Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA 725
An anonymous reader writes "Ray Beckerman, known for questioning the RIAAs legal tactics (also for frequent Slashdot contributions), was sued by the RIAA over his blog Recording Industry vs. People. In question is the 'vexatious' claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a 'sham.' Beckerman is quoted as saying that the litigation against him is 'frivolous and irresponsible.'"
RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.
to [mis]quote a movie:
"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."
seriously - we don't seem to make examples of bad businesses. in fact, we BAIL THEM OUT with taxpayer money!
don't expect the US legal system to 'fix itself'. doctors can't operate on themselves, in a similar analog.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Funny)
to [mis]quote a movie:
"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."
Wesley: "I'm with Starfleet. We don't lie!"
(Justice, TNG)
I swear, the writers must have been trying a social experiment to see if they could make Wesley so disliked that trekkies would try to kill Wil Wheaton...
Remember Trekkies...as your God, I'd much rather you kill Berman.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be silly. The US government doesn't spend taxpayer money when a ridiculously overblown problem is presented, the US government spends DEBT.
We're basically handing our kids money to companies. Don't worry though, all the middle-aged losers who are spending the money will be long dead before the time comes to pay most of it back.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Informative)
Do you own any bonds? AIG may insure them. Do any of your investments own bonds? AIG may insure them. AIG also backs close to half a trillion dollars in collateralized debt obligations, and more than 10% of that has sub-prime influence. The holders of the CDOs are not just in the US, but also scattered across Europe and Asia as well. If AIG goes under, its backing becomes worthless, and all of those CDOs become almost impossible to move, and the bonds get shaky, and the entire world's financial industry takes a massive hit.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't be a financial industry! Industry produces and commerce sells. Finance == value. You can print money, but that actually causes all money to lose value, which is the opposite of what a finance "industry" should be doing. There's a lot of financial commerce happening, though; our money is being bought from us at a deflated rate and sold to the rich for even less.
You sir, are a naive tool. The financial industry provides the capital upon which industry is built. Without it, the only people with enough capital to create industry are the rich.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes to create industry is ingenuity and drive, the money comes (should come, rather) later.
How do you propose to buy equipment, rent office/factory/warehouse space, etc. without any money? Suppliers and landlords won't take "ingenuity and drive" as payment. If the subject of your ingenuity is something that's expensive to make, you'll probably need investors (i.e. a loan) to make it happen.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
industry - the organized action of making of goods and services for sale
When money is "made" for "sale", all similarly backed money loses value. To be considered an industry, the finance "industry" must create money, thereby devaluing its own product. My aversion is to calling it an industry, when it is strictly commerce; the buying and selling of existing money.
The Federal Reserve Bank is the closest thing there is to financial "industry". Even The Fed, however, can not change the simple truth that printing more money devalues that same money. Its an industry that, simply by its existence, is self destructive.
Financial Commerce is a much more accurate term.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you also produce your own clothes ? How do you get around ? If you ride a bicycle to avoid paying for gas and a vehicle do you produce it yourself ?
What DO you live in ? You said you can't get a mortgage so I assume you rent. Your landlord still needs to pay for the maintenance to the property and his costs get passed on to your rent.
You grow your own food, great. So do I. I'm a hobby-chef and my retirement dream is to live on a farm where I can raise my own livestock. Now consider animal feed, soil to grow vegetables in (if you're fortunate enough to live on land with great soil and smart enough to have a compost to produce your own fertilizer then great, I need to buy good soil though because my house sits on mostly clay). How about all of the tools that you need to tend to your garden ?
Thanks for baring with me and yes I am getting to a point. When the US economy collapses the US dollar goes to shit. The price of imports increases and thus the cost of every day goods goes way up. It is nearly impossible to be 100% self-sufficient. It is a worthy goal to strive for but it almost can't be done. There are micro-societies that have experts that grow all of their trees and livestock and produce all of their own basic items for every day survival but a single family just can't do it. They can get close but you'll always need to buy SOMETHING for day to day living. And so you're absolutely wrong if you think that the greater economy does not affect you.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't own any bonds. I don't have any investments. I don't even own a credit card. So, why should I be contributing to keeping AIG alive?
Do you have money in a bank? Do you ever want to see that money ever again?
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
This is completely off-topic, but an important enough discussion that I think it's worth chiming in anyways.
Yes, many will feel the pain either way. However, I think the most fair and equitable distribution of pain and accountability follows the plan of letting those investors that propped up AIG take the fall for its bad business practices.
I feel much the same way about bailing out fmae and fmac. Sure, people are losing thousands of dollars in their home "values" and their retirement investments. However, the drops in home prices are a natural market balance that reflects a lowered ability to pay. More accurately, it better represents the real ability to pay, when the mortgage balloon game is ended. Today thousands of homes sit on the foreclosure market, rotting away from the inside out and developing crippling mold issues that ultimately can completely destroy the value of a home. Yet, the banks refuse to unload these homes at a price that would move them off the market immediately, choosing instead to let them rot to maintain their inflated prices. Let us not forget that from 2000 -> 2005, home prices DOUBLED. Their prices prior to this "collapse" were in fact inflated, are still inflated, and taking out the exhorbitant mortgages to purchase them at their inflated value, was a mistake.
So lets summarize - banks are holding houses they aren't willing to sell for what the market will bear, plenty of people need homes and don't have them, and the government solution is we need to bail out the poor, poor bank at the expense of said non-homeowners?
NO.
One can argue how taxes should or should not be used, but I think we can mostly agree taxes should not be used to redistribute wealth to the wealthy.
I think things are fine. This clearance sale on housing is bringing the price of a home back into the range that a young couple starting a family may be able to afford one on a real income. When the next generation can buy homes, the price will stabilize. And maybe the younger generation, which is currently piddling away all their money the Middle East, will learn something from the older generation, which did the same thing in the Far East, and instead invest their money here at home, so that when it's time to retire we don't have to resort to robbing our children.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you see what happened to the stock prices of Sallie, Fannie and AIG?
Yes the government is making sure that these companies remain able full-fill their insurance and debt obligations, but the investors have been wiped out. This isn't a bail out where the owners get rich and everyone else pays. Share holders have lost all (or nearly all in the case of AIG) of their investments.
The bailout does very little for the owners of these companies. It is punishing in fact. The bailout prevents the rest of the world from feeling the massive and devastating consequences of one of these giants falling. It would destroy economies around the world, not just the U.S.
By destroy I don't mean that people who can afford to invest suffer. I mean most of us loose our jobs, then our houses. No student loans. No mortgages. No insurance payouts for houses flattened by hurricanes. End of times depression everybody suffers consequences.
Re: Bailouts as investor protection (Score:4, Insightful)
And if I understand the news about AIG correctly, the stock is only taken temporarily as a security. So if AIG recovers and can pay back the money, these investors get off way too lightly as well.
The feds took stock warrants totaling nearly 80% of the company as collateral. The warrants are basically options, at anytime they can be turned into stock that the feds will permanently own. There is good reason not to make it 100%, no one wants the fed to actually have to own or oversee the dissolution of this company. It would be far better if they paid back the loan and went on to be a successfully company.
So if AIG recovers and can pay back the money, these investors get off way too lightly as well.
I don't agree with this. This is not entirely AIGs fault. AIG insured a lot of bad debt its true, however their current liquidity problems are also the product of fear (due to LEH, BS) driven increases to what amounts to interest rates on loans that they (like all banks/insurers) need. When these rates went up then AIG's costs shot up causing the recent problem. Nothing changed at AIG, its just that because of LEH/BS/etc the market fearfully drove AIG's debt costs up, prior to that they were fine.
Also keep in mind that the the Feds didn't write AIG a check for $85billion, they gave them a line of credit. The presence of this line of credit could make AIGs debt costs go down (remember they are artificially high due to fear) without ever actually using it fully.
Anyway I think seeing one's investment go from $70/share to $2 is probably PLENTY of punishment.
What about Morgan Stanley? The exact same thing could happen to them and they are currently turning a profit! Right now the market is so fearful that profit/loss doesn't matter. Should investors loose all of their money because a panic induced mob crashed prices? I certainly don't want to see profitable companies like Morgan Stanley go out of business and fire all of their workers because of a panicked crazed mob.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Informative)
Non-mortgage assets worth $1.2 trillion dollars. Their insurance business actually remains profitable.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree, but to allow these banks and insurers to go under would result in a massive cascade of bankruptcies that would plunge the entire world economy into a depression, forcing people out of their homes and out of their jobs. Then we'd see the re-emergence and re-popularisation of radical politics like fascism and communism. There's a good chance we would end up in another war, possibly a big one since that's what happened after the great depression of the 1930's.
So although I agree in principle, I'd rather see a bailout.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you.
this is obviously an attempt to harass him. these lawyers should be de-barred (or whatever the correct term is).
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Funny)
disemballed
Re:Or even better ! (Score:4, Funny)
Which button do i press for all of you to shut the fuck up?
Re:Or even better ! (Score:5, Funny)
the power button
Re:Or even better ! (Score:5, Insightful)
clearly, you hate freedom. i must kindly ask you to get the fuck out of america, not for your nationality of origin, but your diametrically opposed to our values views.
Someone might have believed that line 10 years ago, but considering the state of the US at the moment, it is obviously just flamebait. The American government certainly doesn't value freedom, and the citizens aren't doing anything about that, so how can you claim that freedom is at the core of your values? Is this the freedom to have a gun and be able to say whatever you want, as long as you don't actually do anything about it, like have a non government-sactioned protest (which is pretty much the dumbest idea ever)?
no, you get a clue (Score:5, Interesting)
im a turk living in a tourism resort in mediterranean coast. my english far exceeds what should i know. therefore im in no way obliged to fulfill your linguistic expectations in regard to english.
another advice - learn to value content over presentation.
Re:no, you get a clue (Score:4, Interesting)
Here here. I was going to say, "Have you been to the interweb lately? People from places besides the USA can use it too!"
I've traveled significantly more than most people, and I for one can say, any argument to the effect of "Do you think people in XXX would put up with..." is bullshit. People around the world are more than gracious and will go to great lengths to help you if you don't speak the language. I've been to France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Mexico, Holland, Almost all of South America. And I've never known more then 10 words of another language (till recently). I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual there are very good non racists reasons to ahve a national language.
Cost.
Once you interpret a document into one language, you must do it for all languages. This is very expensive.
Culture division.
Creating segments of the population that has difficulty communicating with other segments leads to an US v Them scenario; which leads to civil unrest.
A cheaper and more long term solution is a more widely available English language courses.
Encouraging people to speak the language.
Many people with 'Mexican' decent in California are multiple generation and speak English.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
Expecting people to learn the dominant language is not bigotry, it's a reasonable expectation of a person putting in effort to work with society. I don't have anything against some random immigrant into the US. Good for him, I hope he does well for himself. If he chooses, however, to not attempt to learn English, which is the de facto national language, that's just plain rude.
If you want to let rude people who don't want to put forth the effort to work together with our society be accepted in our nation, that's your problem. I, for one, want people who actually give a damn, and try to become better citizens.
Re:Language isn't the real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
If their culture stands between them and learning the language, then yes, ditch it.
Their culture is of zero worth (as mine is), and that much importance. Culture is just tradition, which is stuff we do for no good reason. (Or it wouldn't be traditional, just reasonable. Canadians shovel sidewalks, but not for fun or culture, but because they get covered in snow.)
Of course, they can follow whatever cute little traditions their people traditionally have, no matter how stupid, like cutting down a perfectly good tree to celebrate the birth of a space ghost. But these things are worthless, and we shouldn't cater to the traditionalist's demands for "respect" for their culture or we'll still be chopping down trees for this in another two-thousand years. Nutty old crap is nutty old crap.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you been to Spain recently? There are more British expats in some parts than native Spanish people, and they really do expect to have their every whim catered for. English speakers are one of the most arrogant groups in the world, linguistically. The fact that our language is dominant in many areas puts us at a natural advantage.
But let's get this into perspective. Slashdot is on the Internet; it's not a country. Someone who posts here with less-than-excellent English might be posting from Mexico, or Lithuania, or Uganda. They're not refusing to learn the language of their country of residence, they're just not great at the language Slashdot chose for its website.
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RIAA = Scientology (Score:4, Insightful)
...or dyslexic, or badly educated because your teachers didn't care, or the child of illiterate parents, or just plain tired after a long day, or a potentially hyper-intelligent foreigner who just hasn't mastered English yet...
I'm not a fan of poor English either - I teach the subject at Oxford, so I'm probably more aware of mistakes then the average reader. But when someone is obviously a learner rather than a sloppy native speaker, let's give them a break, huh?
Would you rather participate in an inward-looking forum where only native speakers with the requisite educational level are allowed, or one where you have a far broader range of opinions and ideas which are sometimes marred by poor (but nonetheless understandable) language usage?
hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reading between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
In reading between the lines, I think it is important that he is not being sued for calling the Media Sentry investigations Illegal. If the RIAA thought they had a case in which to sue, I would have expected an attack on this. The silence is deafening.
I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.
The stating an opinion as fact is the basis of the action. His opinion may indeed be fact. It would be interesting if the RIAA lost and it was proven in court to be fact. I think the RIAA may have a tiger by the tail on this one.
Re:Reading between the lines (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.
"in my opinion" is not a magic word that lets you defame people with impunity.
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now Ray's blog is #9 on a simple google search for RIAA. Hopefully all the publicity this is guaranteed to garner will shoot him up to the top. :-)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links.
Read the truth about the RIAA [blogspot.com] here.
Re:hmmm (Score:5)
Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links. Read the truth about the RIAA [blogspot.com] here.
Thanks kimvette, good idea.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Beckerman is now also being sued for saying that the litigation against him is "frivolous and irresponsible.""
Doh.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well now it's just getting pointless and annoying.
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
You ought to have posted that as AC, because the RIAA will be suing you next for calling them pointless and annoying. ;)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
And for that little public performance, now you owe them royalties. Ask yourself: was the Funny mod really worth it?
Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.
But the idea that the RIAA would say of Ray's blog, "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions." is completely beyond absurd.
The RIAA has been conducting a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to paint copyright infringement as a crime in the same class or worse as theft, and further attempting to equate their inflated 'losses' due to 'piracy'. Ray might joke and jab more than is 'proper' or 'expected' as a lawyer, but in my mind, that makes him a better agent of the court, not worse. And I fail to see how this lawsuit is anything other than a legal attack upon Ray in an attempt to smear his good name and discredit him as a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The RIAA has been conducting a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to paint copyright infringement as a crime in the same class or worse as theft
Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers? Think of the children!
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).
It could probably be argued that internet based file trading actually reduces the income of these gangs. The profit is all about being the middle-man. Whether that is illegal gangs selling pirate DVDs, groups like the RIAA or torrent websites funded by advertising dollars. Since the widespread adoption of broadband internet, and the development of easy to use filesharing tools, many of the people that would have used the gang funding guy who comes to the city's commercial districts selling DVDs will now opt to use online fire sharing. Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Informative)
Saying it supports drugs dealers is a bit silly since drug dealing tends to be self financing.
If terrorists are making their money from pirating DVD's then we're getting much more pathetic terrorists than in my day! In my day they robbed banks and held people for ransom!
Gangs perhaps but the more torrent sites grow the harder it is for them to sell pirate DVD's. (Fight gang violence! download your pirated movies!)
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).
Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.
But it is one HELL of a leap of logic to go from that fact to the supposition that bootlegging funds terrorism.
It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.
And that whole sentence is an example of confusion 101. Any of commercial piracy or drug trade or pimping hookers or modern slave trade or collecting protection money or illegal gambling or sell kiddie porn or whatever the fuck else organized crime do, it makes money. The reason they do commercial piracy and drug trade and pimping hookers and modern slave trade and collecting protection money and illegal gambling and sell kiddie porn is to make the grand total as big as possible, and how much you pirate makes no difference at all on anything else. The only thing that could have a hint of truth is possibly terrorism since it's an expense, but I figure that's probably well funded through legal income diverted to it. There's certainly no reason to believe drug kingpins are more willing to give away their earnings than anyone else. But hey, I guess the FUD is working.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
---I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.
But everybody should be held to the same standard. When people are
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The appointment of judges is different depending on where they are being appointed. In most areas they are not voted in or out, especially in general elections. At the federal level (especially the supreme court) they are supposed to be a check against the elected officials, and not have to answer to the voters, but instead to the law and how well their judgment holds over time.
As for holding people to different standards, I tend to believe that there should be laws that increase punishment for any law brok
Poor Ray (Score:4, Funny)
Who will pay legal fees? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps that's the entire point (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't surprise me if this ploy by the RIAA was simply an attempt to distract Mr. Beckerman, who has become a bit of a thorn in their side. If he's busy defending himself he won't have time to defend other RIAA victims.
Re:Perhaps that's the entire point (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably true. I didn't rtfa but last I heard, being "vexatious" was not a crime, except to tyrants.
It's truly funny that all Ray does is point out the legal absurdities in their activities and they respond with yet another absurdity. This is a classic case of a big moneyed interest abusing the legal system against people who can't afford to defend themselves. From another perspective you might call it racketeering.
Vex on, Ray.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals.
Lawyers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than "mere mortals." Although it is ultimately decided by each state's bar association, you can find the ABA's model rules of professional conduct here [abanet.org]. Virtually every accredited law school teaches those in Professional Responsibility.
These rules are, incidentally, a large part of the reason that slimeball lawyers tend to have a short shelf life. They create something of an ethical minefield for attorneys, and govern everything from what an attorney is allowed to say to the media during trial, to what his duties to non-clients are, to what sort of information he can disclose about a case.
Without having a copy of the actual complain handy, I can't say exactly what the RIAA is accusing Beckerman of, but the quotes from the Wired article make it sound like a meritorious claims and contentions [abanet.org] issue; in effect, they're saying Beckerman violated his ethical duty to only make meritorious arguments by dragging out the trial with motions, claims, etc. that he knew were not valid.
For what it's worth, I've followed Beckerman's blog somewhat closely. And if my speculation about the actual claims being levied at Beckerman are true, I'd be inclined to say that this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black in some general "the RIAA is bad!" kind of sense. It seems to me that, in that case, they'd be violating the exact same rule they're accusing Beckerman of violating by filing this complaint.
But, I'm just a law student playing armchair lawyer here. Take the above with a grain of salt.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Talk about taking his argument and twisting it up. If I as an individual tell my friend that I think this natural herb pill is the best thing I ever took, I have no legal problems if it turns out to do nothing. If my friends' doctor suggests a sugar pill to cure his multiple melanoma, I think Doc would be looking at a law suit.
In this case the RIAA is suing for something a lawyer did in the course of his profession. It is meritless but does not invalidate the gp argument.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, so special classes of people have special rights and responsiblities? In other words, all men are not created equal?
Some people are held to higher standards due to their position or job. There are good reasons for this, such as preventing conflicts of interest and prejudicial actions in legal proceedings. Without such standards, our legal system would suffer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All men are created equal. What they do later in life is a different matter.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Er... yes. Special classes of people do have special rights and responsibilities. I don't think that has anything to do with how such people were created, or if any equality might have been used in their creation.
We empower agents of the public trust more than the common man. I don't think that makes them better people. But with great power... should come great oversight. The greater responsibilities should come at the price of some privacy. I'm not saying we should place cameras in anyone's home, but I wouldn't necessarily be against cameras in their public workplaces.
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:4, Insightful)
All men are CREATED equal. What we do after that is up to us. Yes, special classes of people have special rights and responsibilities based upon their qualifications: Parents. Doctors. Teachers. Lawyers. Members of the Military. Politicians...
You should be held to the same standards as a doctor? When was the last time you swore the Hippocratic oath?
Re:Pot, meet kettle? (Score:5, Funny)
Umm..., I am not sure how it works at your doctors office, but a circumcision should not involve your ass at all. I would seek a 2nd opinion
Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)
Yah I didn't know the meaning either:
Main Entry:
vexatious Listen to the pronunciation of vexatious
Pronunciation:
\-shs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1534
1 a: causing vexation : distressing b: intended to harass 2: full of disorder or stress : troubled
FTA:
The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers, "has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) in court briefs. "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."
BASELESS motions? Sure, what lawyer wouldn't want to bolster his PR, but maybe, JUST maybe, the motions ARE baseless?
EMBARRASS plaintiffs? Look, if you are suing someone, you better BE PREPARED. It's as simple as that. There's nothing about getting embarrassed if you are going to sue.
The RIAA really sounds like it's going out on a whim here. Maybe suing your own customers is a bad idea, do they get it yet? Geesh, I wish the RIAA would just GO AWAY!
Re:Vexatious (Score:5, Interesting)
So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?
Re:Vexatious (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vexatious (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Vexatious (Score:5, Informative)
It sure seems to me as an observer of this ongoing imbroglio that all of the vexatiousness is on the part of RIAA.
Keep up the good work, Ray.
My Favourite Part (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
I guess the RIAA decided to take a page from the MPAA's playbook [torrentfreak.com] on this one.
Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.
Hm.. that actually might be why they did it. If they can relate all of his other cases to this one, such that he can't comment on them, either, as they're involved in the pending one, then he can't cheerlead on here in topics related to his cases.
The guy can at least defend himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, this is a fortunate turn of events. This gentleman is at least capable of defending himself against whatever accusations RIAA is making against him, while at the same time consuming time and legal resources that the fuckwits at RIAA could be using to put another party in legal jeopardy.
In fact, since this is not the same as the boilerplate legal case that RIAA makes against thousands of consumers annually, it probably also consumed more resources. We should all be thankful that RIAA has chosen this course of action.
Re:The guy can at least defend himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give in to them, Ray. It's important for us to have this blog asa counter-attack to the RIAA BS machine.
Re:The guy can at least defend himself (Score:5, Funny)
Don't give in to them, Ray.
Right. Because the first thing that popped into my head when I read the summary was "Oh, he'll probably just lay down and take this. No fight in that guy."
Defending file-sharers (Score:5, Funny)
The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers
How DARE he!!!
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:4, Funny)
It's a slippery slope.
Next thing you know lawyers will be required to represent thieves, rapists and murderers.
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
Actually I wonder if this is just an extension of the RIAA's legal tactics to the lawyers themselves. Previously, they would sue people in order to intimidate them into settling and/or not file-sharing. Now, they are applying the same logic to lawyers: suing lawyers with the audacity to defend file-sharers, so as to intimidate other potential defense lawyers from even taking a file-sharing case.
As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).
Such a tactic from the RIAA is presumably illegal... but it's probably very difficult to prove in court that this is their intention.
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't matter. Unlike college students, lawyers have both the experience needed and the money to take these cases to court. Given the RIAA's shaky prosecution tactics, I wouldn't be surprised if not only every lawyer being sued in this manner takes the case to court, but a number of them are secretly wishing to be sued just to make an example out of their opponents and get their name out.
Re:Defending file-sharers (Score:4, Interesting)
As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).
Problem with that is he's already decided that his mission in life is taking on the RIAA. Indeed, in defending himself, he has every right to publically make the case that what he's saying on his site is true, which would get him off the hook for what they're suing. Worse, the RIAA is giving the guy a forum to say these things! In that way, the trial is really about the RIAA - they say it's illegal to say mean things about them (why it would be, I have no idea), he gets to prove that the things he says are totally legit, and he also has the opportunity to try to expose the flaws in their litigation. He'll certainly claim that, ironically, the very suit against him proves his case.
I'd agree with you on the "send a message" aspect if they went after someone who didn't want a piece of them, but since they're taking on a guy who's been hitting away already, all they're doing is handing him the club that he'll use to beat them.
Note I'm not a lawyer, and I have only the best of feelings toward the RIAA...
I kinda doubt it (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I kinda doubt that even the RIAA can be _that_ stupid. (Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)
Let's face it, today's lawyers are tomorrow's judges. I'm also going to take a wild guess that even today's judges, no matter how much they enjoy making lawyers work to earn their play, will not take it very lightly when faced with an attempt to bully the legal profession as a whole.
_Especially_ in civil cases, where really the whole standard of evidence is along the lines of "who's better at persuading the judge", you don't want to start from the position of the known bully abusing the legal system and work your way up from there. So the judges are one group they'd be smart to not annoy.
Also let's not forget that lawyers do have very large and powerful professional associations. They don't exist just to provide some exams for their members. And they tend to know the laws, precedents and available avenues. Even _if_ you could somehow bully one or two of them into submission, I think any attempt to basically carpet-bomb their profession as a whole into no longer being able to do its job (on some cases), might find some rather stiff resistance there. Sooner or later you'd find yourself not just against one or two lawyers, but against an entity bigger than yourself and more adept at working the system than you are.
As I was saying, I don't think that even the RIAA is _that_ stupid.
Thanks RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Understanding complicated matters, such as law, is always hard because of the bad advice that goes about. I commend you RIAA for your services to education.
NYCL Posts? (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA
has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs
This also makes it sound like that's exactly what they're trying to stop, him actually informing people (us) about their baseless cases. I wonder if they're going to seek a gag order?
Everyone thank RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me be the first to point out what everyone's been thinking.
Thank.
You.
RIAA.
Morons.
I mean, honestly. We all are acting all high and mighty, but what we're really thinking is,
"What IDIOT up there thought it would be a good idea to sue one of the most competent, intelligent, LAWYERS who has already expressed a will to fight against their unsound tactics"
Lets take odds, who wants to bet they try to pull out of this the minute someone realizes what they just did, and someone is definitly getting sacked.
Re:Everyone thank RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Ray has been chomping at the bit, baiting the RIAA every step of the way to go head to head against them to bring to a very public light what a sham their propoganda is. The RIAA loves to preach copyright, and yet they conveniently ignore and even go so far as to claim the Fair Use clause and rights defined under the Home Recording Act do not apply to anyone. Ray, might RICO apply in this case here? :)
Ray, thank you for your hard work. I do not think that copyright holders should be deprived of their just income, but not all copying is copyright infringement (even when bypassing technical measures, the DMCA allows provisions for interoperability, which transcoding/ripping IS FOR). Also, the "punishment" for casual "infringement" is not only unjust (hundreds of thousands of dollars for one $.99 track?) but is illegal in the case where the MP3/MPA/AAC file has been burned/copied/etc. to media (Music CD-R, DAT, etc.) where levies have been paid to the RIAA. Those levies pay for the copyright, which makes it legal for you to make a mix tape for your gf/bf/etc.
Way to respond to a legal challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
In question is the "vexatious" claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a "sham"
The best way to show that criticism of your valiant, righteous lawsuits is a sham is to sue the critic for being so irritatingly vexatious. Now I (and I imagine this goes for everyone else here on Slashdot) take the RIAA completely seriously. I suspect a million geeks just stopped filesharing a few minutes ago, and that the torrents of the tubes have all gone dead: Seeders 0, Leechers 0. The RIAA has won.
Except ... all sarcasm aside, this is really desperate.
Translation: (Score:5, Funny)
Google 'SLAPP' (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not quite getting sued (Score:5, Informative)
It's Time to Give Back Now (Score:5, Insightful)
All,
Mr. Beckerman is, as most of us know, one of the most respected members of the Slashdot community. He's posted many, many stories and innumerable comments, all with great insight and actual legal information from a real lawyer (yes, HIAL). Over quite a long time, he's become one of us, and he probably has the highest karma in the history of Slashdot. He's done a great deal to help us all, and now it's time to return the favor. There are a lot of comments here about how dumb a move this is on the RIAA's part, and how they'll finally get embarrassed by NewYorkCountryLawyer himself. I happen to agree.
However, Ray is only one man, and the RIAA has the means, and probably the will, to throw so many of their lawyers and arcane procedural motions at him to make his personal life a living hell. So it's time now that we thank him and make it clear that were behind him. As for how, that's up to you. Maybe send encouraging emails. If he comments here, reply with your support. Spread the word about the RIAA trying to sue a legal critic into silence. Please, everyone who's been enlightened, informed, and amused by Ray's comments here, do your part in return.
Re:It's Time to Give Back Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Time to Give Back Now (Score:5, Informative)
I figure a good donation amount would be the cost of one average RIAA CD. Wouldn't take too many people donating that to cover his legal expenses... All we need is a paypal link
Here [blogspot.com]'s a PayPal link.
Years from now, when this is all old history (Score:5, Insightful)
Being slapped with such silly and pointless lawsuits over a blog is just a mark of how desperate some of those behind these campaigns of harassment really are, and can only serve to highlight that they are slowly running out of options of who else to blame for their own demise into obsolescence.
Hang in there!!
Z.
Anyone can Sue Anyone for Anything (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad summary; wait for facts (Score:5, Informative)
Beckerman has not been sued by RIAA. Instead, RIAA brought a motion for sanctions in a case Beckerman was defending.
The motion is not aimed primarily at his blog. The motion requests sanctions in response to other motions Beckerman filed in the case. It also requests sanctions for the defendant's discovery conduct.
Hate the **AA all you want, but wait until the facts are in on this story. Did Beckerman have any reasonable basis for those motions he filed? Did his client destroy and/or hide evidence? The judge will sort it out.
Thanks, folks.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's just an obvious attempt on their part to weasel out of their liability for attorneys fees, after torturing this innocent woman for the past 3 years.
Some folks have indicated an interest in contributing financially.
Anyone who wants to contribute to Ms. Lindor can do so here [paypal.com]. Anyone who wants to contribute to the Expert Witness Defense Fund, which helps people like Ms. Lindor with hiring experts and tech consultants can do so here [fsf.org]. Anyone who wants to contribute to me, to help me with the work I do in my blogging and getting the word out, can do so here [beckermanlegal.com]. Another way to help out my blog is to make purchases through the affiliate ads I post on the blog. (If there are products or services you're looking for that aren't represented there, let me know, and I'll try to get affiliate ads posted for them.
Here [blogspot.com] is my post providing the details of the accusations.
The RIAA's litigation campaign is in its death throes, as are the 4 big record companies who are behind it. I guess this is the way dying hyenas act, they lash out. Not to worry, they will still lose.
Re:Thanks, folks.... (Score:5, Informative)
What I want to know is.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow. Though expected. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not really a lawsuit, it's just a motion in a case he's on. Motions for sanctions are actually fairly common.
IIRC, isnt there a ground that a judge can take away "lawsuit powers" when used as a weapon, rather than as to pursue 'truth and justice'?
Yes, but it's very rarely done. If someone is just completely crazy about filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, the court will occasionally order that the frivolous party cannot file lawsuits except through independent counsel; I think they did this to Jack Thompson. The theory is an attorney will filter out the crazy stuff, or face professional sanctions themselves.
Re:the Mark of Desperation! (Score:5, Funny)
If employees of the RIAA step outside and it's raining, they immediately think of suing God.
An easy win, as he won't show up in court. The real problem is getting money out of the wanker...
Re:This whole thing is stupid... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the issue at hand isn't so much the payment aspect. The RIAA has demonstrated that it is a cartel, engaged in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. They have their business model from the 1950s and they will see everyone in the nation financially ruined before admitting it's outdated and they need to change it. It employs underhanded tactics that are an abuse of the legal system, use unlicensed investigators in clear violation of state laws, and show very little in the way of ethics in their prosecutions. Attempting to interview an underage child at their school in defiance of the parent's wishes can never be excused for a private entity.
Also bear in mind, NONE of the lawsuits filed target the people who downloaded the files. Their entire campaign relies on the "making available" theory that putting files into a download folder is copyright infringement, so these are the people providing the uploads. These people could very easily have full legal license to the music they are being sued for, and in fact many of them do. This is not a redistribution license, but to say they "stole" the music is to confuse the facts of the cases. Given the lack of computer saavy some people have, they might not have even realized they were sharing the files, as the courts have determined before in these cases. The RIAA simply doesn't care...
Throw on top of it the idea that copyright is intended to enhance SOCIETY in the long-term and the farce that idea has become and you see a strong civil disobedience movement against a system that long ago ceased serving the people's interests. When you don't serve the greater good, as it were, don't be surprised when things don't go the way you want them to go.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "stop pirating" argument is irrelevant because the RIAA is suing people based on bad evidence, i.e. IP addresses. You typically can't nail an IP address to a single person because IP addresses change and multiple people can be using the Internet from the same IP. This doesn't even include the person they sued that had never used a computer.
Get a clue please.
Re:Sigh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I do believe in intellectual property "rights", in an abstract sense, but I do NOT believe that such rights are actually physically enforcable. I don't condone copyright theft ("theft"), and I don't download music unless the artist or label posts it online for download. *However* I tend to think that DRM ("digital locks") and other technical methods of enforcing intellectual property rights are effectively useless, and thus whether or not these rights exist is, I feel, a moot point--- property is worthless if you can't defend it. So while I don't want to break copyrights myself, I really can't be bothered to tell other people off for doing it; they're merely taking the path of least resistance between themselves and the media they want to consume. The most it gets out of me is a shrug. If a company wants to invest millions of dollars into a medium that has no tangible existance, and therefore practically zero security in terms of profit, I figure that's their problem, not mine. I don't have to partake, but I don't really give a damn if they get ripped off, because it's a hole they dug themselves into.
(For full disclosure, I do download tv shows quite often, but most of these are viewable on their respective websites anyways.. that's a bit of a grey area for me, but it's a vice, perhaps a bit of a hypocritical one. Again.. *shrug*. Do as I say not as I do, and all that.)
Re:Where is Ray?.. (Score:5, Funny)
Something tells me that he isn't going to comment here, as, I'm sure, all such comments would be admissable. It's fine to talk about other people's cases, but prudent to be quiet about your own.
Yes, no way I would say publicly that the motion is frivolous, meritless, and an abuse of the judicial system.
Re:Where is Ray?.. (Score:5, Funny)
+1, Balls of Steel