NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "On December 23, 2008, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol sent a letter to the Judiciary and Commerce Committees of both the House and Senate, falsely representing to them that the RIAA 'discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August.' A copy of the letter is online (PDF). In fact, as many of you already know, the RIAA brought hundreds of new lawsuits since August. See, e.g., these 40 or so cases which just represent some of the cases brought in December." Maybe they're just taking a broad view of the world "initiate."
And if you're a president lying to Congress about Saddam Hussein trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger, and thereby causing thousands of deaths, it's legal?
Hmmm... the whole Yellow Cake [wikipedia.org] part of the story is an interesting one. Was it a "lie"? Did the US produce fake documents? Or where fake documents produced to mislead the US and they bought it? To actually try and claim Bush lied about the yellow cake you'll have to prove Bush knew the documents where fake but continued to try and pass them off as valid after the discover of them being identified as such.
Given there's a huge administration that were actually doing the grunt work, it'll be hard to prove.
It is illegal for people who testify before Congress under oath to lie (perjury). However, there is no law against organizations misrepresenting themselves in such a way. Corporations do not take an oath, people do. Therefore, if you can construct an organization that can misrepresent itself through its people without those individuals who testify under oath actually testifying a known (to themselves) falsehood, then you have a legal loophole. You might think that in order to construct such an organization there must be a conscious and concerted effort among the leaders to create such a deception, but that is not necessarily true. If the charter of the company is in line with its need for self-preservation and sustained growth, you might envision how its "misguided" practices might ignore the rights of others and the laws that govern people. There are other remedies for corporations, but they are treated quite differently (and more differentially) than people. This may not seem right because it shouldn't be. However, half of all murders go unsolved, and that is not right but it is true.
Hahaha you have to love that fucking thing, what's the point of asking someone anything unless you can assume they speak of the truth!? My point is, why the fuck is congress wasting their time with this bullshit? Why not automaticaly put everyone under oath? You'd get a lot more shit done, instead of trying to lead a society with facts based on bullshit. Defectivebydesign, y'know?
They have learned a lot from their teachers in the scientology cult, and are now perfecting it. It's about time that China (I can see noone else with sufficient power) drops IP laws altogether and forces the rest of the world to just cope with it. At least they have a threat the US fears: if they dump all their US dollars the yearly US inflation will reach 4-digit numbers.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday February 06 2009, @04:40AM (#26749643)
if they dump all their US dollars the yearly US inflation will reach 4-digit numbers.
They can't start dumping anything because they have a shitload of dollars: If the dollar goes down, so does the Chinese economy. The same goes for most economies of course but China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...
China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...
depending on how you define reliance, that would actually be wrong. Since 2005, the renmibi has been pegged to a basket of currencies [wikipedia.org]. There are however numerous other countries whose currencies are pegged to solely the USD [wikipedia.org] still.
but then again, in today's world economy, everyone is reliant upon the US economy
Does this make promissory estoppel a defence in these new cases? (I didn't know what it was either until it was mentioned on/. a while back, basically it's legalese for 'hey no fair, they said they wouldn't sue if I did it'.)
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
2) The document linked to on Mr. Beckerman's site says they discontinued the lawsuits. They didn't specify a length of time that it would remain discontinued for so it'd seem to me they're free to start again when they wanted.
I'm not trying to take the RIAA's side... just making a point. I still hate them with a passion.
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
Actually, it can apply if you make public statements or behavior that leads the general public to perform acts that'd otherwise be copyright infringement. It has happened with fictional works that have been presented as fact, when the author later tried to claim copyright infringement it was barred by estoppel (Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992).
However, there is a considerable gap between the RIAA publicly admitting to changing legal strategy and the RIAA giving implicit permission to non-commercial copying of their works. As long as tjey don't give the impression that this is legal, whether infringements can be effectively prosecuted or not, I don't see that estoppel applies.
... and use good old-fashioned violence. The effectiveness of physical violence in achieving goals is much underrated these days. I seem to recall the American Revolution involved a bit of violence, didn't it, and we trumpet the success and worthiness of that violence in every classroom in the country, right? A second revolution in these not-so-entirely-United States seems a bit overdue. We have more than a few barons and overlords and Captains of Industry just begging to be introduced to a guillotine. I think the folks in Texas would readily understand this notion that some people just need killin' (http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/11/texas-murder-sentences-probation-to.html).
What sort of revolutionary vigilante violence might we visit upon the RIAA's clients and its sympathizers in Congress?
Windfall tax, 100%. Take the lawyers for every cent of their fees, and the RIAA for every cent of the settlements. And then throw them into Boston Harbour.
Lite Brite images cause panics in Boston and you want to fill the harbour with sharks?
Never has there been such a parallel in our history. The Prohibition in the United States, from 1920 to 1933, and the Information Prohibition, 1996-2010.
A close second is the novel Dune and the parallel to the Clinton/Bush/Obama triumvirate.
My inner geek wonders if there's a way to have several desktops of the same landscape with different weather and have it change based on the real weather pulled from AccuWeather.
Yeah, but lying to the senate is perjury. Every single one of their lawyers and executives should not pass go, not collect $200, and go straight to jail.
Attribution: William Shakespeare. Note that the character who mouthed that phrase was a criminal.
If you ever face a divorce or bankrupcy or DUI or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're going to need a lawyer. When you need a lawyer you NEED a lawyer. The problem isn't the lawyers, it's the laws and the lawmakers.
The MPAA brings frivolous suits too, just less of them. It makes the same frivolous arguments and supports the RIAA in its frivolous suits, sometimes submitting amicus curiae briefs on behalf of their brethren. To its credit, in its cases against individuals, (a) it seems to do a little homework -- unlike its RIAA brethren -- prior to bringing suit, and (b) it uses lawyers more nearly resembling human beings who are permitted to negotiate more reasonable settlements.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
As I see it, it is.
So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?
Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.
Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.
Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I'm riddled with surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As my brother would say, "I find that shocking." "Really?" "No."
RIAA should be prosecuted for perjury and contempt of Congress.
Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Are you a professional baseball player accused of using steroids?
If so, yes, lying to congress is illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Come on now. Everyone knows the cake is a lie.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm... the whole Yellow Cake [wikipedia.org] part of the story is an interesting one. Was it a "lie"? Did the US produce fake documents? Or where fake documents produced to mislead the US and they bought it? To actually try and claim Bush lied about the yellow cake you'll have to prove Bush knew the documents where fake but continued to try and pass them off as valid after the discover of them being identified as such.
Given there's a huge administration that were actually doing the grunt work, it'll be hard to prove.
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?
No but in RIAA's defence I think it's mandatory.
Parent
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Funny)
Is lying to Congress illegal? Is it considered perjury?
I do not recall.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Is lying to Congress illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm [rutgers.edu]
Parent
Congress will pass whatever the RIAA wants (Score:2, Redundant)
Congress will pass whatever the RIAA wants
Slashbots will post whatever populisms they want. (Score:3, Funny)
Somehow I doubt (Score:2, Insightful)
that this will result in any form of purgery charges for said lawyer, or any form of legal consequence.
The RIAA seems to enjoy making a mockery of the legal system and legal process.
Re:Somehow I doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Somehow I doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't start dumping anything because they have a shitload of dollars: If the dollar goes down, so does the Chinese economy. The same goes for most economies of course but China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China is by far more reliant on the dollar than others...
depending on how you define reliance, that would actually be wrong. Since 2005, the renmibi has been pegged to a basket of currencies [wikipedia.org]. There are however numerous other countries whose currencies are pegged to solely the USD [wikipedia.org] still.
but then again, in today's world economy, everyone is reliant upon the US economy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that they have any realistic chance of ever spending most of them for real products or services.
You mean, besides buying oil with it?
RIAA Lied (Score:2, Funny)
In other news grass is green, bears defecate in the woods. More at 11.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RIAA Lied (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
RIAA owns the Dept of Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
According to this [gizmodo.com] link on Gizmodo.
Promissory estoppel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this make promissory estoppel a defence in these new cases? (I didn't know what it was either until it was mentioned on /. a while back, basically it's legalese for 'hey no fair, they said they wouldn't sue if I did it'.)
Re:Promissory estoppel? (Score:5, Informative)
If my understanding is correct
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
2) The document linked to on Mr. Beckerman's site says they discontinued the lawsuits. They didn't specify a length of time that it would remain discontinued for so it'd seem to me they're free to start again when they wanted.
I'm not trying to take the RIAA's side... just making a point. I still hate them with a passion.
Parent
Re:Promissory estoppel? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Promissory estoppel is used for contract law and there was no contract initiated by the RIAA and the people so it wouldn't be valid here
Actually, it can apply if you make public statements or behavior that leads the general public to perform acts that'd otherwise be copyright infringement. It has happened with fictional works that have been presented as fact, when the author later tried to claim copyright infringement it was barred by estoppel (Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067 (2d Cir. 1992).
However, there is a considerable gap between the RIAA publicly admitting to changing legal strategy and the RIAA giving implicit permission to non-commercial copying of their works. As long as tjey don't give the impression that this is legal, whether infringements can be effectively prosecuted or not, I don't see that estoppel applies.
Parent
Re:Promissory estoppel? (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL.... but my gf is =)
Yeah, my gf loves that too. Oh wait, sorry...
Parent
I say we take up arms... (Score:4, Interesting)
... and use good old-fashioned violence. The effectiveness of physical violence in achieving goals is much underrated these days. I seem to recall the American Revolution involved a bit of violence, didn't it, and we trumpet the success and worthiness of that violence in every classroom in the country, right? A second revolution in these not-so-entirely-United States seems a bit overdue. We have more than a few barons and overlords and Captains of Industry just begging to be introduced to a guillotine. I think the folks in Texas would readily understand this notion that some people just need killin' (http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2007/11/texas-murder-sentences-probation-to.html).
What sort of revolutionary vigilante violence might we visit upon the RIAA's clients and its sympathizers in Congress?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shoot the RIAA CEO in the head. I promise you his replacement will be afraid and discontinue the extortionate letters to citizens.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lite Brite images cause panics in Boston and you want to fill the harbour with sharks?
initiate (Score:2)
well yeah, you could say that the alleged downloaders did the actual initiating by taunting the poor little RIAA du.
the old "he started it!" defence
Yes, they discontinued... (Score:5, Insightful)
...then recontinued very shortly thereafter. I discontinue driving at every red light...
Th Information Prohibition 1996-2010 (Score:4, Insightful)
A close second is the novel Dune and the parallel to the Clinton/Bush/Obama triumvirate.
Enjoy your history humans, you're living it.
~kulakovich
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And this is news??? (Score:4, Funny)
But without windows, how would we know if the sky was blue?
Indeed, the only time I ever see the sky is when I'm using Windows XP [wallpapercity.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My inner geek wonders if there's a way to have several desktops of the same landscape with different weather and have it change based on the real weather pulled from AccuWeather.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But without windows, how would we know if the sky was blue?
Indeed, the only time I ever see the sky is when I'm using Windows XP [wallpapercity.org].
The only time I see blue is when I use Winders also, but it's unrelated to my desktop-pattern...
Re:And this is news??? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Steal this song (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
Parent
Re:Steal this song (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Attribution: William Shakespeare. Note that the character who mouthed that phrase was a criminal.
If you ever face a divorce or bankrupcy or DUI or are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're going to need a lawyer. When you need a lawyer you NEED a lawyer. The problem isn't the lawyers, it's the laws and the lawmakers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing will be done to the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Who would you take a case to? The DOJ? Oh wait, the DOJ and the RIAA are basically clones now.
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is a problem, isn't it? That Mitch Bainwol's lawyers occupy key posts in the Justice Department.
As I see it, it is. So the question needs to be asked. Is there a way to overcome that obstacle?
Yes there is. But the only people who can do it are (a) President Barack Obama and (b) Attorney General Eric Holder.
Also, the Jenner & Block attorneys who received the appointments -- Messrs. Perrelli and Verrilli -- can conduct themselves with personal integrity, establish a "Chinese Wall" around record industry and motion picture industry matters, and recuse themselves entirely from anything having to do with those clients.