RIAA Filed 62 New Cases In April Alone 243
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Based upon a quick examination of the records in PACER, I detected 62 new cases brought by the RIAA against individuals in the month of April alone. In December, 2008, the RIAA had represented to Congress that they had 'discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August [2008].'"
No. It CAN'T be true! (Score:4, Interesting)
So you're saying the RIAA lied? Is that possible? I thought they always told the truth, and only wanted to protect society from the evils of piracy. I believe they said something to that effect under oath, in court, didn't they?
Oh, god, please let some of those whiny thugs get caught perjuring themselves. They'd make such lovely prison bitches.
Perjury (Score:4, Interesting)
Perjury - n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.
So sue the RIAA for perjury (actually, that would be a criminal matter).
Re:Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties. Justice should have NOTHING to do with party affiliation.
Isn't it time to reclassify RIAA.. (Score:2, Interesting)
...as a terrorist organisation? Membership punishable by vacation in Gitmo. Time to accuse them of possession of weapons of mass (ISP) destruction. Think about it. They're organised. They use sophisticated methods. They've proven they operate using terror tactics. They target grandmothers and children.
Or perhaps just charge RIAA officials with good old fashioned treason against the U.S.
Same with MPAA.
Come on, turn some of that new draconian legislation back on them.
The geek in overdrive (Score:4, Interesting)
So do countless other lawsuits. But that doesn't make headlines on Slashdot.
Re:Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really, no. A political party does a lot in the way of telling people who operate under their banner to behave. For example, there was no way that a republican or democrat judge was ever going to follow the rule of law when it came to keeping Democrats and Republicans on the presidential ticket in Texas even though both parties failed to meet their deadlines.
While there are some rules and laws that may generally be subject to some interpretation, the enforcement of the law should never be related to or affiliated with any one party that happens to be in power. The enforcement of law should, under all circumstances be fair and even. We know they are not, but it should be.
You may feel it is okay for individuals to pick a side and defend it. But you can never be impartial when you do that. Are you okay with a justice system that is not impartial? I'm not. Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.
Re:Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties.
That'll just make it "wink, wink, nudge, nudge". In my county, sheriff is an elected "nonpartisan" position. I'm sure the fact that one candidate received lots of help from Republican sources and the police union, and the other candidate received help from Democratic sources, was entirely coincidental. In any case, the parties were technically not involved, they did not directly contribute. Most judges (also a "nonpartisan" elected post) are a little more discrete (one is married to a high Republican operative, but of course that doesn't indicate anything about her own politics), though I have noticed that for some reason the names of most of the individuals endorsing a particular judge tend to also appear endorsing the same flavor of candidate for more partisan races.
Re:Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them
So your argument is that we should make laws as complex/detailed as possible so that no one can even tell you if they're abiding by them let alone try to comply??? Did you pass that thought through a sanity check before posting it?
Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (Score:5, Interesting)
The story is about them lying to Congress.
They represented to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that they had "discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". That was a flat out, bald faced, lie.
Re:Surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that such laws need to deal with complex circumstances (e.g. killing in self defense, "manslaughter" by drunk driving, estoppel [wikipedia.org] etc.). The more circumstances need to be dealt with, the more complex the laws need to be (that's ungrammatical, isn't it?).
Is Bainwol a lawyer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Judge Judy, only without the attitude
What exactly is Judge Judy without the attitude? She acts like an asshole and demean people who need help for ratings. Don't act like the appeal of Judge Judy isn't "OMG what trash does she have on there today, I hope she yells at them." That's not the purpose of a courtroom, and the fact that this behavior is covered with a veneer of "telling it like it is" is incredibly hypocritical of her.
She's a showboat. I could go on. I won't. The fact that you think she represents something positive about or legal system tells me all I need to know.
As an aside, I'd never heard of estoppel. I went to the wikipedia page to find out more, and I'm still not much clearer. It seems a perfect example of how the feedback loop in the legal system has made the system too closed to the layman.
You read something, didn't understand it, and your immediate reaction was that the legal system's precision is in fact a conspiracy to stop people from valuing honesty. Estoppel is not based on a specific circumstance, just as a fork is not used in a specific circumstance merely because it is not a spoon. You're just more willing to condemn an entire profession than you are to read and absorb an encyclopedia article.
And if you think I'm mean...call up Judge Judy and tell her you think estoppel is bullshit. Lower the volume on your phone first.