's going to something resembling an organized crime prosecution, would any or all of the settlements still be valid? Or would a conviction for extortion and misrepresenting the facts be grounds for declaring the settlements invalid?

        • Re:Losers should pay (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Thursday May 29 2008, @11:26PM (#23596161) Journal
          More specifically, if the prosecutor loses they should have to pay. If the defendant loses, lawyer fees are paid by their respective parties. Wouldn't want the RIAA to have all their cases handed to them for free.

        • Re:Losers should pay (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Friday May 30 2008, @01:27AM (#23596649) Homepage
          What I've always liked:

          Loser pays the winner the cost of the loser's lawyer fees. (As well as their own lawyer fees, obviously.)

          If the winner had to fork over ten million to win, and the loser paid ten thousand, then the winner gets ten thousand of it back. If the loser paid ten million and still lost, and the winner could only afford ten thousand, congrats, mr. winner now has $9,990,000.

          I'm sure it's horribly flawed in some way. But it's also beautifully poetic.

          • Re:Losers should pay (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ultranova (717540) on Friday May 30 2008, @11:08AM (#23600811)

            I'm sure it's horribly flawed in some way. But it's also beautifully poetic.

            Any system where you have to have money in order to sue or defend yourself in court is horribly flawed, because it exchanges the rule of law for plutocracy. I'm not sure how to fix it, thought; if you simply have the state pay all legal fees, it makes rising nuisance suits even easier than they are now, and might even make making them for hire a new profession.

    • he RIAA are getting stupider by the minute. It's high time they learned that people aren't going to take this shit sitting down for much longer.
      You're right. For the most part, they take it bent over with wide grins plastered on their faces. Of course, if you had a specific action in mind, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

    • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ethidium (105493) <chia_tek@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:38PM (#23595869) Homepage Journal

      The more the courts resist their moves, the more people will stand up for their rights.
      Don't pull out your revolutionary songbook quite yet. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be news if judges were resisting this shit left and right. It's news because this judge did something uncommon.

      • Re:These guys... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by halcyon1234 (834388) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:55PM (#23595563) Journal
        Ultimately, that is what will get them in the end: the judges. Changes to the law are slow, but the unspoken consensus of the judges isn't. They're supposed to be unbiased arbitrators, which means they everyone gets a fair shake to prove themselves. However, it works when you prove yourself to be a scummy, annoying, lying, untrustworthy entity-- well-- you can't be biased against the truth. ;)

  • Ex parte (Score:4, Informative)

    by rstultz (146201) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:20PM (#23595315) Homepage
    'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice. It refers to a legal proceeding where all involved parties are not present. Usually when one side is trying to get the judge to do something without the other party having a chance to argue their side. This is 'ex parte' because it's a John Doe defendant. And I'm pretty sure that it being 'ex parte' has nothing to do with this story, but something thought it sounded nice when they submitted the story. 'Ex parte' does sound nice.

    • NYCL is a lawyer who handles RIAA cases! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:29PM (#23595375)
      > 'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice.

      Normally, no. In RIAA 'expedited discovery' cases, however, it _does_! They grab the discovery against twenty or so people and withdraw from the case immediately afterwards.

      If you knew anything about our submitter, you'd know that he's a lawyer and that when the RIAA runs things, they go for "expedited" motions so that things really do happen without reasonable notice for the parties in question.

      While you're correct about what ex parte (usually) means, in RIAA cases, I will defer to NYCL. He is, after all, an attorney who has been directly involved in cases opposing them and who has a nice FAQ on his website. It tells you exactly how they run these cases and why they habitually withdraw from the case once they get discovery in the ex parte suit and send people to their "settlement center" after that, making the entire process something most parties only find out about after the fact.

      So no, he didn't include the words "ex parte" just because he thought they sounded cool.

      - I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property [eff.org]

      • > 'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice.
        Normally, no. In RIAA 'expedited discovery' cases, however, it _does_! They grab the discovery against twenty or so people and withdraw from the case immediately afterwards. If you knew anything about our submitter, you'd know that he's a lawyer and that when the RIAA runs things, they go for "expedited" motions so that things really do happen without reasonable notice for the parties in question. While you're correct about what ex parte (usually) means, in RIAA cases, I will defer to NYCL. He is, after all, an attorney who has been directly involved in cases opposing them and who has a nice FAQ on his website. It tells you exactly how they run these cases and why they habitually withdraw from the case once they get discovery in the ex parte suit and send people to their "settlement center" after that, making the entire process something most parties only find out about after the fact. So no, he didn't include the words "ex parte" just because he thought they sounded cool.
        Thank you. No I don't do anything to sound cool. I don't have it in me to sound cool.

        In American litigation (which I've been working in since 1974), the term "ex parte" means "without notice".

    • Re:Ex parte (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:39PM (#23595469) Journal
      I suspect NewYorkCountryLawyer has some clue about what he's talking about.

      Also: According to the (current) page on it in wikipedia:

      In Australian, Canadian, U.K., and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.

      So it's "ex parte", not because the Does aren't present, but because the RIAA is asking the judge to rule without consulting the Does and giving them a chance to file a counterargument. If they are given a chance to file a response (even if they're not physically present - especially at the same time as the RIAA representatives which could lead to them being identified even if they should not be) then it's no longer "ex parte" according to the US usage.

      • I suspect NewYorkCountryLawyer has some clue about what he's talking about. Also: According to the (current) page on it in wikipedia: In Australian, Canadian, U.K., and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party. So it's "ex parte", not because the Does aren't present, but because the RIAA is asking the judge to rule without consulting the Does and giving them a chance to file a counterargument. If they are given a chance to file a response (even if they're not physically present - especially at the same time as the RIAA representatives which could lead to them being identified even if they should not be) then it's no longer "ex parte" according to the US usage.

        Thank you, Underground. That is exactly right. And the RIAA lawyers try to do everything ex parte. They don't want the judge to get confused by hearing the truth.

          • Re:Ex parte (Score:5, Informative)

            by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @11:11PM (#23596087) Homepage Journal

            What are the rules about when ex parte orders can be issued?
            The rule is, what they are doing is totally illegal. In federal practice ex parte relief is only granted as a last resort. In these cases the RIAA lies through its teeth to get the order, falsely saying that the ISP or University will destroy the records if they are given notice of the application. It amazes me that there is any judge in the U.S. who would sign such an order. I think you'll be seeing more and more judges refusing, as news of the RIAA's lies spreads.

            In the University of Oregon, the RIAA conveniently "forgot" to tell the judge [blogspot.com] that the University had told the RIAA that it had gathered and was preserving the records.

            In the University of New Mexico case [blogspot.com], the judge had this to say about the RIAA's "ex parte" request:

            Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule.


            In the College of William & Mary case [blogspot.com] the judge just rejected the application outright.

    • Re:Ex parte (Score:4, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:36PM (#23595857) Homepage Journal
      Ex parte means without notice.

    • Re:Ex parte (Score:5, Informative)

      by nickrout (686054) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:58PM (#23596003)

      'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice.
      Yes it does. It means without notice to the other part[y|ies]. If someone is about to do me a legal wrong (e.g. undermine my house by excavating under my land) and the situation is urgent I may be able to obtain ex parte an injunction to stop them. Becasue the bulldozer is humming outside my house I can get the order urgently. The quid pro quo for getting it without the bulldozer man getting an opportunity to show his side of the case is that I must be scrupulously honest and up front to the judge and provide all relevant evidence, whether it helps me or the other side, and my lawyer must refer the court to any cases or laws which may be against me as well as those that may be for me. ex parte orders are reserved for urgent situations, which is why the judge here said there was no need for an ex parte discovery order as there was no evidence that records were about to be destroyed. Oh and IAAL.

  • Hey CmdrTaco (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:24PM (#23595343)
    How 'bout getting an interview with these guys? I think it would be the perfect opportunity for the **AA to put up or shut up with the community on their long term goals.

    No need for ad hominem attacks, et all, but an opportunity to speak on an issue that is mostly one sided here on /.
  • How will this affect this case?
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213v [slashdot.org]

    It seems that this industry cannot help but 'shoot itself in the face' from here on out.
    I'm not a christian, but it reminds me of the 'tower of babel'.

    How stupid can these people be?....nevermind, they have the US Gov't. backing them.
    It seems we have a steep slope to climb to get back to our founder's (US Constitution) ideology on the subject.

    I hope that the afore mentioned case (under FBI investigation) will make some waves.

    If you can answer to this. fine. If not, I understand.

    Keep 'Rocking' on', you are doing much good.

    • Re:BUZZWORD alert: SYnergy: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:42PM (#23595895) Homepage Journal

      How stupid can these people be?....
      Good question. I don't know the answer to it. Each time I think they've reached the mountain top, they come up with something even better.

      It's as tough as the other question I keep wondering about with these characters:

      "How mean and how heartless can someone who was born of a human mother be?" Each time I think I've seen how low they can sink, they find some way to sink even lower.

      These questions are simply unanswerable.

  • Good news but still... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pravuil (975319) on Thursday May 29 2008, @09:53PM (#23595549) Homepage Journal
    With all that has been going on with these cases, there has been tons of money thrown down the drain through court costs and layers fees. Most of it on the side of the recording industry. They haven't made any dent in which accounts for anything. I understand going after legitimate pirates who attempt to profit from shared distribution. People like that need to be jailed. With the industries failure to create a viable model of distribution within the digital age, I start to ask are they spending all their time on lawsuits while hoping the internet is a passing fad? I think it's time they wake up to reality and take a good look at what is already available and accept it. Acceptance can be a bitch sometimes but what else can you do sometimes, right? RIAA, please just move on. This is getting embarrassing.

  • suddenoutbreakofpithytags (Score:3, Funny)

    by qualidafial (967876) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:15PM (#23595691) Homepage
    Remember: A kitten dies every time a story is tagged "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense."

    Please tag responsibly.

  • Internet in Maine? (Score:5, Funny)

    by russlar (1122455) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:16PM (#23595705)
    I didn't know TCP-over-moose technology had matured!

    • Re:Internet in Maine? (Score:5, Funny)

      by The Evil Couch (621105) on Thursday May 29 2008, @10:25PM (#23595769) Homepage
      Are you kidding? They've had the moose infrastructure in place for well over a century. It was just a matter of getting the boundary moose routers IEEE 802 compliant. See why adherence to standards is important?

    • Re:Internet in Maine? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by troutman (26963) on Friday May 30 2008, @01:26AM (#23596637) Homepage
      Actually, Maine has a extremely advanced telecom infrastructure, especially given the low population density and sheer size of the state. In part, this is due to the legacy of having some very large call centers located in Maine in the past (MBNA, now Bank of America) and one of the more CLEC friendly public utilities commissions. And historically, Maine had more independent, private telephone companies than any place else in the US. Maine was the first state in the country to have every single public school and library Internet connected (56k or T1), starting in 1996, which is well over 1200 locations. Many of the high schools now have T3s and video classroom conferencing capability between each other and to the state University system.

      In most towns over 10,000 people, there two or more competing broadband choices, and that doesn't just mean the ILEC (was Verizon, now Fairpoint) and a cable company. There are a number of regional CLECs providing DSL and dialtone services, and several rural areas with wireless ISPs that compete with FairPoint. The prices are not as low as you would find in MA or NY or CA, but it is available.

      There is even one CLEC that has built their own fiber optic network in a Verizon/FairPoint city (Lewiston) that also has a strong cable company (Time Warner) and offers triple-play (voice/video/data) residential and business service and is expanding to two more cities in the state in the next year. You can purchase "lit service" multimegabit service in most of the cities, and leased dark fiber in the major areas, if you have the need and the budget.

      As an example, you can get 10Mbit/sec of business class Internet pipe (fiber delivered) in the business districts of most central Maine cities from no less than 3 different carriers for about $1200/month. Typical residential DSL is about $40 for 2 Mbits.

      That all said, there are still large sections of the state, in the towns and villages with less than a few thousand people, where you cannot get broadband at all, or you have only a single option. The state has recently setup a special program called ConnectME [maine.gov], funded by a telecom tax, to bring broadband to even the most rural of areas.

      (yes, I live here. There is much that is still backward about Maine, but telecom ain't it.)

  • Just dawned on me. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Steauengeglase (512315) on Friday May 30 2008, @07:57AM (#23598263)
    I've often heard it said that those in the legal profession are the ones who carry out responsibilities that were once held by kings and nobles. The RIAA's only fault is confusing kings and nobles with vindictive gods.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.