Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

Lawsuit Against RIAA Tries To Stop Them All 154

Posted by Zonk from the like-the-one-ring-but-a-lawsuit dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Tanya Anderson has filed an amended complaint against the RIAA. One of the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens', no doubt referring to the unlicensed MediaSentry investigations. If granted, that could shut down the RIAA lawsuits entirely. Naturally, the RIAA doesn't like this at all. First, they got the judge to agree that the original complaint was too light on the details, so it was amended. Now the RIAA complains that it's too long, because it's 108 pages filled with the RIAA's dirty laundry. You may remember this as the countersuit to the lawsuit where RIAA lawyers tried to grill a 10-year-old girl, only later to drop their case for lack of evidence and have the mother sue them for malicious prosecution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Against RIAA Tries To Stop Them All More

Lawsuit Against RIAA Tries To Stop Them All

Comments Filter:

  • Tubes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jlebrech ( 810586 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:38AM (#22929756) Homepage
    Honestly the RIAA should just stop all this and invest in the Tubes and maybe charge in this way. Artist would then distribute through some RIAA developer method which would not take a cut. Then the RIAA could then just charge for the bandwidth.

    • Re:Tubes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suso ( 153703 ) * on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:39AM (#22929764) Journal
      But but. That would require change. And we can't have that.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        But but. That would require hope and change. And we can't have that.
        Fixed that for ya.

    • Re:Tubes (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bubbahyde ( 660894 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:44AM (#22929806)
      What they should do is reinvest the 'funds' and get some acceptable talent going so music would be worth buying again. The crap they try to pawn off as music nowadays...
      • Where is the April Fool's joke in all of this??

        For that matter...where are any April Fools articles?? I hope they're still gonna do them....

        • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)

          by Brian Gordon ( 987471 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:57AM (#22929900)
          Scroll down the main page, ray tracing will be implemented in DX11, which will be imlemented in Vista SP2 by the end of the year.
        • Personally, I hope they either get us with one good article, or go Ponies style at around noon. Last year was crap. One stupidly obvious article after another. Most years have just gone off the deep end, really.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sm62704 ( 957197 )
          Well, I submitted an article about using thiotimoline for space exploration but it's either pending or rejected.

          I tried. Sorry.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by 0111 1110 ( 518466 )

          Where is the April Fool's joke in all of this??
          What makes you think this isn't? I mean, suing the RIAA? Haha. That's a good one.
        • I know it's not what you asked for, but the only decent one I've seen so far: [google.com]

          And for those of you who have google.com/ig as your homepage (and thus initially missed it) there is a much more elaborate one on the standard google.com [google.com]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Buran ( 150348 )
          I don't come here to have some "journalists" waste my time. I come here for news. I'm glad they AREN'T BSing us (so far) this year.

      • Re:Tubes (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:00AM (#22929920)
        The thing is, is that the RIAA is just about business. And therefore all they are interested in is making money. They've found the best way to make money is to produce the minimum amount of music that will result in the maximum amount of sales. That's how they maximize their profits. The best way to do that is to promote a small number of artists that most people will buy, because they don't find it terrible.

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by peragrin ( 659227 )
          This years articles are hidden and hiding in weird locations.

          I have come across several of them so far.
          http://news.slashdot.org/tags/aprilfools [slashdot.org]

          • With the exception of Ray Tracing To Debut in DirectX 11 [slashdot.org], all the stories listed there are from 2007.

            Unless you're saying that they posted them a year early, as an elaborate hoax. ;) Hover the links with your mouse and look at the URLs on your browser's status bar (or turn it on with View -> Show Status Bar, if you're using Safari with default settings).

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Omestes ( 471991 )
            Perhaps this years theme is to not do April Fools, and then all of us slashbots will be even more paranoid than usual, since we will keep expecting to be fooled, but won't, but are by the fact that we are expecting it.

            It does give all the normal articles a penumbra of dread, at least.

            Like an anti-April Fools April Fools.
            • That or this years news was just so sad that it was true anyways. Like the OOXML vote. Now there is a Joke.

        • The thing is, is that the RIAA is just about business. And therefore all they are interested in is making money.

          That's the kind of greedy shortsightedness that gets businesses into this sort of mess. Businesses are, and should be, interested in making money. However, maximizing profits over the long haul is often a very different game over maximizing them Right Now.

          In the RIAA's case, it's not that they want to produce the least music for the most profit, because if that were truly the case they would f

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Original Replica ( 908688 )
              why the RIAA members seem to have a disproportionate share of numbskull management.

              Hookers and blow.
              Seriously, how much cocaine do you think Warren Buffet has done in his lifetime vs how much coke goes up the nose of the average music exec? Find anyone in a position of power that has done a lot of cocaine, and they will always have a disconnect from reality in which they always believe they are just and right in their ambitions, regardless of the facts presented to them.
              • You should read more, Warren Buffet has a major investment in coke.

                What's that? Coka Cola? That's not the same as...

                Oh.

                Nevermind.

                Bitch.
              • Find anyone in a position of power that has done a lot of cocaine, and they will always have a disconnect from reality in which they always believe they are just and right in their ambitions, regardless of the facts presented to them.

                So you've read W's diary.

      • The crap they try to pawn off as music nowadays...

        RDS [wikipedia.org] in the EU defines twenty nine programs for broadcast.

        vTuner [vtuner.com] - built into Denon's high end HT receivers - organizes 11,000 internet radio stations into about fifty categories of music and talk.

        The odds that the geek will have anything meaningful to about music outside the bare handful of genres that appeal to him personally is negligible.

    • Re:Tubes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twistedsymphony ( 956982 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:22AM (#22930042) Homepage

      Honestly the RIAA should just stop all this and invest in the Tubes and maybe charge in this way. Artist would then distribute through some RIAA developer method which would not take a cut. Then the RIAA could then just charge for the bandwidth.
      Thats a better idea than the mods are giving you credit for (currently 0). If they took a page from Google's book developed an online site where artists could upload their own music, which is then sold for $1 a song or $10 an album. People can sample it before they buy, Music wold get ranked by downloads and algorithms to determine what you might like based on what other people with similar tastes liked etc...
      ...
      Oh wait...
      That's iTunes...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kimvette ( 919543 )
      They do not want change - that would result in losing control of distribution and lose control of the market. They will no longer be able to manufacture pop stars and force hits through repurchasing their own sales (to drive up sales and land on billboard's charts), and the listener will be choosing which artists succeed, not them. For the RIAA, artist-to-listener sales and distribution is a losing proposition. That is why they are fighting P2P tooth and nail, and are always seeking to create and increase

      • They do not want change - that would result in losing control of distribution and lose control of the market.

        They've already lost control of distribution, and are losing the market due to asinine lawsuits. I, for one, refuse to buy anything Sony-branded, from CDs to computers... and my clients hear all about the reasoning as to why. Quite a few have switched from the VAIO brand because of this. Remember, folks, the quicker we get Joe Six-Pack in on this, the faster it'll happen...

    • They were pretty much only a one-hit-wonder with "Beauty."

  • Doubt that's even possible. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:39AM (#22929768) Homepage Journal

    seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens.
    Like it or not, there's probably a few Constitutional considerations here. Although, what they should be doing is suing in individual states, where it's usually illegal to practice private criminal investigations without a license.
    • Who cares? They are abusing the court system and as such should have their suing everyone privileges revoked. Criminals get rights denied to them all the time.

      • Who cares? They are abusing the court system and as such should have their suing everyone privileges revoked.
        Yeah, you're right. Who cares about the Constitution? Just a silly document.

        Oh, BTW, the boys over here tell me you've been found to be abusing your First Amendment priveleges. Guards: Arrest this man for treason!

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Tenebrousedge ( 1226584 )
          Unless you can point me to something specific in the Constitution that would explain why you think that the abusive, frequently illegal and deceitful measures undertaken by the RIAA in protecting their copyrights are in any way a fundamental right of each citizen, then I'm afraid your reference to that document is merely a non sequitur. Now before you get all riled up and try to play one of the Amendment cards, understand that I'm not arguing that the RIAA (or any other person, whether I like what they do

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 )
        That is dangerious reasoning. This could lead to a lot of bad things. Say for example Civil Rights, If Cival Rights Organizations were banned from Sueing, because say at their time their law suits were inconvient. Then it would put hamer on socicity.

        Convicted Fellons have had many of their rights revoked and they still are allowed to use/abuse the legal system, But for them it comes to a boy who cries wolf then they may lose that additional right.

        But for even gready and evil orginizations who technically ha
    • I think there actually is some precedent for baring further related law suits when someone is found to be grossly abusing the justice system.

      • Re:Doubt that's even possible. (Score:5, Informative)

        by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:59AM (#22929910) Journal
        There is.

        It's called Vexatious Litigation [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:Doubt that's even possible. (Score:5, Informative)

          by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:10AM (#22929976) Homepage Journal
          Yeah, let's check with a law dictionary [law.com] on that one:

          n. filing a lawsuit with the knowledge that it has no legal basis, with its purpose to bother, annoy, embarrass and cause legal expenses to the defendant. Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit. Upon judgment for the defendant, he/she has the right to file a suit for "malicious prosecution" against the original vexatious plaintiff. Moreover, most states allow a judge to penalize with sanctions a plaintiff and his/her attorney for filing or continuing a "frivolous" legal action (money award to the defendant for the trouble and/or attorney fees).
          In other words, it has to be shown the the RIAA's lawsuit 1) has no legal basis and 2) that the RIAA and its laywers knew it had no legal basis and sued only to "bother, annoy, embarass and cause legal expenses to the defendant."

          Thing is, some of the cases the RIAA has filed do have legal basis (these are the ones you don't hear about in the media and are settled out of court quickly), and while some of the most egregious examples might approach might approach vexatious litigation, I doubt you'll find a judge to agree that all of them do.

          • So then I suppose the question is, if a significant portion of a series of law suits are found to be vexatious litigation, is that enough to justify barring all other lawsuits.
            • Barring future lawsuits is a serious last-resort for the courts. Jack Thompson has been abusing the courts for years, and only now has the court decided to tell him he must have another attorney sign-off on any actions. He can still sue, he just can't do it himself.

              The worst (best for us) I see happening for the RIAA is they are ordered to change tactics: their investigators must be licensed, the collection centers shut down or tactics changed, no more dropped John Doe suits, and they must have prima facie
          • I didn't claim that what the *AAs were doing was vexatious litigation.

            The post I responded to said that he thought there was a mechanism for which a party could be sanctioned for abuse of the legal system, and I confirmed that there was.

            I do not think it would be difficult to find a judge that things that the RIAA's tactic of "Sue silly, drop case when it starts looking bad to avoid setting a precedent" over and over again might be toeing the line of VL, though.

            Then, of course, I remember the judge who orde

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kent_eh ( 543303 )

            Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit.
            And this is where it falls apart.

            The RIAA generally drops the lawsuit after discovery shows that they never had a case.

            • Vexatious litigation includes continuing a lawsuit after discovery of the facts shows it has absolutely no merit.
              And this is where it falls apart.

              The RIAA generally drops the lawsuit after discovery shows that they never had a case.

              "includes" != "is defined by"
          • Part of the complaint is that many innocent people will settle out of court in order to avoid being financially ruined by the RIAA in court. That doesn't necessarily include judgment -- the fees during trial are enough to ruin most people.
          • "some of the most egregious examples might approach might approach vexatious litigation"

            Foghorn Leghorn, is that you boy?
    • The constitution doesn't give anyone the right to illegally pursue someone in court. If they can legally pursue a case, great, but gathering evidence through illegal means renders that evidence inadmissable in most instances. Their constitutional rights end where mine begins, and vice versa.
    • I could be wrong, but I think corporations are not afforded any constitutional rights to begin with.
  • I really hope that she can pull off a win here and put a stop to the harrassment. However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

    While it's a good thing to stop the harrassment of 10 year old girls, not all defendents are snow white lambs. The vast majority have most likely infringed copyright by uploading content to P2P networks. This type of behavior doesn't fall on the legal side of the line.

    • Re:I really hope she wins this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Svet-Am ( 413146 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:49AM (#22929834) Homepage
      However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

      Tell me again why this doesn't affect you. The *AA have shown again and again that the facts of the case really don't matter -- espescially when it comes to the method they use for identifying litigants, IP addresses. If your ISP has floating IP addresses, then this could easily become your problem.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by meisenst ( 104896 )
          >> It would be very easy to demonstrate to a judge in a court room that in the case
          >> of most ISPs, IP addresses are dynamic and do not stay fixed on a particular PC;
          >> I'm sure even the most basic of ISP logs would clearly show this.

          And yet, the *AA have attempted to show that this doesn't matter at countless colleges and universities by forcing the burden of proof upon these institutions. "We know you have a thief among you, find them for us" is not how a case should be built.

          >> th

        • Re:I really hope she wins this (Score:5, Insightful)

          by electrictroy ( 912290 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:41AM (#22930192)
          >>>If everyone chose to steal their music, what would happen then?

          Several studies have shown that if "everyone" stole music, then CD sales would escalate higher than ever. I know that sounds strange, but here's how it works:

          - A person downloads songs for free.
          - He/she likes the songs.
          - He/she buys several CDs of that same artist, because they enjoy his or her work.
          - The result is a several sales that would not have occured otherwise.

          BEFORE: The person bought $0.00 worth of CDs.
          NOW: The person bought $30-40 worth of CDs.
          NET IMPACT: More money for the company and the artist. Stealing music helps sell more product by introducing people to new artists they had never heard before.

          • Replace "stealing" with "infringing" and you're golden. :)
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • >>>"I am in a minority of P2P/Usenet downloaders because, in my experience, most of them use it as an alternative to paying for their music by legal means."

              First of all, where's your citation for this? I suspect you have none; you just made it up. Invented statistics have no validity.

              Second, I USED to be one of those you describe (getting music for free) although in my day we called them "mix tapes" rather than downloads, but it's still the same thing. And there was a very good reason why I stol
          • Yeah, I'm gonna ask you to cite your source. Just a link to one or two of those studies. Not that I don't want to believe you but the people I know don't act that way.
            • Well one of the studies was published at isohunt.com - unfortunately I can not access it due to Employer censorship, so I can't provide a direct link for you. However you're welcome to visit the website yourself and read their archives.

              I'm not even sure why you question the validity of these studies. "Loss leaders" have been a long-used and very effective way to promote business. That's essentially what P2P/downloading is. I've read numerous reports from 1960s/70s singers who had back catalogs with n

            • Re:I really hope she wins this (Score:4, Informative)

              by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @04:20PM (#22934180)

              Not the OP, however: I understand the incredulity, but here's one study I was given in a telecommunications economics class. (The link from my school's website appears to be gone, but based on filename this is the same PDF I saw):

              http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf [unc.edu]

              A quick excerpt from the abstract:

              Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.

              The basic conclusion, if I remember correctly, was: The top 1% of artists in terms of popularity lose sales due to pirated songs, and the rest actually see their sales increase with piracy. Obviously you can fact-check this yourself to see if my recollection is correct.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sm62704 ( 957197 )
          Not that I'm in the US anyway, but whilst I believe the RIAA is unduly heavy-handed with people, the fact is that they are stealing music - that means that legal CD purchasers like me pay more for our purchasers and end up subsidising the thieves.

          Once more, here is the difference between stealing music and infringing copyright:

          STEALING MUSIC
          You walk into Best Buy or Wal Mart and find the CD section. When nobody's looking, stick it in your shirt. You may have to disable an electronic gizmo that sets off an a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          the fact is that they are stealing music

          Err.. if you've been following these cases, you'll realize that's not really true. The agenda appears to be to go after pirates, but the whole point of the countersuits is that a lot of non-pirates are being forced to spend lots of money to defend themselves against false accusations. You say "it would be very easy to demonstrate to a judge in the courtroom" but people aren't having a particularly easy time with those demonstrations. And by the time you make your

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )
        In addition, while it's not really part of this case, xxAA has been lobbying for new laws to get ISPs to be more "cooperative" with their investigations. When ISPs are required to monitor all internet use, pirates won't be the only people spied on: they can't! You don't know if someone is doing something "bad" until you have already peeked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by robably ( 1044462 )

      So I wonder if effectively stopping the RIAA truly serves justice or just provides legal cover to break laws in a minor way.
      Both.

    • Re:I really hope she wins this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:07AM (#22929960) Homepage
      Being innocent of file sharing doesn't mean you won't get sued. I seem to recall a story about a Macintosh using Granny who was accused of using Kazaa (not available on Macs) to download rap music. It was only the publicity of the story that got the RIAA to back down. (And even then they reserved the right to go after her at any time.) It was obvious to everyone (except the RIAA) that she was misidentified. And if you are misidentified, your options are basically:

      1. Spend a lot of time and money to fight to prove your innocence. If you are not successful, the fines will drive you into permanent bankruptcy. (If the legal fees don't do that first.)

      2. Accept the RIAA's settlement offer to make it all go away. NOTE: Part of the settlement offer is admitting that you are a pirate even if you aren't one. But at least you won't face a long court battle and possible bankruptcy.

      Most people chose Option #2 since it is the quicker and easier way to make it all go away. With recent RIAA court losses, though, it seems that more people are willing to try for Option #1. That's a good thing too. The last thing the RIAA wants is to actually fight these cases in court. They just want quick settlements so they can move on to the next victim... er, evil, bloodsucking pirate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by electrictroy ( 912290 )
        This reminds me of a story I recently read:

        - A man had setup a website with the name of a local mall. It was strictly an information site (like a Trekkie fan site, but this was for a mall). The local mall didn't want the website to exist, so they sued him using cyber-squatter laws. Initially the website owner lost his case, but eventually he repealed to the State Supreme Court and won. - It cost him ~$3000 in legal fees that he never recovered.

        Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy
        • Big corporations like to go after & abuse the little guy, just because they can do it, and if the Corporation loses the case it's no big deal (just 0.000001% of their profit)

          Sorry, but you are wrong.

          I, and I would imagine most people, have a pile of cash that is used to pay bills, rent, and legal fees/fines. When that pile of cash is gone, it's gone. Next payday, I get another pile of cash. Lather, rinse, repeat.

          A corporation doesn't work like that, they have "revenue streams" instead of piles of cash.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Quila ( 201335 )

            The corporation is never hurt by losing a lawsuit. Any loses are passed directly to consumers in higher prices.

            That's why I support making it easier to pierce the corporate veil. If the label CEOs knew about these tactics then they should go to jail as conspirators and be personally subject to civil penalties.

            Have you priced cigarettes lately? The increase in price is NOT due to an increase in the price of tobacco or rolling papers!

            True, it's mainly due to increased taxes enacted by over-spending, nanny-st

      • Hold on! You mean that the RIAA are passing out legal certificates verifying you ARE a PIRATE!!??
        Daaaaaaaamn, I must have one, ARRRRRRRRR Matey! The scurvy bastards be PIRATE MAKERS!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tom ( 822 )

      However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

      Right, bro!

      As someone who's never illegally flown a commercial airplane into a building on US soil, this whole "war on terrorism" thing really has no bearing on me personally.

      Then again, as someone who understands that case law is being made while we watch, and some of the methods of the RIAA/MPAA are just as easily applied to other things than music or movies, and that somehow, even though the vast majority of Internet users are downloading stuff in breach of strict copyright laws, they somehow managed to

      • As someone who's never illegally flown a commercial airplane into a building on US soil

        There's actually a legal way to do this?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tom ( 822 )
          Theoretically, yes. But the word was more included to stay as close to the original as possible.

          Hm. With permission of both the owner of the plane and the building, there might be. Not sure if it would violate any aviation laws.

    • Re:I really hope she wins this (Score:5, Funny)

      by ccguy ( 1116865 ) * on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:56AM (#22930284) Homepage

      as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet
      Dial-up sucks

    • However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

      Tanya Anderson probably thought the same thing until she got harassed for over 2 years. When you get served with a subpoena and have to defend yourself for years even though you are innocent, you'll probably see how this affects you.

      So I wonder if effectively stopping the RIAA truly serves justice or just provides legal cover to break laws in a mi

    • However, as someone who's never illegally downloaded or uploaded music or movies or software over the Internet, this case really has no bearing on me personally.

      Right...and the War on Terror has no bearing on you unless you're a terrorist, and the War on Drugs has no bearing on you unless you're a drug addict. Not to get all Godwin, but holy Niemöller!!

    • I would be willing to guess at least 4 9's of computer users have infringed copyright. (99.99%). Ever visit a webpage and right click and save as.. Copyright infringement. Ever forward an e-mail with cute photos? Copyright infringement. Ever use file save web page complete? Ever forward a cute joke online? Copyright infringement. Ever save a photo as a desktop background? Copyright infringement. Oh, ever find a background MIDI file on a page and save it? Copyright infringement.

      Of photographers, joke w
  • ... and somehow, I doubt it will be successful - if it is, it'll be due to some sort of freak accident with a bad guy turned good ...
  • It finally looks like the shoe is on the other foot... or however that saying goes.

    It's too bad that are likely to buy a vowel, erm.. a law.

  • Cannibals! (Score:5, Funny)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:56AM (#22929892)

    tried to grill a 10-year-old girl
    Finally we have proof that the RIAA are cannibals!

    • tried to grill a 10-year-old girl
      Finally we have proof that the RIAA are cannibals!
      Unrelated note.... Is 10-year-old girl red wine or white?
      • Generally speaking, one treats human as one would treat pork. I would suggest a nice Reisling unless you go with something on the spicy side, in which case a Pinot Grigio works. If it's got a heavy tomato sauce I'd just go with Chianti though, or if it's smoked and has bbq sauce maybe a Shiraz. So, mostly white but sometimes a red.
      • Damn, I thought it was fava beans?

  • be sure to read the update at the bottom. (Score:5, Informative)

    by n3tcat ( 664243 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:56AM (#22929894)
    Apparently she has to file a 3rd revision now.

  • damn right. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by apodyopsis ( 1048476 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @08:58AM (#22929902)
    Hope this is not an Aprils Fool, its about time somebody tried to roast those fuckers.

    And I right that this is one of those situations that she was one of the few people who had a chance of doing this as she already had them in court and could add it in as an amendment?

    If Joe Public tried this they would probably be able to block it before they got to court, no?

    I just love the irony that they originally tried to block the complaint because it was not detailed enough, and that backfired when it came back as 100+ pages of **AA damming dirty laundry in their faces. Heh Heh.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hope this is not an Aprils Fool, its about time somebody tried to roast those fuckers.


      The summary clearly states they want to grill the girl, not roast the fuckers. Geesh, get it right, eh?


      TDz.

  • Obligatory Tolkien spoof (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Three lawsuits for the Jersey yutes using WiFi,
    Seven for the little kids in their third-grade lab,
    Nine for college men who share on the sly,
    One for the RIAA on its dark throne
    In the land of Washington where the lawyers lie.
    One suit to end them all, one suit to crush them,
    One suit to expose them all and in the courtroom brush them
    From the land of Washington where the lawyers lie.

  • The first thing a court does... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by westlake ( 615356 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:34AM (#22930144)
    the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens'

    The first thing a judge does is strip your case down to its essemtials.

    The broader the reach and more fanciful your demands, the more quickly they disappear from view.

    - - and never faster then when you try to persuade a court to make policy decisions in criminal law when they are hearing a civil case.

    I see no constitutional barriers to the launch of a private criminal investigation. There was, after all, no such thing as a paid, professional, police force in the U.S. before 1845. Police History [realpolice.net]

    The Pinkerton Detective - "The eye that never sleeps" - dates from 1850.

    • the more interesting provisions in it is in the 18th claim, which seeks to stop the RIAA from 'continuing to engage in criminal investigation of private American citizens'
      ...
      - - and never faster then when you try to persuade a court to make policy decisions in criminal law when they are hearing a civil case.

      I see no constitutional barriers to the launch of a private criminal investigation. There was, after all, no such thing as a paid, professional, police force in the U.S. before 1845. Police History

      I think you're slightly confused.
      Not having a Private Investigator license makes those investigations criminal.

      The claim is that the RIAA lables are engaging in investigations that are criminal.
      NOT that the record labels are engaged in investigating criminal acts.

  • Message from music-listening public (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @09:40AM (#22930180)
    You're already dead. [xkcd.com] Please find a grave to lie in already.

  • I hope the countersuits hold water (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thogard ( 43403 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2008 @10:06AM (#22930346) Homepage
    I run a web site [ozmp3.com] that provides free hosting to bands that I think have a clue and my site has been banned by many universities because of the RIAA which has resulted in the bands not getting gigs in the US and other countries. From my point of view, the RIAA's actions are purely to prevent additional competition.
  • Seriously, as much as I appreciate the obligatory RIAA hatred, this has nothing to do with the actual article. The actual article claims that Anderson and Lybeck are disobeying a judge's strict orders to amend their complaint in accordance with local rules of law. Whats strange is that I've seen legal complaints hundreds of pages long, some over a thousand. This judge seems to be perturbed about only 108 pages. I they don't follow the judge's rules this case won't exist much longer.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close