RIAA Wants Agreements to Stay Secret 196
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. ...As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.'"
Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There should be a fund to help people sued by the RIAA fight back instead of paying extortion money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Layne
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
1. To donate to defendants in RIAA cases, use this link [fsf.org].
2. If you wish to earmark the contribution for this specific case indicate that it's for "UMG v. Lindor".
3. Thank you. Bless you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Like most of your fellow Americans, you work more hours than you should, have no health insurance, are overweight, and never get laid. In your free time you post essays about the threats of "Islamofascism" to Freerepublic.com from your basement.
Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda makes the effort worthless, doesn't it.
Doing PR by lawsuit. It'll remain in history, and our grandchildren will be reading about what the RIAA used to do in our days in attempt to keep Earth from spinning.
Tomorrow's Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Won't really work out (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something off topic, but worth mentioning: I appreciate the various members of the legal profession who take the time to breakdown and explain legal cases such as this, people such as Ray Beckermann, PJ from Groklaw, et al... Not only do I have a better understanding of what goes on in the legal world, but I have a little bit better respect for the people and procedures involved. Thanks..!
Re:Big surprise... (Score:5, Funny)
-
spin control (Score:2)
Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.
For the best quality that's what spin control should be, that and 78 rpm. I don't listen to music much anymore however I'd like to get a turntable, if I do then I'll listen to music more, and buying vinyl records. As amazing as it sounds, vinyl records are still being released. A five minute walk takes me to one store that sells new vinyl, and another store is 15 minutes walk. Next would be to find a reel-to-reel tape deck, I
The RIAA has a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA says discovery is over. The problem here is that counterclaims can arise as a result of discovery. In that case, it would be unfair to limit discovery to that of the original case. As an example, consider the SCO v. the rest of the world case. SCO was given extremely generous discovery in spite of the fact that they had produced zero evidence. It seems, on its face, that the record companies seem to be acting as a cartel. My wag is that the judge will decide that there is enough smoke to justify the conclusion that there may be fire.
Unclean Hands (Score:5, Funny)
12. Plaintiffs are guilty of unclean hands.
Apparently the RIAA downloads a lot of porn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Mike
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly wouldn't want them coming into my court, if I were a judge. Filthy unwashed hands.
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww!
...did you hear that? (Score:2, Interesting)
call me crazy, if they have 90% of the record biz...isn't that a cartel?
yeah, but when your the majority of 'l
Stupid RIAA. (Score:2)
Yeah? There's no excuse for the RIAA's bullshit or their tactics, either, but I don't see them looking to stop any time soon.
Examine the Record (Score:5, Interesting)
I seem to recall that the specific copyright violations have resulted in the specific rights holders (ie. individual record companies) being listed as plaintiff on the cases involving violation of their copyrights, with those violations and rights being specifically listed in the filings. As such, the RIAA, and by extension its other members, are not attempting to sue collectively for the rights violations. This claim contradicts that, which is easily found in the collection of suits and pre-suit collection attempts.
This claim will fall apart based on this evidence. The rest of it will be moot, as it is not illegal to actively pursue settlement collectively as long as specific individual instances of damage are not claimed when they don't occur. This is the basis of class action suits. Suits brought by trade unions on behalf of more than one of its members for a specific complaint similar to each v. a specific company would perhaps be a more apt example.
As to why the RIAA would then attempt to block it: delaying tactic. They are trying to cause this case, as they have with many others, to be as costly as possible for the defendant to pursue. Their collective purse, paying the RIAA's attorneys, is much larger than any defendant's, and they're simply trying to price the case out of existence.
As much as I'd like to see the RIAA and its members hung using their own intestines if not vas deferens, I think there's a gaping hole in the tactic being attempted here. If the agreements the RIAA seeks to block discovery of contradicts this in some way, great. But the individual suits as filed, used as their evidence in defense, indicate the opposite and makes it unlikely those agreements will get examined due to this action. It could even backfire. A request for discovery without the claim that they're tying their rights to each other, perhaps brought separately by one of the RICO countersuit v. RIAA plaintiffs, might have been a better idea. Now the RIAA is warned, can delay, and can alter any agreements that might have supported it by superseding them with newer ones that don't have this problem. The old ones would still exist, but would be evidence of this claim in the past, not of claims that this is how things are being done in the case that resulted in the claims.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But I did work on behalf of some in collecting evidence and acting as witness in some intellectual property cases.
Re: (Score:2)
The suits that were brought against this person were brought as a collusion of for-profit corporations that (should) have the goal to c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't dispute that. The RIAA stuff is as different from both of those as they are from each other. But legal precedent is based
woooooww - now they want secrecy (Score:2)
What's it all mean, Lenny? (Score:2, Funny)
"The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into
Re: (Score:2)
Gasp...gasp...gasp You couldn't break it up into smaller sentences, eh?
I agree. I actually thought of that after it was accepted and published. I should have written it as follows:
I for one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wish Beckerman would explain his motions and the counter motions
Ms. Lindor has a defense that the record company competitors have colluded together, combining their copyrights by suing and settling together instead of seperately.
She wants a copy of the agreement or agreements by which they have agreed to work together, so she can show it to the jury at the trial.
Normally under US law competitors are supposed to compete, not make secret agreements not to compete.
RIAA vs. Mafia? (Score:2)
Yes, I'm shouting. That's how outrageous this situation has become. Are they going to keep going to see just how much they can get away with? I could make some sort of joke about the RIAA ordering hitmen to whack music-loving college students, but I fear that we're inching closer and closer to that every day...
(I'm not imp
Imagine (Score:2)
It's easy if you try
No RIAA below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no Sony
It isn't hard to do
No music to steal or pay for
It's all free to you
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine free forever
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or DRM
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a d
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Funny)
rj
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) It takes either lots of money or a civic-minded attorney to put up a fight. Many good fights don't get fought because they're too expensive.
2) When taken at face value, a lot of what the RIAA says it stands for can look very acceptable to people who aren't thinking critically. That includes colleges and universities who deem it appropriate to give up their students; mainstream newspapers and other media in a lot of places; and anybody else who doesn't take the time to think clearly. I learned from a local news outlet [wjz.com] just yesterday that the RIAA is fighting against drug money, illegal gun money, and even "terrorism." So even the news outlets aren't taking the time to observe and evaluate.
3) People are just flat-out terrified when they find they're being sued by such a massive organization.
People who read Slashdot, and other people who've taken the time to think this through, are scandalized by what RIAA is getting away with. We've all seen and read about their abuse of elderly people, single mothers, recent orphans, and children, and that's had an obvious impact. It's going to take something truly spectacular that is widely reported out there in the mainstream before the general public wakes up.
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Insightful)
By spectacular I think you mean "The RIAA will have to start killing copyright violators indiscriminately". Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, we just had a Vice-president assert that his authority lies beyond the reach of law, logic, common sense, and the Constitution of the United States, and there was no call for impeachment from the masses, but rather only vaguely cranky inane ineffectual grumbling. If people aren't aroused to action by that sort of outrage, I don't think random little folk getting legally pummeled by the RIAA, for using software that most older people don't even comprehend much less use, is gonna get people rowdy.
But I could be wrong.
Re:You just haven't grown up yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly, if by "worked" you mean "fooled everyone into thinking it was capitalism", and if by "largely discredited", you mean "widely adopted as the prevailing American 'wisdom of the day'".
But go ahead and be just like the Germans: "They thought they were free." [uchicago.edu]
Re:You just haven't grown up yet (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Support politicians that support your causes, yes, but don't let it become your life!
Translation: I'm to jaded to care about the government anymore. Just because they basically control all aspects of my life doesn't mean I should worry about what they do.
Oh yea, baaaaa!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
b) selling a product
That depends what product exactly you want to sell.
c) changing jobs
d) expressing myself however I want
The only reason the government isn't stopping you from expressing yourself however you want is because you're too damn apathetic to express yourself in any way the government could ever care about. Try protesting, in public, at a place and time where it will actually be noticed even if the protest *doesn't* turn in to a riot.
e) buying anything I wan
government control (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:
a) starting a business
It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota [antionline.com] the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell on eBay this could prevent them from doing so, as least doing it legally.
b) selling a product
Same as above.
d) expressing myself however I want
I guess you didn't try to attend any of Bush's campaign stops in 2006 wearing a tshirt that wasn't approved. Even Bush supporters were turned out when they appeared with tickets to events where Bush was. And it's not just Bush, both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to get law enforcement where they had their conventions to setup "free speach zones" away from the conventions.
e) buying anything I want
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want
If you live in New York, or a number of other cities, yes. NYC has banned trans fats.
The answer is really no.
As listed above, the answer is YES! Just because it's not as bad in the US as it is in most other countries it doesn't mean there isn't any restrictions on liberty in the US as well.
Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.
Of course, Democrats supported the PATROIT Act as much as the Republicans did. Not only that but as President Clinton tried to get many of the same powers. Only two congressmen voted against the Act, one from Wisconson though I don't recall his name, and Rep Ron Paul (R) of Texas. And the thing is is none of them read the whole thing!
FalconRe: (Score:2)
a) starting a business
It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell o
Re: (Score:2)
Rediculous! If you are selling enough product that you would need a liscence, the price of the liscence is cheap. If you don't sell much, you are an amatuer and the law was not intended to stop the casual seller.
Why does another auctioning on eBay need to be able to shootout like an auctioneer irl? That's part of North Dakota's licensing requirements. Not everyone can even do so, however they don't need to speak at all on eBay.
I see nothing wrong with this or any contradiction. Everybody has the rig
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the rest of society has to bear the cost of what you injest. In the case of trans-fats, its pretty clear that they cause an increased risk of heart attacks, in which case, you either die and thus leave a bunch of people to be supported by the state, or, you live and a bunch of other people have their premiums used to pay your giant medical bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything else isn't democracy. What you are really arguing for is your own oligarchy against the wishes of the vast majority of people that are fed up with their sons, daughters, husbands and wives, fucking up their lives with drugs. While I do not agree with the present approach to the war on drugs, I think it is obvious to anyone who has seen what drugs really
Re: (Score:2)
The inability to buy whatever you want to injest is a restriction on your freedom and your liberty.
Not if the rest of society has to bear the cost of what you injest. In the case of trans-fats, its pretty clear that they cause an increased risk of heart attacks, in which case, you either die and thus leave a bunch of people to be supported by the state, or, you live and a bunch of other people have their premiums used to pay your giant medical bill.
Like that's really hard to deal with. NOT!!! Thoug
congress (Score:2)
The "one from Wisconsin" whose name you don't recall was Russ Feingold, who is a senator, not a congressman.
Thanks I didn't recall who it was who voted agains the PATROIT Act, however you are wrong about him not being a congressman [wikipedia.org]. Congress is made of both the Senate and the House of representatives and both senators and representatives are members of congress.
Paul was not even the only Republican. 63 Democratic congressmen joined the 3 Republicans (the others were Ney-OH and Otter-ID) in voting agai
Re: (Score:2)
a) starting a business
b) selling a product
c) changing jobs
d) expressing myself however I want
e) buying anything I want
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want
You cannot do any of those if they involve "illegal" drugs. Who deems what is illegal? The gub'ment. You cannot sell music (allofmp3.com style). You cannot start a business selling copied DVD's/CD's, etc.
On a different track, to stop you from "expressing yourself however you want", you cannot marry your immediate family, you cannot marry someone of the same sex (except for one state, and those marriages aren't acknowledged if you move away from that state), you cannot walk onto any street shooting a gu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Marrying into your immediate family is generally a sort of rape in cultures where it is practice
Re: (Score:2)
Marrying into your immediate family is generally a sort of rape in cultures where it is practiced and it certainly devalues women, so that isn't a form of expression, its a kind of an assault. Same sex marriage doesn't effect me, because I'm straight, so the issue is not THAT important to me. However, I do have some friends that are gay and to support their cause I withheld donations to the Republican Party in the last election, and you'll notice that they lost. Shooting a gun in public places is also a form of assault, as guys walking around shooting guns off tend to intimidate people, and yes, it is banned, and yelling FIRE in a crowded theater is also a form of assault, not expression, as the intent is clearly to provoke a reaction that can cause people to hurt themselves.
No, you've only demonstrated that you don't know the difference between expression and assault.
Marrying into your immediate family is most certainly not "assault", unless the other person is forced into it, which I did not specify. It certainly doesn't "devalue women", either. If that were the case, marrying *A* woman would "devalue her". The last two things I came up with can be considered "assault" only in that a threat is made (whether the intention to threaten is there or not). Looks like SOMEONE needs to learn what assault means, and that someone isn't me...
My point is that there is a huge difference between keeping an eye on things and obsessing over them, and younger people tend towards the latter.
Looks like you also need a lesso
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sticking our noses into other peoples businesses is what made this country number one. The fact of the matter is that our values are BETTER than th
Re: (Score:2)
You are utterly ignorant when you post about in-family marriages. 95% of the time the wife is a 13 year old girl marrying a 40 year old man. You go ahead and call that consentual and please, please, tell me that values women. Of course, liberals have turned the role model for women into holocaust fitness prostitutes, so I guess, maybe, that is a value to you.
References, or your're full of shit.
Sticking our noses into other peoples businesses is what made this country number one. The fact of the matter is that our values are BETTER than the values of other people on this planet and you can only watch them screw each other up so much before you have to step in.
Why are our values "better" than the values of other people on this planet? Who the fuck made us "the boss"? It's people like you, with your "values", that got us attacked in the first place, and it's people like you, with your "values", that have America nearly universally hated on the planet.
"Better".. indeed.
In any case, we need to adjust the values of Islamic people, and Bush's vision of using 9/11 as a pretext to clean house in the middle east was exactly the correct strategic call. Invading the middle east by the USA is LONG OVERDUE. Unfortunately, the brilliant strategy was matched by lousy tactics, and so now we're in the mess. At least we are still killing tons of islamists, and that's always a good thing.
Who the hell gives us the right to decide that? If I decide that your values need to be adjusted, should I use 9/11 to invade your house and kill/detain/tor
Grow up enough to read some history.... (Score:2)
Dude, the stuff you just wrote is sadly typical of the blatherings of modern day americans who, it seems, have been completely misinformed as to the ideals held by those founders of this great nation.
NOT sticking our noses into forgeign domestic affairs is exactly the ideal held when the Constitution was penned. It's the only policy consistent with our domestic ideals of the time. That we have forgotten this on both fronts is exactly why we've not won a land war
Re:You just haven't grown up yet (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1970 there might have been a riot. By 1980 you start seeing people being rather self-indulgently restrained worried about how this would affect their future as a lawyer or CEO if it ever came out. That was pretty much the end of it. Were there massive protests against the Iraq war? Not really. Were the police called out in riot gear with people being beaten and arrested? No.
Nobody is going to do anything like "riot". They will sit at home just as they have been trained and keep reading dailykos and other stuff like it and let the world go on around them. Yes, they will be angry and write some really scathing posts for firedoglake but nothing else is going to happen.
Backbone? Commitment? Resolve? Naaa. What we have is a nation of sheep that are being directed by a few sheepdogs. Some of the sheepdogs want to control things through large businesses and some of the sheepdogs want to control things through government. Some confused sheepdogs seem to want to control people through both, even though they are diametrically opposing forces. The problem is that most people can't even identify a sheepdog when they are in their presence, much less knowing when they are being led by one.
Most people seem to want a government that is run by poking fingers in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing today. Take a poll before any decision. Let the "voice of the people" tell them what to have for breakfast. This doesn't look good because nothing is ever finally decided. If the morning poll says "Raise taxes" and the afternoon poll says "Spend less" government grinds to a halt. In some ways that is a good thing because a uniformly undirected government isn't going to accomplish anything at all, least of all something bad.
95% of my problems are people like you (Score:5, Insightful)
If you choose a life where you don't value your rights, don't come crying to me when 20 years down the road you don't have any.
When I look at my life I look beyond the end of my street, and I don't like what I see. An issue like global warming won't have a practical impact on you, but you grand children are going to be killed by it. The won't be able to "just move inland" because everyone else from all the most populous places on earth will all be doing the same. Once everyone gets there, the fresh water supplies will fail because the overcrowding on top of the lack of infrastructure. So now you have hundreds of millions of displaced people worldwide, a potable water shortage, and guess what pops up everytime you have widespread conditions like that? Disease. So no you personally might not be effected, but your grandchildren and great grand children will die most misreable deaths because you refuse to take resposibility for anything past the end of your driveway. Don't confuse money with respect, freedom, or responsibility. Some actions have effects beyond making or losing a dollar, maybe when you grow up you'll see that.
Re: (Score:2)
If you choose a life where you don't value your rights, don't come crying to me when 20 years down the road you don't have any. When I look at my life I look beyond the end of my street, and I don't like what I see. An issue like global warming won't have a practical impact on you, but you grand children are going to be killed by it. The won't be able to "just move inland" because everyone else from all the most populous places on earth will all be doing the same. Once everyone gets there, the fresh water supplies will fail because the overcrowding on top of the lack of infrastructure. So now you have hundreds of millions of displaced people worldwide, a potable water shortage, and guess what pops up everytime you have widespread conditions like that? Disease. So no you personally might not be effected, but your grandchildren and great grand children will die most misreable deaths because you refuse to take resposibility for anything past the end of your driveway. Don't confuse money with respect, freedom, or responsibility. Some actions have effects beyond making or losing a dollar, maybe when you grow up you'll see that.
Great comment, Original Replica. One of the best things I've ever read on Slashdot.
Re:You just haven't grown up yet (Score:5, Insightful)
tjstork, I bet you don't realize just how much of your little screed is actually the result of a message that is embedded in just about every bit of news and entertainment in the US Media. I've been hearing, more often of late, the so-called "smart people" in the media scoffing at problems like global warming, the US health care mess, the expanding divide between rich and the rest, and the growing environmental catastrophe, rolling their eyes at the silliness that any of these problems could actually cause a problem for any of us. These things, we are told, aren't really worth worrying about because they are either the natural order of things or completely fabricated by liberals who are somehow going to get rich by telling people the climate is changing. Just look at the way the everyone in the world is trying to get into the US. You don't see any Americans trying to leave do you?
Well, yes in fact. Of course people who are starving in Columbia or Rwanda or whose lives are being threatened in Iraq or Rwanda or who can't feed their families in Mexico or Rwanda are desperate to get into the US. But you'll find a lot more Americans trying to move to Canada, Sweden, Finland or other "semi-socialist" countries than you'll find people from those places trying to get here. Recently, when I had to renew my Italian passport (I'm born an American citizen, but I got my Italian passport back in the '70s when I learned that I was eligible because of my ancestry), I was talking to the guy in the Italian embassy here in Chicago and he told me that the Italian government has been trying to streamline the procedure because so many Americans are trying to get EU passports. He said that he hears all the time from Americans who want to emigrate because of the far better civil services over there. Even formerly Soviet bloc countries are seeing large numbers of US citizens moving there, and not just the rich retirees, but regular working people who are concerned about the erosion of their standard of living. They are working harder, longer and living on less, he's told. Sure, unemployment rates are low, but how many people who a few years ago were making really good wages and benefits are now making 20 percent over the minimum wage in the "service" industry with no benefits or job security? Why do you think the elite want to open our borders to Mexico, and do you think that's going to improve our standard of living or just improve their bottom lines?
How many people do you know who say they are working "just for the benefits"? How many would stand up for themselves to their boss or decide to make a bold change in their career except for the fact that they are held captive to the shrinking health care benefits that come when you have a decent job. Guess what? Those health care benefits are getting smaller and harder to get every year. Just a few minutes ago, I read an article at cnn.com about how they assigned a research team to test the assertions in Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko", and surprisingly (to anyone who listens to talk radio or watches Fox News), his facts were pretty much dead on right. But the media is extraordinarily effective at getting people to believe the way you do, tjstork, that we are "lucky to be American". Not "lucky to be living in a wealthy country" or "lucky to have a good job and good health", but "lucky to be American". I wonder if you realize just how much damage this kind of exceptionalism causes. There's this circular kind of reasoning that "The way we do things is the best because we're Americans and it's the way we do things".
I love this country dearly. I love the people here, the stunning diversity of population, topography and climate. I especially love the virtues and values that the exceptional group of men who lived at the birth of the United States held and shared. Thomas Paine, Ben
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There's been such a number done on the minds of most Americans when it comes to any social system that's not "Free Market" that until they can come up with names that don't have "Communist" or "Socialist" they will only be associated with authoritarians like Stalin or Mao.
There's a growing number of Christian Socialists in this country, though. I love to watch when the media encounters
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm here on one of the much reviled (on Slashdot anyway) H1-B visas. I'm highly educated, M.Sc. in Computer Engineering, and well paid by my American company with excellent insu
Re: (Score:2)
When discussing the U.S. vs. Denmark with Americans, I usually explain it
Re: (Score:2)
I don't object to people like yourself being here, quite the opposite. What I very much object to are the terms under which you are here. Has your H1-B status been used to pressure you in any way? You know, work more hours and take less pay, because being fired is much much MUCH worse for you than for a US citizen. H1-B gives employers way too much leverage.
I am disgusted by the ongoing idiocy and crassness typical of big business in the US. The RIAA is merely one of the worst offenders. Sadly, the
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree that the H1-B program gives employers too much power, however, how the employer wields that power is the true test. I have no doubt at all, that some companies abuse that power massively. But, believe me or not, the opposite does also happen: companies do exist, that use the H1-B system as intended (to bring in skilled workers f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to work roughly six months each year to pay my slave dues.
I think three months should be low taxes. Right now federal income taxes are low.
I agree- taxes are low if you are making under $20,000 or over a half million a year.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Reaganomics worked? I guess if your definition of "worked" is inventing the trillion dollar national debt and starting the income divide that is getting worse and worse every day. And no, socialism wasn't discredited, it was overthrown by the CIA.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right that the majority of my problems are my own creation, and I need to work on those for the betterment of my
Baloney (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And that's just from the guys in marketing, who are annoyed that the legal dept. has taken over their former areas of expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Never have I heard a bunch of nerds who spend all their time coding, playing online games, eating pizza, and downloading porn/mp3s/movies, being described as "people who've taken the time to think this through".
Most of us won't even RTFM, let alone think about issues.
Overreact, maybe. "Think things through" - wow. That's a first.
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Insightful)
The hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal feels and representation? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?
I think you may be overlooking the fact that most people don't have the financial resources to fight the RIAA in a legal battle. The RIAA can spend millions of dollars without an eyeblink but most of those they go after can't afford an attorney. What should be done to correct this is for judges to award defendents their legal costs, then have people like the EFF to get it into the mass media. Attorneys may then be more willing to work with those the
Re:Do they... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Court could very well hand down an abrogation of the protections afforded to the works because
they misused their position in this way. If the Court hands that down as the punishment/remedy,
the decision and the penalty would have stand upon appeal- which you KNOW they would immediately
do if they got handed a decision like that. If it stands upon appeal, they may still be stupid
enough to try to get the Supreme Court of the US to listen to an appeal of the whole thing- IF
the SCOTUS decides to listen to the whole thing, they still have to convince the Justices that
it's a bad decision, RICO's Unconstitutional, etc. or they lose hard.
Even if it does happen, it'll take years for 'em to lose the rights protections.
Re: (Score:2)
If you the Roberts Court will allow this to happen, you are delusional.
Indeed... (Score:3, Interesting)
collective heads- I just won't state outright that they are going to lose the things. And, lose 'em they
will do if this gets going where it looks like it's going. They sued someone that was a DOJ case manager-
someone that understands precisely where she's going with this and is making no bones about it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Soounds kinda Scoottish when I read oout looud.
Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Aside from that being completely impractical and ultimately fruitless (when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts), what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs? If you have a good legal reason to know, then you'll get it through legal action. If not, just because you want to know other people's business doesn't mean you get to.
Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, let's narrow it down a bit. How's this: Government and corporate contracts go into the database. It's a matter of public policy.
(when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts)
Maybe, but it will be more easily apparent what behavior is not a matter of public knowledge. The government could reward publicizing contracts with tax breaks or whatever.
Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still sounds like a good idea?
Oh, maybe you meant just contracts between two corporations? Well, obviously that loophole would be exploited to the hilt, rendering the entire idea pointless.
Everything is circumstance (Score:2)
Why? Are you ashamed of your child? (Score:2)
I feel real pity for your child.
As for YOU; you can fuck the hell right off the planet. Cock-biter...
I feel dirty even knowing you exist...
Re: (Score:2)
No really, why don't you explain what this obvious loophole exploiting would look like? The only obvious one I can think of would be for the contract to be between a corporation and some kind of non-corporation, but I would think that a loophole like that would entail a corporation giving up some of the corporate protections that undergird their whole
public corporation, public court system (Score:3, Interesting)
How else are we to know it isn't fraud?
Have your secret contract if you like... but don't come crying to the courthouse when the other party doesn't follow the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
All those contracts are legit and above board, right? what have you got to hide?
Ah, the rally cry of the oppressor and the totalitarian -- the same verse sung by those who strip civil liberties and banish privacy. It is shocking to hear someone on Slashdot, of all places, use it. For a second I thought you might have been being sarcastic, but I don't think that's actually the case here.
Whether you are being sarcastic or not, there are many reasons why companies keep their contracts confidential. Corporate espionage is a big one. Simple privacy (our agreement with X is none of you
Corporate espionage is a straw horse. (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, they do... In a patent application! (And those are all supposed to be in a searchable public database.)
The rest of contract law is entirely concerned with the behavior of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did ANY technical details make into a contract?
As a matter of fact, they do... In a patent application! (And those are all supposed to be in a searchable public database.)
The rest of contract law is entirely concerned with the behavior of people...
...And interactions and deals with other companies. Case in point, this secret contract between the labels and RIAA. Other examples are secret contracts between manufaturers and their suppliers, ala Cocacola. They have secret contracts to keep people from finding out how much of what ingredient they order from who, all to help hide their secret formula to their fizzy drinks. Other business interests might be done under secret contracts as well to keep from disclosing strategic aliances, or keep the public
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that if the contract is legal, then you have no reason to need to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
In 2004 there were 12.8 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants in the U.S,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a battle we should all be chipping into. Does anyone know of a website somewhere or other such ways we can use to donate cash to this fight? The RIAA has nearly unlimited funds (so it would seem). So, if we're ever to stop this enemy of the people, we're going to have to fight back in kind. In a lawsuit like this, we all need to help it through before it becomes just another RIAA victory due to lack of funds on the victim's (in every case, the RIAA is never the victim) side. If no such website exists, who could we trust to set it up and make sure 98% of the funds are distributed back to the attornies fighting this cause?
Here's the link [fsf.org].
100% goes to the defendants fighting this cause.