Slashdot Log In
Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:00 AM
from the hey-wait-we-know-that-guy dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
Firehose:Ray Beckerman Sued by the RIAA by Anonymous Coward
[+]
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This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you.
this is obviously an attempt to harass him. these lawyers should be de-barred (or whatever the correct term is).
Parent
hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Beckerman is now also being sued for saying that the litigation against him is "frivolous and irresponsible.""
Doh.
Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Parent
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)
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)
So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?
Parent
My Favourite Part (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The guy can at least defend himself (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The guy can at least defend himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give in to them, Ray. It's important for us to have this blog asa counter-attack to the RIAA BS machine.
Parent
Defending file-sharers (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers
How DARE he!!!
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
NYCL Posts? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Everyone thank RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Way to respond to a legal challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Google 'SLAPP' (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow. Though expected. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent