Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
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.
It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers from (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been said before that there's a reason the individual record labels file suit through the RIAA: The RIAA as a group is INTENDED to appear scary and evil. They sue little old ladies, twelve-year-old girls, the terminally ill and handicapped - ANYONE who "screws with them." They even (IIRC) make press releases about how kids who they accuse should drop out of college and get a low-wage job to make their settlement
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Informative)
But of course insensitive clods like you don't care about quality of life.
Parent
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, this is a person who never even heard of, let alone participated in, file sharing, let alone used file sharing to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers fees, court costs, travel and other expenses to fight back can affect the persons ability to get treatment and/or medication for the condition.
Have to go to court can take time away from getting needed treatment (think dialysis).
Also, the RIAA seems to be targeting people that they believe can't or won't fight back; I find it appalling that they seem to be going after people wi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is also true, then it could also be used to help drive up any damages due!
This is a good moment to share... (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? It doesn't pertain to the case at all. If I suffered from MS and I killed someone chances are I'm going to jail. The validity of the the RIAA claims against her aside, just because you have a disorder doesn't give you a free pass to do whatever you want.
However, considering the tactics and FUD the RIAA is using in the cases they've filed, and that the general public doesn't respond to what is legal, it responds to what the media feeds them, I have no problem with it being pointed out.
Or, to put it another way, it makes no difference what Race a person is, when they are arrested for a crime, yet you will almost always have it pointed out. You can find similar examples involving religion, sex (Female Murder suspects are really big news in my area), or a host of other things that are not directly pertinent to the case itself. Commenting about these things increases the attention the case gets, and, although not directly relevant, it is a true comment.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:2, Flamebait)
And this is why pretty hot female teachers having sex with 15 year old male students are not punished while handsome male teachers having sex with 15 year old female students go to prison for a decade.
Because the law is blind and impartial.
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, while MS can cause legal blindness, in many people it doesn't. I know an MS patient whose vision briefly became impaired then returned to "normal". Equating MS to vision impairment is an error.
On to the more valid part of your post:
I agree that it was mentioned because it fits a pattern in the RIAA's lawsuits. But, I also think it feels out of place the way it's wedged into the article summary. B
Re:It doesn't matter when the defendant suffers fr (Score:4, Funny)
You've forgotten the most popular one for this group: real or imagined Asperger's or ADHD etc: license to troll and flame on Slashdot, AND right to take Highly Theatrical Umbrage when someone questions whether or not perhaps you're just annoying, instead.
Parent
Irrelavence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else get tired of all the "Joe Schmoe is 72 years old, has a goiter and an infected big toenail, but the RIAA still presses on!" sensationalism?
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself. How about focusing on the fact that the RIAA has no proof, or legal grounds, and leave it at that!
Not irrelivant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Irrelavence... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about focusing on both?
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How about focusing on both?
Both the fact that they have no case, and the fact that they inflict their frivolous cases on the most helpless and most defenseless people in our society.
The issues is why do we need to focus on both?
If not having a case was enough to win then the nature of the defendant is irrelevant; I think we can both agree that bringing baseless lawsuits against anyone is a waste of court time and generally a bad thing.
However, not having a case is not enough to accompl
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that the RIAA spacifically targets the disabled? I think you're out of line on this. It's not the issue, and infact distracts from the issue. It weakens the "movement" against RIAA-like actions, and takes focus away from the real issues of people like the RIAA and their masters abus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As if they are specifically targeting those who would have the most trouble fighting back, regardles of amount of guilt.
Re:Irrelavence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I am repeating myself, but good manners have to be hammered through thick skulls. And I know that these members of
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems as if every defendant in these cases has to be painted as a victim not only of the RIAA, but life itself.
It may seem that way, in the same sense that it seems, from watching CSI, that cops solve every case that comes in front of them. But you are just reading about the cases where there are circumstances such as these, where the defendant has solid claims to refute guilt and / or some circumstance that endears them to the public.
There are plenty of other RIAA lawsuits going on that don't fit that and you don't read about those.
The last line of the submission isn't likely to have an impact on a judge's decisio
Irrelevance? (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't... Would they?
Good until the last line. (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that she has MS is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly.
It doesn't matter what OS she is running!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barratry class action (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine it would be more judicially efficient to resolve all these cases as a class action. It would also give access to justice to those who would otherwise be unable to properly defend (or counterclaim in) their action.
Finally, and less adventurous, do the relevant statutes address classes of defendants? This would seem to be, if the boilerplate accusation is correct, a quintessential case for judicial efficiency by way of a defendants' class.
Pity? (Score:2)
This appeal to pity has no place on slashdot!
Read TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
The last two sentences of the article have nothing to do with the main point of the story, which is defendant's attack on the insufficiency of the RIAA's boilerplate complaint, which is the first such attack of which I am aware since the Interscope decision was handed down. Those last two sentences are merely background to give you a point of reference to which of the RIAA's 30,000 cases this happens to be. The next to last sentence describes a lie the RIAA told last year in this case to the Judge -- that, too, has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the RIAA's complaint, but none of you have singled that out or suggested that the article emphasizes that.
So it's baloney to say the author is relying on the defendant's MS for anything. I.e., it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that this article emphasizes the defendant's MS.
******************
Now a digression.
Had I chosen to emphasize her disease, as I might have, I don't see that there would have been anything wrong with that. And to those of you who think it's okay to bring nonsensical litigation like this against children, stroke victims, hurricane victims, MS sufferers, disabled people on welfare, and others.... to you I can only say that your value system is not unlike that of my opponents, who likewise see nothing wrong with what they are doing.
As I have previously mentioned, I use the "friends" and "foes" feature in Slashdot for the purpose of managing my reading load. Although I haven't in the past, going forward I am going to mark as a "foe" -- and therefore be spared reading the comments of -- any user ID who says that it is irrelevant that the defendant is disabled, or impoverished, or a child, or one of the other categories of disadvantaged and/or defenseless victims. Anyone who feels that way is not my kind of people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope I am not "foe'd" yet, so I can clarify what I was trying to say.
The fact that there are people with MS, old ladies, those who have never even had an internet connection, being sued by the RIAA is terrible. And if they are truly targeting those kind of people, they are the most despicable of the despicable.
My only concern is that when an emotional plea is sent out in a description of a court case, the public changes their focus from "The RIAA i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I hope I am not "foe'd" yet, so I can clarify what I was trying to say.
I said I haven't "foe'd" people for heartlessness in the past, that I'm just going to do it going forward.
1. I'm not a PR person, I'm a lawyer.
2. I'm a simple man.
3. The article is about the RIAA's standard complaint -- which it has used in 30,000 cases, mostly uncontested -- being insufficient.
4. Ms. Schwartz's MS is not relevant to that issue, so it is in my view "offtopic".
5. Ms. Schwartz's MS is relevant to the brutality and immorality and moral impoverishment of the freaks and ghouls pursuing he
Re:Read TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, when you go for the counter-suit for malicious prosecution, barratry, or whatever else you think will stick, I hope you will use the fact she has MS to add at least one more zero onto the end of the settlement.
Parent
More than ad misercordiam... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it is. Now hear me out.
As has been reported many times, stress is a factor in MS. By bringing this lawsuit, they can worsen her condition. In other words, it's like the RIAA is helping kill her. Add to that the fact that the disease is very expensive and that means that MS sufferers have limited means to defend themselves. So now they'll have a hard time affording medicine AND a hard time affording legal representation. Thus, the circumstances make it worse. After all, you KNOW they're not going to make any money off this case, even if they win.
Honestly, I do think it more objectionable to pick on the weak and the sick who have a hard time fighting back. Not because they have or should have more legal rights than anyone else, but because it is so dastardly of the RIAA to do this to begin with. There's absolutely nothing stopping the RIAA from dropping cases. They can be as discriminatory in bringing them as they want to be, so far as I know, without giving up any legal rights.
In other words, the heartless bastards just don't care. And they wonder why people cheer when MediaDefender got owned. At least that was a company that should've been able to defend itself against one lousy torrent with all their dirty secrets in it. I mean, that was their job, and they couldn't do it to save their own skin.
See the difference? It's the difference between only picking on those who cannot fight back and standing up to a bully. People boo one and cheer the other, even though all people are equal under law.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you stick with comments that reach a positive moderation regardless of whether they are friend or foe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink [wikipedia.org] I've never used friend or foe moderation. Some of the comments criticizing my positions have been painful to read (most of the time because I was wrong having spoken to casually- some of the time because the people were spiteful).
1. One thing I am not capable of, and have never been accused of, is Groupthink.
2. I disagree with you on the moderation question. I don't use other peoples' moderation as a basis for screening comments; that would increase the likelihood of being subjected to Groupthink. I screen on the basis of my own appraisal of a person's demeanor.
3. I do not designate someone as a "foe" because he or she disagrees with me; I love a good argument. I designate someone as a "foe" if I think the person is (a) a shill
Re:Slight problem here (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you for the discussion and the opportunity to improve the argument that I'm trying to make - I apologize for being a little les
Re:That's a good way to start the weekend! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, personally i don't have a problem with the downloading/sharing, but currently the law does. I also don't feel that it effects their profits ( other then a net increase due to people getting to listen to a lesser quality copy, 'hey, i want the real thing now' ) but i cant prove that with hard numbers.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, my point was that the sharing is actally taking place in most of the cases. The original poster seemed to think that the violations wernet really taking place, just because the methods/tactics for detection/ID are bogus.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd guess they have a 95+% accuracy on determining the offending ip. As for offending computer, I'd put it at 50% and offending person even lower. The number of wireless access points and NAT devices out there really calls into question their ability to bring a case against an individual. From my house, I have 8 different wireless access points I can use. I highly doubt that the people using these access points are always using their own.
On what basis do you guess that they have 95% accuracy on determining the "offending IP address" (whatever that is)? They themselves have stated that they are getting incorrect information from the ISP's [blogspot.com].