Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA 725

Posted by CmdrTaco
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unity100 (970058) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:02AM (#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 @11:29AM (#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 TrekkieGod (627867) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @01:43PM (#25058089) Homepage Journal

        to [mis]quote a movie:

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

        Wesley: "I'm with Starfleet. We don't lie!"
        (Justice, TNG)

        I swear, the writers must have been trying a social experiment to see if they could make Wesley so disliked that trekkies would try to kill Wil Wheaton...

        Remember Trekkies...as your God, I'd much rather you kill Berman.

      • by Sj0 (472011) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @01:49PM (#25058183) Homepage Journal

        Don't be silly. The US government doesn't spend taxpayer money when a ridiculously overblown problem is presented, the US government spends DEBT.

        We're basically handing our kids money to companies. Don't worry though, all the middle-aged losers who are spending the money will be long dead before the time comes to pay most of it back.

    • by joocemann (1273720) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:42AM (#25055939)

      thank you.

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

  • hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by nomadic (141991) <.nomadicworld. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:03AM (#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 Aeonite (263338) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:04AM (#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 @11:05AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Danse (1026)

      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

      Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers? Think of the children!

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

        by D-Cypell (446534) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:30AM (#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.

        • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Informative)

          by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:54AM (#25056171)

          Saying it supports drugs dealers is a bit silly since drug dealing tends to be self financing.
          If terrorists are making their money from pirating DVD's then we're getting much more pathetic terrorists than in my day! In my day they robbed banks and held people for ransom!

          Gangs perhaps but the more torrent sites grow the harder it is for them to sell pirate DVD's. (Fight gang violence! download your pirated movies!)

        • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @12:21PM (#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.

        • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Kjella (173770) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @12:35PM (#25056809) Homepage

          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.

          And that whole sentence is an example of confusion 101. Any of commercial piracy or drug trade or pimping hookers or modern slave trade or collecting protection money or illegal gambling or sell kiddie porn or whatever the fuck else organized crime do, it makes money. The reason they do commercial piracy and drug trade and pimping hookers and modern slave trade and collecting protection money and illegal gambling and sell kiddie porn is to make the grand total as big as possible, and how much you pirate makes no difference at all on anything else. The only thing that could have a hint of truth is possibly terrorism since it's an expense, but I figure that's probably well funded through legal income diverted to it. There's certainly no reason to believe drug kingpins are more willing to give away their earnings than anyone else. But hey, I guess the FUD is working.

    • Re: (Score:3, 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 everybody should be held to the same standard. When people are

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PainKilleR-CE (597083)

        The appointment of judges is different depending on where they are being appointed. In most areas they are not voted in or out, especially in general elections. At the federal level (especially the supreme court) they are supposed to be a check against the elected officials, and not have to answer to the voters, but instead to the law and how well their judgment holds over time.

        As for holding people to different standards, I tend to believe that there should be laws that increase punishment for any law brok

    • Poor Ray (Score:4, Funny)

      by oncehour (744756) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:21AM (#25055569)
      Who will pay his legal fees?!
    • Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dragoon412 (648209) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:35AM (#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.

  • Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ (415866) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:05AM (#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!

  • My Favourite Part (Score:5, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:09AM (#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 @11:10AM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.

      Hm.. that actually might be why they did it. If they can relate all of his other cases to this one, such that he can't comment on them, either, as they're involved in the pending one, then he can't cheerlead on here in topics related to his cases.

  • by slaker (53818) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:13AM (#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 oahazmatt (868057) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:14AM (#25055445) Journal

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

    How DARE he!!!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:23AM (#25055605)

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

      How DARE he!!!

      It's a slippery slope.

      Next thing you know lawyers will be required to represent thieves, rapists and murderers.

    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:24AM (#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 @11:44AM (#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.

      • by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:55AM (#25056195)

        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).

        Problem with that is he's already decided that his mission in life is taking on the RIAA. Indeed, in defending himself, he has every right to publically make the case that what he's saying on his site is true, which would get him off the hook for what they're suing. Worse, the RIAA is giving the guy a forum to say these things! In that way, the trial is really about the RIAA - they say it's illegal to say mean things about them (why it would be, I have no idea), he gets to prove that the things he says are totally legit, and he also has the opportunity to try to expose the flaws in their litigation. He'll certainly claim that, ironically, the very suit against him proves his case.

        I'd agree with you on the "send a message" aspect if they went after someone who didn't want a piece of them, but since they're taking on a guy who's been hitting away already, all they're doing is handing him the club that he'll use to beat them.

        Note I'm not a lawyer, and I have only the best of feelings toward the RIAA...

      • I kinda doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Moraelin (679338) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @12:06PM (#25056383) Journal

        Well, I kinda doubt that even the RIAA can be _that_ stupid. (Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)

        Let's face it, today's lawyers are tomorrow's judges. I'm also going to take a wild guess that even today's judges, no matter how much they enjoy making lawyers work to earn their play, will not take it very lightly when faced with an attempt to bully the legal profession as a whole.

        _Especially_ in civil cases, where really the whole standard of evidence is along the lines of "who's better at persuading the judge", you don't want to start from the position of the known bully abusing the legal system and work your way up from there. So the judges are one group they'd be smart to not annoy.

        Also let's not forget that lawyers do have very large and powerful professional associations. They don't exist just to provide some exams for their members. And they tend to know the laws, precedents and available avenues. Even _if_ you could somehow bully one or two of them into submission, I think any attempt to basically carpet-bomb their profession as a whole into no longer being able to do its job (on some cases), might find some rather stiff resistance there. Sooner or later you'd find yourself not just against one or two lawyers, but against an entity bigger than yourself and more adept at working the system than you are.

        As I was saying, I don't think that even the RIAA is _that_ stupid.

  • Thanks RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by omar.sahal (687649) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:18AM (#25055525) Homepage Journal
    This guy seems to have bothered you, I have never read his blog but, as you find it so threating there must be some value in it. Thanks for the recommendation.
    Understanding complicated matters, such as law, is always hard because of the bad advice that goes about. I commend you RIAA for your services to education.
  • NYCL Posts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by unfasten (1335957) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:21AM (#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 @11:23AM (#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 kimvette (919543) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:55AM (#25056199) Homepage Journal

      I think Ray has been chomping at the bit, baiting the RIAA every step of the way to go head to head against them to bring to a very public light what a sham their propoganda is. The RIAA loves to preach copyright, and yet they conveniently ignore and even go so far as to claim the Fair Use clause and rights defined under the Home Recording Act do not apply to anyone. Ray, might RICO apply in this case here? :)

      Ray, thank you for your hard work. I do not think that copyright holders should be deprived of their just income, but not all copying is copyright infringement (even when bypassing technical measures, the DMCA allows provisions for interoperability, which transcoding/ripping IS FOR). Also, the "punishment" for casual "infringement" is not only unjust (hundreds of thousands of dollars for one $.99 track?) but is illegal in the case where the MP3/MPA/AAC file has been burned/copied/etc. to media (Music CD-R, DAT, etc.) where levies have been paid to the RIAA. Those levies pay for the copyright, which makes it legal for you to make a mix tape for your gf/bf/etc.

  • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:23AM (#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 @11:29AM (#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 @11:32AM (#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 @11:49AM (#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 @11:51AM (#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 zuki (845560) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @11:54AM (#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 CodeBuster (516420) on Thursday September 18, 2008 @12:19PM (#25056529)
    A lawsuit in and of itself really doesn't mean anything when anyone in the United States who fills out the forms and pays the filing fees can be scheduled to be heard in court. It doesn't matter what you write in the reason part of the form, the court will be happy to take your money and file the papers. I think that this is a foolish move on the part of the RIAA. Mr. Beckerman already has superior knowledge of the relevant issues and extensive research products and documentation to buttress his defense against RIAA allegations of "vexatious" claims. Indeed, the RIAA themselves are more obviously guilty of being vexatious litigants [wikipedia.org] themselves, especially in light of their targeting of Beckerman to silence legitimate criticism(s) of their (the RIAA's) abuses. I hope that Mr. Beckerman makes them pay for their error in this case and gets maximum legal fees and damages out of the RIAA for their shameful attempts to silence his legitimate criticism. Perhaps a SLAPP [wikipedia.org] counter-suit on behalf of Mr. Beckerman against the RIAA is in order here? IANAL, but perhaps someone who knows more could comment (Mr. Beckerman himself will probably want to avoid making comments about pending litigation involving himself or a client, as is usual for any attorney, so I will understand if he doesn't reply to this thread).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18, 2008 @12:22PM (#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.

  • Thanks, folks.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Thursday September 18, 2008 @01:04PM (#25057319) Homepage Journal
    Thanks for the support. The RIAA's motion is frivolous, and I will be responding to it in short order. The responsive papers are due October 13th.

    It's just an obvious attempt on their part to weasel out of their liability for attorneys fees, after torturing this innocent woman for the past 3 years.

    Some folks have indicated an interest in contributing financially.

    Anyone who wants to contribute to Ms. Lindor can do so here [paypal.com]. Anyone who wants to contribute to the Expert Witness Defense Fund, which helps people like Ms. Lindor with hiring experts and tech consultants can do so here [fsf.org]. Anyone who wants to contribute to me, to help me with the work I do in my blogging and getting the word out, can do so here [beckermanlegal.com]. Another way to help out my blog is to make purchases through the affiliate ads I post on the blog. (If there are products or services you're looking for that aren't represented there, let me know, and I'll try to get affiliate ads posted for them.

    Here [blogspot.com] is my post providing the details of the accusations.

    The RIAA's litigation campaign is in its death throes, as are the 4 big record companies who are behind it. I guess this is the way dying hyenas act, they lash out. Not to worry, they will still lose.
  • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Thursday September 18, 2008 @03:38PM (#25060169) Homepage Journal
    why is this story, about a totally ridiculous and doomed motion, getting so much attention, when the story I submitted [slashdot.org] about the landmark Atlantic v. Brennan [blogspot.com] case languishing in the Firehose? Mr. Brennan doesn't even have a lawyer to defend him.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...