Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

Judge Lets RIAA Subpoena Defendant's Employer 157

Posted by Zonk from the that's-deeply-disturbing dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A judge has ruled that the RIAA can subpoena the defendant's employer in a case pending in Manhattan federal court, Atlantic v. Shutovsky. The judge's order (pdf) contained eight separate rulings deciding 19 pages of discovery disputes (pdf), resolving virtually all of them in favor of the RIAA. Other decisions made include: 'The plaintiffs were permitted to take depositions of Mr. Shutovsky's wife and his brother. Plaintiffs were required to produce all non-privileged documents or materials relating to any investigation and any sound files on their computer, and to produce a privilege log as to any claimed to be privileged. Defendant was required to provide the name and address of each person who used his computer during the three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Lets RIAA Subpoena Defendant's Employer More

Judge Lets RIAA Subpoena Defendant's Employer

Comments Filter:

  • Out of control (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuSEboy ( 642235 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:31PM (#20115153) Homepage Journal
    3 years eh? Good luck with that.

    • Re:Out of control (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous McCartneyf ( 1037584 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:46PM (#20115267) Homepage Journal
      Let's just hope there weren't any botnets using this computer.
      If there were no botnets, then that order should be possible to fill, assuming there were no attempts at plausible deniability. That still leaves everything else awful, I know, inc. how the RIAA got its case in the first place; but still, if there were no botnets, then it should be possible to narrow down who downloaded the RIAA's sting files.
      If there was a botnet on the computer, however, someone innocent will get cooked by this order. How's a layperson to know if there is?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Freak ( 16973 )
        Let's see, three years of my main laptop would include myself, my wife, my kids, my parents, my grandparents, my sister, my father-in-law, my sister-in-law and her family, a dozen or so friends (I can't be certain which ones,) and, oh, about 100 clients whose names I don't remember. (I often demonstrate things to clients on my laptop, and they do sometimes "use" my computer for a minute or two.)

        My son's desktop computer would mean 'ratting out' a dozen or so of HIS friends. (10-13 years old at time of use

      • Botnets? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by infonography ( 566403 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @03:55PM (#20115731) Homepage
        So how does one prove that the computer in question had been/was infected? Unless they kept detailed logs at the ISP then only an analysis of the traffic would be proof.

        I would guess the ISP would balk at that due to;

        1. The unlikelihood they had these on file. (if they did they would see a mass exodus of customers on GP)

        2. The in-house costs of doing this analysis likely outside of the skill sets of the usual NOC staffers. Meaning Who is going to pay for said work? (See reason 1)

        3. The Lawyers for the ISP refusing and standing on the grounds that they as a Common Carrier are not required to keep/give this sort of info without a search warrant in a CRIMINAL case. (by the way who are they we should shine some light on them)

        But other claims could be made, like claiming that the wireless Linksys router the had didn't have any security or was provably crackable. [read as walk in the park]
        • I can't read "insecure router" as "walk in the park." The kind of judge who would accept "it could've been anyone with Wi-Fi" as an answer that would clear the defendant would likely be the kind of judge who wouldn't require this request by the RIAA to be forcibly enforced.
        • The Lawyers for the ISP refusing and standing on the grounds that they as a Common Carrier are not required to keep/give this sort of info without a search warrant in a CRIMINAL case. (by the way who are they we should shine some light on them)

          While ISP's are not required to keep this data, if they have it, a subpoena is the correct legal document to collect evidence or compel testimony from a third party in a civil court proceeding. If the ISP has it, and the subpoena is not quashed for other reasons (too
      • If its not HIS computer per se, then its the companies and they can give them a blank page.

        They can also say, "we upgrade often and cycle computers constantly.... he personaly may have used 100 computers, none of the desktops are 'personal' but remote profile logins.

        The server is not his, but the companies. Contains trade secrets, FOFF.

        Give them an old 286 from storage, "yeah it was HIS computer!!!"
        • The defendant's employer will be supeona'd! Anything they tell the court, they'll have to say under oath, and I've a feeling this judge will go down harder on defense perjury than on RIAA perjury.
          If the employer says he used 100 computers, the RIAA will simply demand all 100 of them. They're already demanding every computer and hard drive the defendant used in the last three years, and they already have judicial force behind that demand. And it doesn't matter who owns the computers--if the defendant use

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      3 years eh? Good luck with that.

      Overreaching fucking sons of bitches!

      This judge must have no more than a single-digit IQ.

      Too bad we can't get this roaring bastard to allow discovery on our revered commander-in-thief.

  • Do your own damned work. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:37PM (#20115197) Journal
    What evidence (if any) does the RIAA have on this person?

    (None? Yeah, I thought so. Wouldn't exactly be uncommon.)

    But really, it just strikes me as bizarre the amount of work they're requiring the defendant to do -- they are basically asking the defendant to investigate themself.

    Ordinarily, of course, I wouldn't be worried. I'd simply turn in a bunch of sound files and say I don't remember where I ripped them from, or where the physical CD went. Because under ordinary US law, it would then be the burden of the plaintiff to prove that those particular files did not belong to me. But this isn't ordinary US law, this is bought-and-paid-for RIAA law.

    • Re:Do your own damned work. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:38PM (#20115203)
      It's not a matter of evidence. The burden is on the defendent, since it is copyright law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Last I checked, the RIAA has never ever gone after downloaders, only people sharing songs. For that purpose it doesn't matter much where the songs came from, since you certainly didn't buy the right to distribute them. Since it's a civil case and it means "preponderance of evidence", you need something that'll negate their weak evidence. Options:

      a) It's not the song you claim it to be (most P2P networks have hash checks though)
      b) It's not the correct IP address (the ISP must have made a mistake)
      c) It's not

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) *

        Last I checked, the RIAA has never ever gone after downloaders, only people sharing songs. For that purpose it doesn't matter much where the songs came from, since you certainly didn't buy the right to distribute them. Since it's a civil case and it means "preponderance of evidence", you need something that'll negate their weak evidence. Options: a) It's not the song you claim it to be (most P2P networks have hash checks though) b) It's not the correct IP address (the ISP must have made a mistake) c) It's not any of my computers (open WiFi, guest using my network) d) I wasn't in control of the computer, a trojan must have done it e) I wasn't in control of the computer, my friends/family/guests must have done it f) I wasn't aware I was sharing copyrighted works (but that only limits the liability) Their evidence leaks all ways, but they are trying to patch it up in all directions.

        Evidence?

        Did you say evidence?

        They don't have any evidence.

      • Last I checked, the RIAA has never ever gone after downloaders, only people sharing songs.

        With most P2P networks, you share by default. With BitTorrent, you cannot download without sharing. So that distinction is swiftly becoming irrelevant.

        For that purpose it doesn't matter much where the songs came from, since you certainly didn't buy the right to distribute them.

        Fair enough, assuming they already know you were distributing. But first, no one's told me what evidence they had prior to this subpoena.

        And

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by 10bellies ( 978724 )

          With BitTorrent, you cannot download without sharing. So that distinction is swiftly becoming irrelevant.

          1 - Launch torrent client of choice.

          2 - Set upload to 0kbps.

          3 - Load .torrent file into torrent client.

          4 - Download data while sharing/uploading nothing.

          Simple really.

          Granted, some private trackers don't allow you to do this, but most (if not all) public trackers do.

          And yes, I'm aware that if everyone did this, no one would be able to download anything...most people don't though.

          • It's not just private trackers. Most clients don't like other clients who don't share, meaning you won't get much before you're disconnected.

            Especially when you're starting out. From what I remember, when I was on a 2 mbit half-duplex connection, I would always start out downloading at maybe 5k. After awhile, I'd have something to share, but if I restricted my upload rate to, say, 50k up, I'd only get 50k or so down, or less.

            However, if I restricted my upload rate to 150k (and downloaded at 50k), then after

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shark72 ( 702619 )

          "In order to prove it's the song they claim it to be, they must have downloaded it themselves, which could be seen as a form of entrapment -- obviously whoever they are downloading it from commits a crime by uploading the file to the RIAA goon doing this, which they might not otherwise have committed."

          I'd love to see somebody try that in court. "Yes, your honor, my client did make all those files available for sharing, but if nobody had downloaded them, my client might not have shared them in the first

          • "Yes, your honor, my client did make all those files available for sharing, but if nobody had downloaded them, my client might not have shared them in the first place."

            So the question is, then, whether merely making the files available is itself a crime.

            For example, let's say the guy has a Windows computer, and has given the computer a name of "Johnson", with a username "Johnson" and password "Johnson". Or something almost as stupid, that someone would actually do. They then shared a folder on their hard

  • The raping of your legal system, and a complete lack of the political world of caring. In no way would the founding fathers see this for anything other than what is it.... A classic shakedown to get cash for a large company... In this country we have to come to terms that Intellectual Property is not something you can force people to pay you whatever you want. There must be balance...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *
      Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this? Is the depth to which our system has sunk showing up on your shallow radar yet? You think it's OK for this industry organization to use this type of life-ruining intimidation tactic in order to protect their profits?

      At what point do you decide that people are more important than quarterly stock prices? And before you pull out that old chestnut about what's good for GM being good for America, remember that not one of these corporatio
      • Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this? Is the depth to which our system has sunk showing up on your shallow radar yet? You think it's OK for this industry organization to use this type of life-ruining intimidation tactic in order to protect their profits?

        You can be anti-authority, anti-corporate, but free-market at the same time.

        Its not hard. You simply have to commit to policies that disable the ability for corporations to use the federal government to enforce its power. O

        • You can be anti-authority, anti-corporate, but free-market at the same time.

          Yep, you'd then be a capitalist, possibly fiscally conservative, probably flat out appalled with what is labeled as capitalism in the U.S. today.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 )

        Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this?
        There is nothing even remotely "free-market" about this situation - copyright is a government granted monopoly and this court ruling is, by virtue of being a court ruling, government interference.
        • I think it's pretty obvious that the definition of "free market" in this country now is "market where the only regulation the government does is to help entrenched wealth". He probably should have used parentheses when he said free market though, to make it clear.

          • I think it's pretty obvious that the definition of "free market" in this country now is "market where the only regulation the government does is to help entrenched wealth". He probably should have used parentheses when he said free market though, to make it clear.
            Agreed.

            He didn't mean "free market", he meant "so called free market".

            Bush/Reagan "market" economics is to free markets as Naziism is to democratic socialism.

        • There is nothing even remotely "free-market" about this situation
          No kidding, you caught that, huh? That's my point. There's virtually nothing about the economic/political system in the US that is a "free market", and I'm not sure I'd like it if it was.
      • GM was never for USA.

        During cold war, GM had massive plants in russia, they made most of their cars, or at least told them how to do it, just slap on a russkie label on it and no one knows.

        NOTE to people with 401s, move them to 30% Euros, and 30% GOLD/SILVER certs. 30% OIL STOCKS.

      • Are you authority-loving, pro-corporate, free-market types getting this? Is the depth to which our system has sunk showing up on your shallow radar yet? You think it's OK for this industry organization to use this type of life-ruining intimidation tactic in order to protect their profits? At what point do you decide that people are more important than quarterly stock prices? And before you pull out that old chestnut about what's good for GM being good for America, remember that not one of these corporations any longer has the least bit of allegiance to the USA.

        Thank you, PopeRatzo.

      • pro-corporate, free-market types

        That's me, so I'll respond.

        1) This is not a free market. Despite all the politicians' fancy rhetoric, America is not a free market economy. Nowhere close.

        2) The RIAA is known to more or less bribe politicians and other authority figures.

        Please don't conflate a corporate-owned, government controlled economy with a minimalistic, free market-based economy. They're two entirely different animals. In a free market in which government does NOT accept bribes from corp
        • I used to think like you. I used to read Reason mag and think that if government just got out of the way we'd be fine. But after I passed age 50 I started to see that I was mistaken. The "free market" does not exist. There is only wealth and power and people who get either try to get more of both. I believe I can take you on a 4 mile walking tour of my fair city (Chicago, USA) and convince you of the same.

          I'm sorry, but old uncle Milton Friedman was wrong about almost everything. Nothing people do can

    • The raping of your legal system, and a complete lack of the political world of caring. In no way would the founding fathers see this for anything other than what is it.... A classic shakedown to get cash for a large company... In this country we have to come to terms that Intellectual Property is not something you can force people to pay you whatever you want. There must be balance...
      Thank you tgatliff. I share your sense of outrage at this decision.

  • Sigh, so different from Germany (Score:4, Insightful)

    by renoX ( 11677 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @02:54PM (#20115323)
    Poor americans, when you compare what was the German more sensible reaction
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/02/16 47221 [slashdot.org] and this one..
    • american music connoisseur here, looking for a good proxy server... let the obvious solution to this retarded american legal bullshit commence

      dear riaa: the internet was originally designed to route around damage in the event of a nuclear war.
      you may consider your legal efforts to be nothing more than damage, to be routed around

      feel free to sue somebody about this. because that's obviously the solution to your problems. fucking retards

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by henni16 ( 586412 )
        Funny, I was thinking about finding a proxy outside of Germany. You might want to reconsider: Data_retention_in_the_European_Union [wikipedia.org]:

        "Germany, for example, has indicated that it seeks to make retained data admissible in certain civil copyright cases"

        Oh, and then there currently is a VERY big buzz about making it legal for law enforcement to secretly break into suspects' computers and install a special "federal trojan horse". There are reports of people being contacted with job offers regarding the modification of network traffic to poison downloads on-the-fly. Political argument is: "There's a security gap! All will die

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by henni16 ( 586412 )
      While I was happy about that, the sad thing is that this is ammunition for another law that's currently in the making:
      remove judicial oversight and give copyright holders direct access to the usage data ISPs will have to collect and store for months to comply with the EU "OMG TERRAR!"-data retention directive.

      That's the reason why legislators in Germany have done/plan
      a) to broaden the scope of the original directive to allow usage of the surveillance data not only for the intended, usual suspects (terrorism
    • Don't get cocky, world. You're not far behind. If you think the lethal mix of corporate influence and institutionalized corruption doesn't exist in your country, you're sadly mistaken.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Defendant was required to produce all hard drives in his possession and control.

    I suppose that includes all removable hard drives used for backup. The RIAA gets to completely destroy all computer resources of an individual or small business because someone/something used their internet account. I wish all the non-techies in my acquaintance could understand how this makes computer security even more important. I also wish I could afford a 200G tape drive...

    • Solution?

      Stop purchasing RIAA member-produced products. They'll publicly blame piracy but will admit internally to their organization that their attempt to brainwash the public into believing Fair Use does not exist is resulting in their slow but sure demise unless they adjust to the market forces.

      • Stop purchasing RIAA member-produced products.

        Seeing as they've sued at least one person who didn't even own a computer that's not necessarily going to help. In the long run it might (put them out of business), but short term no one is safe from their litigation campaign.

  • Interrogatory #7 sounds intentionally misleading (Score:4, Interesting)

    by henni16 ( 586412 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @03:19PM (#20115507)
    Nice response of the plaintiff in the "joined letter" on page 10 where they are asked to provide details of the investigative methods used to obtain the IP address and screenshots.
    They talk about lots of things in detail that aren't really relevant and than basically skip over what was really asked:

    They provide lots of details on how to use Kazaa (go to a website, download the program, click this button, then that button, select entry from list X, yadda yadda) to "connect with like-minded infringers" and lots of whining about how "them be exponentially stealing perfect copies of teh precioussss".

    Followed by:
    "We logged on to Kazaa and then did stuff like making screenshots like everybody could do.
      And we saw him do bad things, oh yes we did.
      Or go and ask Media Sentry to get additional non-answers because that's all top secret business stuff you wouldn't understand anyway."

  • An outrage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyphercell ( 843398 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @03:29PM (#20115563) Homepage Journal

    This is a horrific application of legal theory, in fact it flies in the face of US court proceedings. It's called "burden of proof [wikipedia.org]" and without it you are guilty until proven innocent, literally you are tasked with proving yourself innocent.

    It's a sad day indeed when a privately owned entity can practice McCarthyism [wikipedia.org] and nobody notices. Welcome to the United Corporations of America, an experimental perversion of capitalism, totalitarianism, and military dictatorship.

    Free speech is all we have left.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by timon ( 46050 )
      Free speech is all we have left.

      Only as long as it only occurs in designated free speech zones [wikipedia.org].

    • This is a horrific application of legal theory, in fact it flies in the face of US court proceedings. It's called "burden of proof [wikipedia.org]" and without it you are guilty until proven innocent, literally you are tasked with proving yourself innocent. It's a sad day indeed when a privately owned entity can practice McCarthyism [wikipedia.org] and nobody notices. Welcome to the United Corporations of America, an experimental perversion of capitalism, totalitarianism, and military dictatorship. Free speech is all we have left.

      It is truly a sad day indeed.

  • "Stand and deliver, your money or your life..." They could drag just about anybody into "court" for this and get them to account for every media file on their computer... nobody who's had a computer for any period of time would be innocent here... everybody does it... anyone who says they don't is a liar... what we need are switched on jurors to do their duty and return not guilty verdicts...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by db32 ( 862117 )
      In a strange way, the fact that they are attempting to make this criminal may actually work out for the better. This kind of crap frequently doesn't get a jury. Criminal trials get juries. As long as juries can be educated that they can agree that they can declare laws unjust and kill the mess.
      • In a strange way, the fact that they are attempting to make this criminal may actually work out for the better. This kind of crap frequently doesn't get a jury. Criminal trials get juries. As long as juries can be educated that they can agree that they can declare laws unjust and kill the mess.

        Actually, you're correct, but I think for a few additional, possibly more important reasons. I think making it a criminal matter would help in one of the stickiest areas..guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to
        • Something equally important is the fact that they'd need to convince the DA's office that there's enough evidence to warrant bringing a case to court, and if they get past that hurdle, they then have to rely on prosecution lawyers that aren't their own ones to argue it. The defendant on the other hand gets to select his or her legal team, and it's likely that organisations such as the EFF would find some notably able people to represent them "pro bono". A decent team of defence lawyers would have little tro

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by db32 ( 862117 )
          You know I guess I didn't think that deep into it, but there is another one that is going to be a HUGE FUCKING NAIL in their coffin. Chain of Custody is going to fucking murder them. So...when their hired goons steal crap off your computer and it over and then rush to court... I don't think a lawyer with half a braincell would let that be entered in, by the end of the day if they can even get a trial going, it will boil down to "we are pretty sure that the people we paid to catch him doing this caught hi
      • "As long as juries can be educated that they can agree that they can declare laws unjust and kill the mess. "

        If you can get a someone on the jury that actually knows about jury nullifaction/veto, past the RIAA lawyers. And for that matter past the Judge. Have you noticed how Judges tell the jury how they should view the evidence or how part of testimony should be disregarded? In my own recent experience as a juror, the judge did everything short of directly instructing us on how to find the case.

    • "Stand and deliver, your money or your life..." They could drag just about anybody into "court" for this and get them to account for every media file on their computer... nobody who's had a computer for any period of time would be innocent here... everybody does it... anyone who says they don't is a liar... what we need are switched on jurors to do their duty and return not guilty verdicts...
      Only one problem with that. These cowards always back down just before the jury trial. There aren't any jury trials. They run up the legal bills as much as they can, and then run away with their tail between their legs.
  • And turned it into a bot/ftpserver.

    You go find everyone that accessed my pc and did things without my permission.

    Oh, they also must have got my wifi too, as its not encrypted.

  • You have to be kidding me. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by papabear1134 ( 1034598 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @09:52PM (#20117879)
    Ok, so I looked into some of what was written in the discovery document. Couldn't get past the first few pages.

    First thing that jumped out at me.

    Page 2, para 1 (defendant)
    "He has offered to provide copies of his passport to demonstrate conclusively his absence fromt he U.S. during the times when song files were allegedly downloaded, but that is apparently not sufficient for the plantiffs."
    --
    Page 3, para 2 (plantiff)
    "Defendant has produced certain pages of his passport to Plantiffs, but those pages are inconclusive as to the Defendant's travel abroad."
    Ok, so since when is a copy of your passport (with dated stamps of countries you entered) NOT conclusive you traveled there at that time?

    Next.

    Page 2, para 2 (defendant)
    "...I delivered his computer to Mr. Guida on June 7th for creation of a mirror drive. The computer has been returned, and I am informed that the mirror drive has been done. I have just received their expert's forensic report."
    So... guessing Nothing was found, otherwise the plantiff wouldn't keep pushing so hard to get some evidence.

    Last thing that caught my attention before I gave up reading it.

    Page 3, para 3
    "Specifically, the computer produced by Defendant does not contain any evidence of Verizon software necessary to connect to the internet via the Verizon network..."
    Are these people serious? I mean, they believe you HAVE to install your ISP's bloated crapware to connect to the internet... Never once in my life have I ever installed the ISP's software, you DON'T have to, and better you don't. When I read that I gave up on reading more. Half of the lawyers, judges, and people in government (more along the lines of 90% of them..) need to be shot. They are way behind the times, pushing through judgements and laws without understanding what it is they are dealing with.

    This is the number one problem with this country currently, Outdated laws, and law makers.

  • This is par for the course for the discovery process in the United States. You can force your opponent to produce ANYTHING other than articles covered by attorney-client privilege as long as there's a plausible way that it could lead to evidence admissible at trial.

    And this is why almost the entire rest of the world thinks our discovery process is barbaric.

    • This is par for the course for the discovery process in the United States. You can force your opponent to produce ANYTHING other than articles covered by attorney-client privilege as long as there's a plausible way that it could lead to evidence admissible at trial. And this is why almost the entire rest of the world thinks our discovery process is barbaric.

      Except that the judge applied that rule only in one direction. He made the defendant bare his whole life. He required NOTHING of the plaintiffs.

  • Near as I can tell, this has very little to do with the RIAA.

    If we're going to spend so much discussion and effort demonising someone, shouldn't we go after the ACTUAL plaintiff ?

    How about a headline that mentions the evil bastards once in a while instead of allowing them to hide behind their PR flacks.

    If you want to hate someone here, hate Atlantic records - they are the bad guys here!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )
      I prefer to hate all of the record companies impartially. Except for a few very small companies that can be presumed either to not be members of the RIAA, or to have no significant input into their policies.

      That Atlantic Records was the heavy here doesn't mean that I shouldn't equally despise Columbia. They hire the same goons.

  • Harass their employer and point the finger at the employee.
    About 5 minutes after the first phone call, the boss says to the employee:
    "I don't know what you did and I really don't give a sh*t. We're running a business here and you're keeping us from getting things done. This is an at-will employment state. Got me?"
    (In Montana, they'll just call you into the office 3 times, document it, and THEN fire you)

    Geez, even the scum of the earth, collection agencies, figured that one out!
    It's incredibly effective,

    • Harass their employer and point the finger at the employee. About 5 minutes after the first phone call, the boss says to the employee: "I don't know what you did and I really don't give a sh*t. We're running a business here and you're keeping us from getting things done. This is an at-will employment state. Got me?" (In Montana, they'll just call you into the office 3 times, document it, and THEN fire you) Geez, even the scum of the earth, collection agencies, figured that one out! It's incredibly effective, there's NO recourse, and it hurts everyone. That's why it's explicitly illegal to do (for collection agencies). Hizzonner needs to pull his head out.

      Yes it was really wrong of the judge to allow them to play that game.

  • Defendant was required to provide the name and address of each person who used his computer during the three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit.

    See Appendix A, a Manhattan phone directory. There, it contains a list of every person who has accessed the computer in the past 3 years, plus a few others. That's within the letter of the decision, and is actually somewhat common in defense. The defense literally floods the plaintiff with thousands of files, of which it is unlikely the plaintiff will

  • Maybe it is time for the masters of the RIAA to be invited to testify, at every hearing, that the RIAA brings to trial? And their major share holders also?
  • How about everyone he has ever had contact wtih in the last 3 years. They must all be guilty from association with this evil 'pirate' and we have to take them all down!

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close