Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause 267
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm deeply concerned (Score:1, Funny)
My imaginary friend Drop Dead Fred was more real.
Its just a shame you cant split the fines between your imaginary friends.
Re:Kind of expected (Score:3, Funny)
His next move could be to pull out his checkbook to pay a fine and/or go to jail.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?
That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.
Re: Copyright Chess! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! Slashdot's new game!
RIAA on White, Sanity on Black
It's an Alekhine's Defense to the mark!
1. RIAA-e4, Jammie Thomas - f6
2. RIAA-e5, Jammie Thomas -d5
3. RIAA-d4, Prof Nesson- d6
4. RIAA-c4, Jammie Thomas gets kicked to b6 with the 1.92Mil verdict.
5. RIAA-f4 , ____
We have only about 3 moves left before they get a total lock. Our move.
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.
Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts. I've been around and posting comments since a few months after slashdot was created. Abandoned it about the time I decided I didn't want my boss knowing how much I was slacking off posting to slashdot (I had my name on my sig for a while and all it takes is one google search for my name to link me to it).
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
Try reading my post. I didn't complain about coverage of the trails, but about the level of detail. Hell, it was right there in the TITLE.
My post was no more self-centered than your little rant here, and if I do say so myself it was quite a bit less petulant. Time to take your own advice about whining.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
But it's not being posted in "the media." It's being posted on slashdot, a site where the great majority of us are already on-board the "RIAA is evil" bandwagon. It's not changing any minds having the legal minutiae posted here.
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
Can't speak to how often it happens, as I've never seen anyone claim it before. In my case, I wouldn't actually want the account back unless I did get a job at slashdot (yeah, right) or was self-employed and didn't need to look for a job again. It has my initials as the username and I signed some of my earliest posts with my full name (yeah, stupid in retrospect but I was still a bit of a young-un at the time). Even after I had that account, I started mostly posting AC because I was getting paranoid.
Since then, I've went through a couple of different accounts because I realize that being such a slacker at work and leaving a nicer trail of bread crumbs showing frequent posting on slashdot might be an unwise career decision. I plan on sticking with the current account for a while, though, since I telecommute now and all my traffic goes out my own router.
Yes, far more information than you wanted to know in response to what was basically a rhetorical question so you could take a pot-shot at me. Sorry, but that's how I roll. If it makes you feel any better, you beat my original uid by over 7k. ;)
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners
[citation needed]
Seriously. Post some links rather than just making accusations. This should be fun.
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
It's funny that you're not the first to follow this line. Complain about me because I complain about something else. I have a lot of posts in this thread, but they're all in response to people responding to me. It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts.
And my other car is a Ferrari.
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
I remember my username. It's rather easy, considering it's my initials.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
It will be a major occurrence if he actually gets sanctioned. If he doesn't, it will just be another blip. So why not wait until he actually gets sanctioned to post about it? Does anyone think that somehow we can change the judge's mind on this issue?
Having the minutiae ("someone is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet") left to blogs like NYCL's excellent one isn't depriving anyone. As far as the "don't read it" argument goes, the problem is that I am interested in the cases. I can't tell it's minutiae that has no effect on the case yet (again, when she decides to sanction him, then it will have had an effect) until after I've read it. So I read post after post, each time rolling my eyes afterwards thinking "damn, I thought something had actually happened." This time I just decided to post about it.
Sorry you didn't find my post interesting. I suggest to fix this that you don't read it. ;)
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
Three cars are jumping rope when one breaks down, the other two look at each other; shrug; and then Tuesday starts.
Re:cut the frickin guy some slack, he has a point (Score:3, Funny)
Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.
The reason this thread is taking up most of the discussion is that there's nothing to discuss. This story is almost identical to yesterday's story [slashdot.org] that garnered a whopping 123 comments (including all the down-moderated ones). Today's "news" is just that the judge took the next step and asked Nesson to respond. Then they'll be a step after that when she rules based on his response. Couldn't we have just waited until the ruling, because you'd have the same thing to talk about, only then it would actually not be hypothetical. And if the previous story was worthy of posting and this one is, too, wouldn't it be logical that when she rules one way or the other, then that'd be worthy of posting? Can you see what I mean by minutiae?
I'm not really trying to prove my point anymore. Either people get it or they don't. I just have the unfortunate character weakness that when someone addresses a comment to me, I respond. If people stopped doing that, took their own advice and ignored things they aren't interested in, this would have been over long, long ago.
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
How dare you speak to me like that. After all, I am the original # 3, I just forgot my password. And I would like to point out that my current UID is only 6 digits smartypants!
So is mine, but it's a pretty big difference, eh? :P
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.
I understand where you're coming from on feeling like you need to control your own music in such a way, but in reality I think you'd be far better off if they used it and didn't get a dime. It'd promote you far beyond anything you could do on your own, assuming people like the music. It's really only when bands get huge, like Metallica, that it makes more financial sense for them to be more restrictive with the music being played outside of their concerts.
Sorry, I accidentally posted something on-topic. My fan club will be terribly disappointed.
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
I: Did you ever bother to read this? I didn't post anything agreeing with the RIAA. My post was how NYCL's post made it sound like the RIAA was gonna get smacked down, and the complete opposite happened. I was disappointed.
LOVE: This was basically the same thing, only the first time it was a general comment and the second time it was directed at Ray, who responded. It's funny you can take a comment where I say I don't like the verdict that Jammie Thomas is guilty and claim that's RIAA shill.
THE: Saying it would help her to have an alibi is being a shill and supporting DRM? If I said it would help Hans Reiser if he had an alibi, would that mean I'm a murder shill?
RIAA: Again, saying that we need to change the pro-RIAA laws before we can get the judges to follow them is being an RIAA shill? I'm beginning to understand why you think I think so differently from you. You take my comments and read them to mean the exact opposite.
ALOT #1: Okay, now this is just getting silly. That was a thread about gun control. Which part of that is "support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners"? You're really grasping here, buddy.
ALOT #2: Responding to a post claiming the GPL is pro-(software)copyright by stating that the GPL uses copyright against itself and would be unnecessary if we got rid of copyrights altogether is now pro-copyright?
Did you just decide to hate me first and then read my old posts to fit your mindset, or have you really misread my posts so badly?
Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts (Score:1, Funny)
Considering that the actual unemployment rate in the US is around 12-15% I would think that a lot of people would prefer an easy way to ensure a warm meal and roof over their heads.
And you'd be creating jobs in the prison industry. It's a win win.
Re:Too much detail (Score:2, Funny)
I'm actually so elite that I have the only Slashdot UID that has a fractional component thanks to some Y2K hackery. However, due to shitty CSS on the site (designed by me, because I'm that 1337), my UID is multipled by 100,000 in the display. I don't fix the CSS now because I like my 6-digit UID. It allows me to hang out with you commoners, sort of like a celebrity who wears a big-ass fedora and Wayfarers.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too much detail (Score:3, Funny)
In other words, your well-reasoned and clearly-articulated arguments were falling on deaf ears when people saw the username "AwSumDood69"?
Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:1, Funny)
Why not take it one step further? If and when they take you to court for infringement, submit every .mp3 you possibly can as evidence so that it's a matter of public record and freely available to everyone. That'd be great, thanks.