Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:00 AM
from the hey-wait-we-know-that-guy dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ray Beckerman, known for questioning the RIAAs legal tactics (also for frequent Slashdot contributions), was sued by the RIAA over his blog Recording Industry vs. People. In question is the 'vexatious' claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a 'sham.' Beckerman is quoted as saying that the litigation against him is 'frivolous and irresponsible.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] NYCL Responds to RIAA Accusations 231 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that when the RIAA decided to run away with its tail between its legs in the long running Brooklyn case against a home health aide who has never used a computer, UMG v. Lindor, it decided to take some parting shots at the defendant and NewYorkCountryLawyer, asking for 'discovery sanctions,' and blaming them for its inability to prove its case. Today NYCL gave them his response, accusing the RIAA lawyers of persistent misstatements of fact (PDF) throughout their motion papers, and of flouting the rules and misstating the law (PDF). Although the RIAA's motion papers took a number of shots at NYCL's copyright law blog, 'Recording Industry vs. The People,' NYCL confined his response on that subject to a single footnote."
This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unity100 (970058) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:02AM (#25055237) Homepage Journal
    they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.
    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:29AM (#25055727)

      they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.

      to [mis]quote a movie:

      "we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."

      seriously - we don't seem to make examples of bad businesses. in fact, we BAIL THEM OUT with taxpayer money!

      don't expect the US legal system to 'fix itself'. doctors can't operate on themselves, in a similar analog.

            • by mmalove (919245) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:38AM (#25056869)

              This is completely off-topic, but an important enough discussion that I think it's worth chiming in anyways.

              Yes, many will feel the pain either way. However, I think the most fair and equitable distribution of pain and accountability follows the plan of letting those investors that propped up AIG take the fall for its bad business practices.

              I feel much the same way about bailing out fmae and fmac. Sure, people are losing thousands of dollars in their home "values" and their retirement investments. However, the drops in home prices are a natural market balance that reflects a lowered ability to pay. More accurately, it better represents the real ability to pay, when the mortgage balloon game is ended. Today thousands of homes sit on the foreclosure market, rotting away from the inside out and developing crippling mold issues that ultimately can completely destroy the value of a home. Yet, the banks refuse to unload these homes at a price that would move them off the market immediately, choosing instead to let them rot to maintain their inflated prices. Let us not forget that from 2000 -> 2005, home prices DOUBLED. Their prices prior to this "collapse" were in fact inflated, are still inflated, and taking out the exhorbitant mortgages to purchase them at their inflated value, was a mistake.

              So lets summarize - banks are holding houses they aren't willing to sell for what the market will bear, plenty of people need homes and don't have them, and the government solution is we need to bail out the poor, poor bank at the expense of said non-homeowners?

              NO.

              One can argue how taxes should or should not be used, but I think we can mostly agree taxes should not be used to redistribute wealth to the wealthy.

              I think things are fine. This clearance sale on housing is bringing the price of a home back into the range that a young couple starting a family may be able to afford one on a real income. When the next generation can buy homes, the price will stabilize. And maybe the younger generation, which is currently piddling away all their money the Middle East, will learn something from the older generation, which did the same thing in the Far East, and instead invest their money here at home, so that when it's time to retire we don't have to resort to robbing our children.

    • by joocemann (1273720) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:42AM (#25055939)

      thank you.

      this is obviously an attempt to harass him. these lawyers should be de-barred (or whatever the correct term is).

          • by somersault (912633) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:18AM (#25056527) Homepage Journal

            clearly, you hate freedom. i must kindly ask you to get the fuck out of america, not for your nationality of origin, but your diametrically opposed to our values views.

            Someone might have believed that line 10 years ago, but considering the state of the US at the moment, it is obviously just flamebait. The American government certainly doesn't value freedom, and the citizens aren't doing anything about that, so how can you claim that freedom is at the core of your values? Is this the freedom to have a gun and be able to say whatever you want, as long as you don't actually do anything about it, like have a non government-sactioned protest (which is pretty much the dumbest idea ever)?

          • no, you get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)

            by unity100 (970058) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:35AM (#25056795) Homepage Journal
            first, get a clue that anyone who talks about a topic is not necessarily an american, an alien wanting to be an american or any other shit.

            im a turk living in a tourism resort in mediterranean coast. my english far exceeds what should i know. therefore im in no way obliged to fulfill your linguistic expectations in regard to english.

            another advice - learn to value content over presentation.
            • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:46AM (#25057011) Homepage Journal

              Actual there are very good non racists reasons to ahve a national language.
              Cost.
              Once you interpret a document into one language, you must do it for all languages. This is very expensive.

              Culture division.
              Creating segments of the population that has difficulty communicating with other segments leads to an US v Them scenario; which leads to civil unrest.

              A cheaper and more long term solution is a more widely available English language courses.
              Encouraging people to speak the language.

              Many people with 'Mexican' decent in California are multiple generation and speak English.

            • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:47AM (#25057021)

              Expecting people to learn the dominant language is not bigotry, it's a reasonable expectation of a person putting in effort to work with society. I don't have anything against some random immigrant into the US. Good for him, I hope he does well for himself. If he chooses, however, to not attempt to learn English, which is the de facto national language, that's just plain rude.

              If you want to let rude people who don't want to put forth the effort to work together with our society be accepted in our nation, that's your problem. I, for one, want people who actually give a damn, and try to become better citizens.

            • by psychodelicacy (1170611) * <psychodelicacy@gmail.com> on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:49AM (#25057057) Homepage

              Have you been to Spain recently? There are more British expats in some parts than native Spanish people, and they really do expect to have their every whim catered for. English speakers are one of the most arrogant groups in the world, linguistically. The fact that our language is dominant in many areas puts us at a natural advantage.

              But let's get this into perspective. Slashdot is on the Internet; it's not a country. Someone who posts here with less-than-excellent English might be posting from Mexico, or Lithuania, or Uganda. They're not refusing to learn the language of their country of residence, they're just not great at the language Slashdot chose for its website.

  • hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by nomadic (141991) <[nomadicworld] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:03AM (#25055261) Homepage
    He's not really being sued, as best I can tell from the article; instead, the RIAA filed a motion for sanctions against him personally (as opposed to just his client) in one of his cases.
    • by Technician (215283) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:55AM (#25056201)

      In reading between the lines, I think it is important that he is not being sued for calling the Media Sentry investigations Illegal. If the RIAA thought they had a case in which to sue, I would have expected an attack on this. The silence is deafening.

      I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.

      The stating an opinion as fact is the basis of the action. His opinion may indeed be fact. It would be interesting if the RIAA lost and it was proven in court to be fact. I think the RIAA may have a tiger by the tail on this one.

      • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kimvette (919543) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:31AM (#25056725) Homepage

        Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links.

        Read the truth about the RIAA [blogspot.com] here.

  • by Aeonite (263338) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:04AM (#25055265) Homepage

    Beckerman is now also being sued for saying that the litigation against him is "frivolous and irresponsible.""

    Doh.

  • Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saxerman (253676) * on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:05AM (#25055281) Homepage

    I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.

    But the idea that the RIAA would say of Ray's blog, "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions." is completely beyond absurd.

    The RIAA has been conducting a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to paint copyright infringement as a crime in the same class or worse as theft, and further attempting to equate their inflated 'losses' due to 'piracy'. Ray might joke and jab more than is 'proper' or 'expected' as a lawyer, but in my mind, that makes him a better agent of the court, not worse. And I fail to see how this lawsuit is anything other than a legal attack upon Ray in an attempt to smear his good name and discredit him as a lawyer.

    • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dragoon412 (648209) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:35AM (#25055827)

      I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals.

      Lawyers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than "mere mortals." Although it is ultimately decided by each state's bar association, you can find the ABA's model rules of professional conduct here [abanet.org]. Virtually every accredited law school teaches those in Professional Responsibility.

      These rules are, incidentally, a large part of the reason that slimeball lawyers tend to have a short shelf life. They create something of an ethical minefield for attorneys, and govern everything from what an attorney is allowed to say to the media during trial, to what his duties to non-clients are, to what sort of information he can disclose about a case.

      Without having a copy of the actual complain handy, I can't say exactly what the RIAA is accusing Beckerman of, but the quotes from the Wired article make it sound like a meritorious claims and contentions [abanet.org] issue; in effect, they're saying Beckerman violated his ethical duty to only make meritorious arguments by dragging out the trial with motions, claims, etc. that he knew were not valid.

      For what it's worth, I've followed Beckerman's blog somewhat closely. And if my speculation about the actual claims being levied at Beckerman are true, I'd be inclined to say that this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black in some general "the RIAA is bad!" kind of sense. It seems to me that, in that case, they'd be violating the exact same rule they're accusing Beckerman of violating by filing this complaint.

      But, I'm just a law student playing armchair lawyer here. Take the above with a grain of salt.

      • by MyLongNickName (822545) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:18AM (#25055513) Journal

        Wow. Talk about taking his argument and twisting it up. If I as an individual tell my friend that I think this natural herb pill is the best thing I ever took, I have no legal problems if it turns out to do nothing. If my friends' doctor suggests a sugar pill to cure his multiple melanoma, I think Doc would be looking at a law suit.

        In this case the RIAA is suing for something a lawyer did in the course of his profession. It is meritless but does not invalidate the gp argument.

      • by Danse (1026) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:19AM (#25055537)

        Ahh, so special classes of people have special rights and responsiblities? In other words, all men are not created equal?

        Some people are held to higher standards due to their position or job. There are good reasons for this, such as preventing conflicts of interest and prejudicial actions in legal proceedings. Without such standards, our legal system would suffer.

      • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Saxerman (253676) * on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:28AM (#25055689) Homepage

        Er... yes. Special classes of people do have special rights and responsibilities. I don't think that has anything to do with how such people were created, or if any equality might have been used in their creation.

        We empower agents of the public trust more than the common man. I don't think that makes them better people. But with great power... should come great oversight. The greater responsibilities should come at the price of some privacy. I'm not saying we should place cameras in anyone's home, but I wouldn't necessarily be against cameras in their public workplaces.

      • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by D-Cypell (446534) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:30AM (#25055741)

        Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers?

        Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

        It could probably be argued that internet based file trading actually reduces the income of these gangs. The profit is all about being the middle-man. Whether that is illegal gangs selling pirate DVDs, groups like the RIAA or torrent websites funded by advertising dollars. Since the widespread adoption of broadband internet, and the development of easy to use filesharing tools, many of the people that would have used the gang funding guy who comes to the city's commercial districts selling DVDs will now opt to use online fire sharing. Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:21AM (#25056557)

          Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

          Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.
          But it is one HELL of a leap of logic to go from that fact to the supposition that bootlegging funds terrorism.
          It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.

        • by sxltrex (198448) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:08AM (#25056397)

          It wouldn't surprise me if this ploy by the RIAA was simply an attempt to distract Mr. Beckerman, who has become a bit of a thorn in their side. If he's busy defending himself he won't have time to defend other RIAA victims.

  • Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ (415866) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:05AM (#25055303)

    Yah I didn't know the meaning either:

    Main Entry:
            vexatious Listen to the pronunciation of vexatious
    Pronunciation:
            \-shs\
    Function:
            adjective
    Date:
            1534

    1 a: causing vexation : distressing b: intended to harass 2: full of disorder or stress : troubled

    FTA:
    The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers, "has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) in court briefs. "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."

    BASELESS motions? Sure, what lawyer wouldn't want to bolster his PR, but maybe, JUST maybe, the motions ARE baseless?
    EMBARRASS plaintiffs? Look, if you are suing someone, you better BE PREPARED. It's as simple as that. There's nothing about getting embarrassed if you are going to sue.

    The RIAA really sounds like it's going out on a whim here. Maybe suing your own customers is a bad idea, do they get it yet? Geesh, I wish the RIAA would just GO AWAY!

    • Re:Vexatious (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:25AM (#25055649) Homepage Journal

      So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?

    • Re:Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)

      by conlaw (983784) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:42AM (#25055941)
      Your definition of vexatious is correct as far as ordinary English usage goes; however, here's more from a legal dictionary:

      Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses.

      It sure seems to me as an observer of this ongoing imbroglio that all of the vexatiousness is on the part of RIAA.

      Keep up the good work, Ray.

  • My Favourite Part (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:09AM (#25055357)
    This is probably my favourite part of the situation - "Readers should note the cover sheet (.pdf) of the court filing lists Richard Gabriel as the RIAA's lead counsel. Gabriel was named a Colorado judge in May and no longer works on behalf of the RIAA." Yeah. Ok. Good work there guys.
  • Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)

    by CSMatt (1175471) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:10AM (#25055377)

    I guess the RIAA decided to take a page from the MPAA's playbook [torrentfreak.com] on this one.

    Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.

  • by slaker (53818) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:13AM (#25055431)

    Honestly, this is a fortunate turn of events. This gentleman is at least capable of defending himself against whatever accusations RIAA is making against him, while at the same time consuming time and legal resources that the fuckwits at RIAA could be using to put another party in legal jeopardy.

    In fact, since this is not the same as the boilerplate legal case that RIAA makes against thousands of consumers annually, it probably also consumed more resources. We should all be thankful that RIAA has chosen this course of action.

    • by shma (863063) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:37AM (#25055871)
      I have little doubt that the goal is not to win the lawsuit, but to waste his time. They're hoping that the triple burden of his day job, his blog, and defending this lawsuit will be too much.

      Don't give in to them, Ray. It's important for us to have this blog asa counter-attack to the RIAA BS machine.
  • by oahazmatt (868057) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:14AM (#25055445) Journal

    The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers

    How DARE he!!!

    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:24AM (#25055623)

      Indeed.

      Actually I wonder if this is just an extension of the RIAA's legal tactics to the lawyers themselves. Previously, they would sue people in order to intimidate them into settling and/or not file-sharing. Now, they are applying the same logic to lawyers: suing lawyers with the audacity to defend file-sharers, so as to intimidate other potential defense lawyers from even taking a file-sharing case.

      As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).

      Such a tactic from the RIAA is presumably illegal... but it's probably very difficult to prove in court that this is their intention.

      • by CSMatt (1175471) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:44AM (#25055993)

        It wouldn't matter. Unlike college students, lawyers have both the experience needed and the money to take these cases to court. Given the RIAA's shaky prosecution tactics, I wouldn't be surprised if not only every lawyer being sued in this manner takes the case to court, but a number of them are secretly wishing to be sued just to make an example out of their opponents and get their name out.

  • NYCL Posts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unfasten (1335957) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:21AM (#25055555)
    Is this going to stop Ray Beckerman from posting articles and making comments about other ongoing cases on slashdot now? I really hope not because his posts are usually the best way to keep informed about their cases.
    From TFA

    has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs

    This also makes it sound like that's exactly what they're trying to stop, him actually informing people (us) about their baseless cases. I wonder if they're going to seek a gag order?

  • by Umuri (897961) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:23AM (#25055593)

    Let me be the first to point out what everyone's been thinking.

    Thank.
    You.
    RIAA.
    Morons.

    I mean, honestly. We all are acting all high and mighty, but what we're really thinking is,
    "What IDIOT up there thought it would be a good idea to sue one of the most competent, intelligent, LAWYERS who has already expressed a will to fight against their unsound tactics"

    Lets take odds, who wants to bet they try to pull out of this the minute someone realizes what they just did, and someone is definitly getting sacked.

  • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:23AM (#25055595) Homepage Journal

    In question is the "vexatious" claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a "sham"

    The best way to show that criticism of your valiant, righteous lawsuits is a sham is to sue the critic for being so irritatingly vexatious. Now I (and I imagine this goes for everyone else here on Slashdot) take the RIAA completely seriously. I suspect a million geeks just stopped filesharing a few minutes ago, and that the torrents of the tubes have all gone dead: Seeders 0, Leechers 0. The RIAA has won.

    Except ... all sarcasm aside, this is really desperate.

  • by twmcneil (942300) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:29AM (#25055707)
    Nice practice you got there Ray. 'Be a shame if anything happened to it.
  • Google 'SLAPP' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sgauss (639539) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:32AM (#25055771)
    "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP [wikipedia.org] Good luck, Ray, I hope you own these bastards!
  • by ari_j (90255) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:49AM (#25056077)
    This appears to just be a motion for sanctions for "repeated discovery abuses" (which the RIAA no doubt has lots of experience with), which is different than an entirely new lawsuit just to pursue the matter. Courts can award sanctions against an attorney and/or against a party when they are justified by impermissible tactics, delays, frivolous lawsuits or motions, etc.
  • by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:51AM (#25056131)

    All,

    Mr. Beckerman is, as most of us know, one of the most respected members of the Slashdot community. He's posted many, many stories and innumerable comments, all with great insight and actual legal information from a real lawyer (yes, HIAL). Over quite a long time, he's become one of us, and he probably has the highest karma in the history of Slashdot. He's done a great deal to help us all, and now it's time to return the favor. There are a lot of comments here about how dumb a move this is on the RIAA's part, and how they'll finally get embarrassed by NewYorkCountryLawyer himself. I happen to agree.

    However, Ray is only one man, and the RIAA has the means, and probably the will, to throw so many of their lawyers and arcane procedural motions at him to make his personal life a living hell. So it's time now that we thank him and make it clear that were behind him. As for how, that's up to you. Maybe send encouraging emails. If he comments here, reply with your support. Spread the word about the RIAA trying to sue a legal critic into silence. Please, everyone who's been enlightened, informed, and amused by Ray's comments here, do your part in return.

      • by CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:04AM (#25056345)
        On the contrary, I imagine he'll hire someone to represent him (though Ray will not doubt assist himself). Someone above made mention of a legal saying (probably just here in the States) that "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." I don't know Ray at all and can't possibly say whether he'd ask for, or accept, donations to his defense, but it's certainly a thought. Any /.ers have ideas on other creative and effective ways of showing support?
  • by zuki (845560) on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:54AM (#25056179) Journal
    When people will be looking back at the madness, deceit, lies and coercion that has become so commonplace with some of the RIAA's strong-arm tactics, someone like Ray will stand as an exemplary model of integrity and fairness, refusing to simply kowtow to the unreasonable demands of a group of corporate entities who have demonstrated that they are utterly unable to serve their original mission (i.e.: be creative in providing the public entertainment in changing times) and re-invent themselves in the face of a mutating marketplace and technological tools, by providing the public with easy, ubiquitous and unencumbered access to their catalogs of copyrights, and have instead made it their new specialty to sue those who could have been their best customers.

    Being slapped with such silly and pointless lawsuits over a blog is just a mark of how desperate some of those behind these campaigns of harassment really are, and can only serve to highlight that they are slowly running out of options of who else to blame for their own demise into obsolescence.

    Hang in there!!

    Z.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:22AM (#25056575)

    Beckerman has not been sued by RIAA. Instead, RIAA brought a motion for sanctions in a case Beckerman was defending.

    The motion is not aimed primarily at his blog. The motion requests sanctions in response to other motions Beckerman filed in the case. It also requests sanctions for the defendant's discovery conduct.

    Hate the **AA all you want, but wait until the facts are in on this story. Did Beckerman have any reasonable basis for those motions he filed? Did his client destroy and/or hide evidence? The judge will sort it out.

    • by nomadic (141991) <[nomadicworld] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday September 18 2008, @10:16AM (#25055481) Homepage
      Cant they dismiss this lawsuit on grounds of anti-SLAPP?

      It's not really a lawsuit, it's just a motion in a case he's on. Motions for sanctions are actually fairly common.

      IIRC, isnt there a ground that a judge can take away "lawsuit powers" when used as a weapon, rather than as to pursue 'truth and justice'?

      Yes, but it's very rarely done. If someone is just completely crazy about filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, the court will occasionally order that the frivolous party cannot file lawsuits except through independent counsel; I think they did this to Jack Thompson. The theory is an attorney will filter out the crazy stuff, or face professional sanctions themselves.
      • Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr_eX9 (800448) on Thursday September 18 2008, @11:21AM (#25056563) Homepage

        The "stop pirating" argument is irrelevant because the RIAA is suing people based on bad evidence, i.e. IP addresses. You typically can't nail an IP address to a single person because IP addresses change and multiple people can be using the Internet from the same IP. This doesn't even include the person they sued that had never used a computer.

        Get a clue please.