RIAA Hearing Next Week Will Be Televised 291
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "One commentator labels it 'another fly in the RIAA's ointment.' In SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the Boston, Massachusetts, RIAA case in which the defendant is represented by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson and a group of his students, the Judge has ruled that the hearing scheduled for January 22nd will be televised over the Internet. The hearing will relate to Mr. Tenenbaum's counterclaims against the record companies and against the RIAA. In her 11-page opinion (PDF), District Judge Nancy Gertner labeled as 'curious' the record companies' opposition to televising the proceedings, since their professed reason for bringing the cases is deterrence, 'a strategy [which] effectively relies on the publicity arising from this litigation'."
Haa haa! (Score:3, Funny)
Reverse Haa haa! (Score:3, Informative)
Sweet Jesus! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sweet Jesus! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Eh... Its all just smurfy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would actually get that effect by running just slower than the speed of light. For them, only a short while would go by, while it will be years for the rest of the world. There's still the question of in what location they were while running though, and why nobody noticed them.
Of course, you can't really go back in time by running faster than light. It's simply not possible to move FTL [wikipedia.org], since it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate.
Disclaimer: this is all based on what I remember of
Terminology (Score:4, Insightful)
Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terminology (Score:4, Funny)
The RIAA is the Enclave? My god it's all so clear now.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Informative)
televised over the internet - means that the television is going out over the Internet to computer endpoints. That the television SET is often abbreviated as television is simply laziness and a bastardization of the language, not that the usage in the summary is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
tl;dr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
televised over the internet??
Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.
If televised is television, then what is it when your psychic gives you advice telepathically? As in, Miss Cleo televised me not to make this joke?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
televised over the internet??
Either it's televised on the television, or streamed on the internet. Just saying.
Well if you go to the roots of the word television and televised, if the goal is to allow you to view it from a distance, televised seems more appropriate than streamed (which could refer to audio, water, video, tickertape)
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can steal somebody's else's labor.
They work planting cotton in the fields.... ooops, I mean creating music on a recording. And you take the product of their work. It's a human rights violation.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Stealing the product of their labour would involve nicking the master copy they made, or possibly shoplifting a CD (although then you're stealing from the shop rather than the artist). An infringing copy removes nothing from their possession except the money that you might or might not have spent on a legal copy.
Both are illegal, but they aren't the same thing, and really the only reason to persist in not splitting that hair is if you have some motive for "copyright infringement" to be considered exactly equal to "theft". The most obvious motive being that theft sounds more serious and so people are less likely to choose to do it if they think of it in those terms.
Thankfully we are not undergoing a transition to Newspeak, so there is no need to eliminate terms from our vocabulary. There is a distinction between the 2 things and no reason to lump them together under one word, so please stop trying to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised? People here assume there is something sinister about it, and the fear of the light does remind one of certain nasties that live under rocks, but maybe they have a good reason. I'd be curious to hear SERIOUS ideas as to why they might be wanting to hide it. I actually can't come up with one, even assuming sinister motives. Aren't they tryi
Re:Terminology (Score:4, Interesting)
It might be just my crack-pot theory, so take it with a grain of salt...
I would thing the main reason to want the hearings televised goes to how there scare tactics work. Sinister motives or not, reading articles and watching video have very different impacts on how people perceive the information. I can write a ton of articles saying pirates are thieves, copying music makes baby Jesus cry, you'll get a life sentence for not paying every time you listen to a song, etc; but the actual court preceding will be very different. Even if they make those exact claims, it will not be in the same tone as attack media will be.
Real court proceedings are very dry, and will not support the fear image that they want. Plus it will be clear that they are suing for copyright violation and not theft. I'm sure there are various other concerns too.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno... I'll hazard a guess.
The "scare tactics" of the RIAA are about more than just fear. It's about FUD: Fear; Uncertainty; Doubt.
By televised court proceedings, you may increase the Fear aspect (assuming they actually have a strong case), but you may significantly reduce your portion of Uncertainty and Doubt.
I imagine the industry wants very much to perpetuate the concept that Copyright Infringement equals theft. One doesn't even need to get into the debate of whether it is "as bad as" theft. All the RIAA/MPAA publicity efforts seem simply to hinge on the equivalence (I mean.. you wouldn't steal a car would you? huh WOULD YOU?)
The trouble is the Industry seems scared too. Although they seem to have been easily able to purchase legislation to their hearts content, they probably realize laws on the books won't matter a bit if the larger society as a whole shifts in their view of said laws. First, they won't get enforced. Second, eventually even if the laws don't get overturned, sooner or later Jury Nullification will take over. Or we might start seeing damages scaled way, WAY back to realistic levels.
Public perception of these folk may be souring greatly. These things can shift rather quickly. I believe this is what they fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary:
The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary: The video will reveal RIAA to be the cold-hearted extortionist bastards they truly are.
Maybe their reason for secrecy is much more benign. Maybe they're just upset that they can't have the exclusive distribution rights to the Court's feed.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Funny)
They've got a plan to sell it on DVD?
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, honestly, why does the RIAA oppose this being televised?
That's easy.
Exposure of these proceedings gives information to those who must defend future cases, thus reducing their defense costs.
Re:Terminology (Score:5, Interesting)
Well first, even if you take the RIAA's side fully, a reasonable person would admit that it's copyright infringement, and not "theft". You can argue that copyright infringement is as bad as theft, but it's not theft.
Second, the complaint isn't that they're trying to fight copyright infringement, but rather their methods of fighting copyright infringement. Surely methods and means can matter. I can fight against injustice using methods that are themselves unjust.
Can we agree to that much, at least? At least as a starting point to discuss exactly how immoral copyright infringement is, and whether the RIAA's methods are just or unjust?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Consider if you had spent a year creating a great program, perhaps something to make web browsing impervious to spybots. Then at the end of the year your employer shows you the door, and never pays you, but instead distributes your program for free over the net... It's called theft of labor.
It's called "theft of labor" because, in your example, we're assuming that the employer and the developer had some form of agreement that the employer later violated. Theft of labor, as far as I know, is used to describe situations where a person is deceived (or possibly forced) into doing work.
Therefore, if a musician records a work of his own accord, and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor". It'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy to insert words into my mouth that I never said.
I think RIAA's actions are reprehensible, but I also think the same about people downloading songs without paying the employee who made the music. If you think something is good enough to burn to a CD-R and keep, then you OWE that employee some kind of payment for his labor. Otherwise you're no different from a boss who refuses to pay his workers.
Re:Terminology (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no, I'd disagree there. After all, that's the real battleground here, isn't it?
I suppose it's the battleground, in that some people are specifically trying to tie the two together. There's a specific PR campaign to change terminology so that it will change people's perception.
However, when they began this campaign, they were basically starting from zero. I don't think most people started out thinking of copying files as a crime, but certain powers have really fought to have it labelled as "piracy" and "theft".
Even though they've made some headway, ask most people, "Is downloading a song from the internet the same thing as breaking into someone's house and stealing a CD?" I don't think many people will say "yes" unless they have some sort of political stake in pushing that PR.
RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:5, Insightful)
One million for 7 songs?! How does something like that even get in to court? Can you imagine if I stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11? Do you think the court would even hear a case where they wanted a million for my crime?
This is the new business model of the recording industry, which is exactly like the old model. Overcharge your customers and when that doesn't work, overcharge and extort from your customers to make up for shortfalls you generated because you have a crappy product.
There's only so much "drug money", oops CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops recording artists...
(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my meth, oops coffee.)
=Smidge=
One problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, if the RIAA wins by some convoluted twist of the law (of which they've gotten quite good at twisting by this point), no amount of losses will be able to wipe the smug look from their faces after winning the case on live TV. At which point, the industry is doomed.
Never think that the RIAA is doomed. They always come back.
Re: (Score:2)
If the RIAA wins, our culture will stagnate and be forever held hostage by profiteering bribers.
The new culture will come from "free-er" China, etc where no RIAA equivalent exists, yet.
Re:One problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, should they win, the "jury" box failed. Time for the next one.
Re:One problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they win, they will lose. If they lose, they will lose.
Most people just think that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes. Putting them out in the public serves to prove that big media is a bunch of greedy assholes.
And as to what I mean by "if they win, they will lose" I mean to say that seeing the RIAA win in a big case like that, people will know to steer clear of anything associated with the RIAA. An effective majority tapes, records or shares music once in a while. The practice is quite literally a part of our daily lives. If the public sees someone lose their lives through a lawsuit, you can bet it will not cause people to rush out and legitimize their collection by buying more stuff. No, they will look to alternatives. They lose.
And if they lose, they will lose. The results may not be as dramatic as if they were to win, but at least it gives further data for study and reference when building a defence for the next case they bring.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But there are a 2 problems with this:
1) Nowhere near the amount of people affected by it will see this, because it isn't on a TV.
2) Most people don't care.
Sadly, people are heartless bastards and will just go "damn, that sucks, evil bastards", then forget all about it within a month, unless reminded by it.
If it was shown live on TV, then it might matter, but sadly it probably won't be...
Maybe it should be on TV because then most of the ignorant world will actually see the bullshit that companies like this
Re: (Score:2)
If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from I am happy I grew up in the sixties and seventies when we had real music.
P. S. Please ask, no beg, them to stop re-making the music of my yo
Re: (Score:2)
"When did we move from High-Fidelity (HiFi) to iPod?"
Apparently on October 23, 2001 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from I am happy
Remind me never to look at your browser history...
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If this is where the future recording artists are going to cum from
Actually most of the American Idols do NOT succeed in the Top 40 radio. Kelly Clarkson has had several hits which landed in the Billboard Top 100 for 2004, 2005, 2006, et cetera, but none of the others "idols" have made it. The television show is a lot of hype which scores big on television, but for some reason that popularity fails to translate to radio or sales.
I too watched AI, and the bad talent is what makes the show worth
An Open Letter (Score:2)
Dear sbeckstead,
I represent the ACAL (American Cockroach Advocacy League). Please take this as notice that you have been served with a lawsuit for ONE BILLION DOLLARS (please visualize me holding my pinky to my mouth), for defamation of character.
The ACAL resents any comparison of the RIAA to cockroaches, as it is insulting to cockroaches. See you in court.
Sincerely,
H.M. Dewey, for
Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, Attys at Law.
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:5, Funny)
"Your Honor, the defendant could have cloned cattle by extracting DNA from the stolen beef jerky..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I absolutely agree with you on the ludicrous claim of $1M for 7 songs, I do think I should point this out...
'The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.
I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing.. so your analogy would have to be akin to going into a 7-11 store, copying their bee
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:5, Funny)
Of course.. you can't copy a beef jerky.. the only way for you to be handing out beef jerky is to acquire it yourself - and I very highly doubt you'd be able to give it away for free with no money exhanged somewhere somehow.
If I could download beef jerky from the internet, I would definitely give it away to anyone who asked for some.
Re: (Score:2)
screw that, I'd keep it and eat it myself! :D
but, see, you can already download beef jerky from the internet - just that you have to pay the $7.99 or whatever that number was for the privilege of downloading it. Just like you had to pay $2.49 for a song (nowadays $0.99 or whatever?) to do so legally. Just because you can now illegally download jerky for free doesn't quite make it 'right'.
( and yes, I know, downloading music is actually legal in some nations - I'm in one of them - but then distributing oft
Re: (Score:2)
The Slashdot Crowd' is always quick to point out that copyright infringement is -not- stealing. So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.
"Theft" bears a much larger moral implication in the minds of people than "copyright infringement" does, which is why people here get riled up at the comparison.
Either way, once again I think that it's more or less agreed that copyright infringement isn't quite as bad as outright theft, so it works like so: you assume a bigger crime than was (supposedly) commited, posit that punishment is proportional to crime, and conclude that, if the proposed punishment seems disproportionate for the greater crime, it mu
Re: (Score:2)
So I don't know why you're comparing stealing a beef jerky from a 7-11 to copyright infringement.
He's not. He's contrasting it.
-Loyal
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think this case is about distributing, just downloading, but in the typical cases it is about distributing..
All of their cases are about distributing.
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes I'm bitter this morning; still need my .... coffee.)
Just don't drink too much of it, or you might start seeing good in the RIAA.....
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:5, Interesting)
CD purchases, the listening public will bestow on ungrateful addicts, oops record execs...
Fixed. The real problems are/were record companies who were addicted to printing their own money and a market that thinks/thought that making 200%+ profit is/was piss poor performance. Fortunately, the recording industry is finally coming around to the notion that lawyers are only good for collecting sort-term, high-gain revenue, not suing grandma for her Dale Jr. poster.
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA POV is like you stole $6.93 (.99 x 7) worth of beef jerky from 7-11, somehow scanned it with affordable technology then was able to produce millions of tones of beef jerky, and give it to everyone, with the same flavor as the bags you got, heck you even copied and gave away bags that looked identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What do beef jerky 'tones' sound like? ~
Probably, "Moo. Moo. Oh No, not the bolt to the head! Not the ... [ THUMP ]."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Strictly playing the devil's advocate here, but I propose a thought experiment:
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot. About 40% of the cost of a new vehicle is materials and labor, with another 10% paying for pensions and whatnot for employees, and about 2.5% profit (so they double their profit). The other 50% is engineering, transportation to the dealer, paying the dealer, etc, etc. So the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft
That's because it isn't. For one thing, "legal and illegal" music downloading are both described by "downloading copyrighted material" so you need to be much more specific. For another thing, copyright protection is aimed at very different goals from laws concerning theft.
Copyright law does a poor job at "punishing people who consume your work without paying you."
What copyright law is good at, is punishing someone who h
Re: (Score:2)
of course theyd be pissed off - you just broke their window, jerk!
Re: (Score:2)
Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?
Of course. The cost for advertising is completely pointless and a waste of money, so no one should have to pay for that. It's just necessary if a company have an inferior product that they want to sell for a higher price than what it's worth. The cost for safety testing is pretty much not necessary unless you plan to sell the car and take responsibility for eventual accidents, and the cost for engineering can be zero, as is evident with the huge amount of real quality free (libre) software out there made by
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot.
That would be theft, but has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Your analogy isn't even close.
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that the RIAA don't have a product anymore.
They used to control the means of recording. No longer, since the equipment necessary can be got for much, much cheaper than years ago.
They used to control the means of reproduction, in that they could actually mass produce your tapes / CDs for you. No longer, since stamping a CD is incredibly cheap now.
Just about the only thing they still control is radio, and even then that's being eaten into by the internet and things like Pandora and last.fm, which their lobbyists are desperately trying to kill.
Without a real business model, they're scraping for ways to maintain the position of control they used to have, and litigation is a very good way of doing just that, since most people don't have the means to actually fight them.
Last.FM - Stay Away (Score:3, Interesting)
One way or another, I won't let Last.FM anywhere near my computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They never controlled reproduction, and to this day it's still WAY cheaper for the Big 5 to print CDs (massive bulk discounts) than the home musician. That's not to say that it's expensive, though. I printed 1,000 copies of my album in '06 and I'm far from rich.
What the big 5 provided was distribution and promotion. THAT's where they're being hit today thanks to the Internet. I did my album as a fun project. A way to get songs that I had written over the last 5 years "out there", just for fun. Not expecting
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:RIAA seeks $1 million for seven songs (Score:4, Interesting)
It ignores investment because the only way that investment can pay off is through labour. The risk taker fronts his labour (since money is the promise of labour) with the expectation that he will be payed back with interest (interest being one of two ways that investment can ever enrich anyone - the other being the collection of collateral). The reality is that thanks to the addition of interest all debt can never be repayed because there isn't enough money in circulation (which is why we view investment as being risk). It's also why we have perpetual inflation.
When you consider that there simply is not enough money in circulation to repay all debt it becomes clear that investment is a scheme to exploit labour. It pays off for some people but it is not viable long term. The only reason that investment banks create the illusion of viability is thanks to the fractional reserve system and the safety net of the central bank (which both lead to perpetual inflation). The reality is that investment banks don't actually risk anything. They create money out of thin air (inflation) when they lend and they seize property when the loans are defaulted on. When the economy goes sour and banks stop lending the central banks cut interest rates, increasing their lending to commercial banks and more people end up in debt. Those people then seek employment/labour to repay it.
This isn't to say that banks never collapse due to poor investment practices. It happened as recently as 2008. It just means that in order for investment to pay off someone, somewhere has to loose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in order for investment to pay off someone, somewhere has to loose.
Not necessarily. If the growth in the money supply (inflation) is balanced by growth in the quantity of goods and services produced in the economy per person (i.e. economic growth) then everyone enjoys the benefits of more goods and services while being compensated for both their labor or their risk. The reason for fractional reserve banking is to encourage more rapid economic growth through extension of timely credit (since availability of money and the ability to start new projects or produce new goods an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The risk thing.... That might have been true 20 - 30 years ago when agents actually scoured the bars to find talent. These days you are more than likely to have manufactured pop divas and even entire groups. All cut from the same mold, great looks, skimpy clothes, lots of scandal, mediocre talent and singing ability, and music that's written for them and over produced and corrected in the studio.
Does anyone really think that Janis Joplin would make it today?
The music business these days is all about "crea
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's what the laws says the punishment is.
Contact your members of Congress. They're the ones who made it a million for 7 songs.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do write a letter to your member of Congress, you'd better include a check that is larger than the one the RIAA gave them in order to get the law set that way in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to giving corporations the same rights as people.
Re: (Score:2)
The court is easily amused, and the RIAA use their Dr. Evil voice when they state the amount.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>One million for 7 songs?!
For most people one million is equivalent to a life sentence, because that's how long it takes to earn the money to pay that huge fine. I'd be willing to serve that life sentence, but not until after I handed-out some judgment of my own - namely a life sentence to the RIAA CEO.
Steady.
Aim.
Fire.
What are they going to do? Sentence me to prison? I've already been sentenced to life paying-off that million-dollar fine, so it makes no difference to me. I have nothing to los
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
alternately you could use a better damages analogy and say "can you imagine if I stole 7 pieces of jerky, broke it into bits and sold all those bits to several million people at a price of $1.00 per person"
Considering she never *sold* anything, how is that a better analogy?
Send me a copy (Score:5, Funny)
I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.
Re:Send me a copy (Score:5, Insightful)
I was wondering if someone could send me a recorded copy of the stream since I won't be able to watch it live.
You're modded funny, but if they were to use BitTorrent to distribute the recorded proceedings after the fact it would provide an example of an unambiguously legitimate use for such things that judges would be able to identify with. :)
I thought the revolution... (Score:5, Funny)
...was not going to be televised? So much for common wisdom. :-P
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not so much 'kicking the stool' as it is 'refusing to hold them up while they teeter on it'. Nobody has to do -anything- for them to hang themselves... They just have to refuse to get them out of their own mess.
Can I find it... (Score:5, Funny)
Not all of it... yet (Score:5, Informative)
"Public" today has a new resonance, especially in this case. The claims and issues at stake involve the internet, file-sharing practices, and digital copyright protections. The Defendants are primarily members of a generation that has grown up with the internet, who get their news from it, rather than from the traditional forms of public communication, such as newspapers or television. Indeed, these cases have generated widespread public attention, much of it on the internet. Under the circumstances, the particular relief requested -- "narrowcasting" this proceeding to a public website -- is uniquely appropriate.
Nice to see judges are starting to catch up to this generation.
Re: (Score:2)
By the judge's logic, bloggers that were the scourge of the Bush admin, derated because of their medium, might now be classified as mainstream news broadcasters.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that CDs are now classed as 8-track tapes, yes. They serve the same purpose, but they are completely different animals.
The judge's logic is correct: Many people today get their news from the internet, instead of the TV or radio. So this should be allowed to be televised via the same mediums.
Nonono, you got it wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Of course the RIAA wants the public to hear about this case to deter anyone downloading their stuff.
But they want people to hear it from them. Not directly from the court proceedings. Any idiot knows that your statements are only half as powerful if the other side can retort. And few people are interested in hearling both sides of the story, unless it is hassle free do hear it, they're perfectly happy when they just hear one side telling them "the truth". Do you have an idea how incredibly harder it gets to spin something when the other side can call you bluff and show that you're lying through your teeth?
Re: (Score:2)
So the RIAA will hire someone to stand near the camera microphone during the hearing and sing "LA LA LA LA!" whenever someone else is speaking; problem solved.
Of course, then they'll have to sue their opposition obfuscator for an unauthorized narrowcast performance "Brown Eyed Girl".
Re: (Score:2)
This case is the perfect example what happens when your predatory business model is threatened to be exposed.
The record companies want to deter people from sharing music, so they make all this fuss about how illegal it is, and how you'll go to jail if you download music for free off the Internet, all the while literally lying to consumers about how copyright really works.
But since they're the ones selling the music, they don't want to look like the bad guys. They want you to be afraid of the police and the
The fools! (Score:2)
All they had to do was keep quiet. Then after the trial was televised, they could sue everyone who carried the story and everyone who downloaded (watched) it!
It would have as much merit as their other suits; how could they possibly lose?
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt that the courts (who would, if anyone, be the legal owner of the copyright) are members of the RIAA. Talk about conflicting interests...
Now we'll see if the rumors are true! (Score:5, Funny)
Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Having read the order, I get the sense that the Judge really really understands what is going on and is not going to let them weasel out of their own lies.
The Judge is going to take their claims perfectly literally with no prejudice. They say that they want public knowledge of the suits, thus, she finds it "curious" that they don't want it televised. So, she takes them at their word (wanting public knowledge of the law suits) and "helps" them do what they say they claim to want to do.
Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.
They are stuck because these are counter claims, and while I'm not a lawyer, even if BMG/Sony drop the suit, I believe the counter claims live on. So, they can't drop it. They have to fight a Harvard Law Professor and his students, and it will all be public for display.
I'm going to buy some popcorn and watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is giving me goosebumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Aikido in action. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike judges before her, she knows they are lying. They know they are lying. Nesson knows they are lying. The case is a blackmail scam and everyone involved knows it, this time, even the judge.
Unless she's a pisspoor judge, she won't have any definite opinion on the matter in hand - or if she does, she'll keep it very much to herself.
She may, on the other hand, want to make absolutely certain that every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed. Which I would think is a very good quality in a judge.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Informative)
It won;t escalate like most of us would like. When it's looking like things will go bad, they'll "settle" and not allow it to follow through making a precedent.
In a counter claim, the defendant has to "agree" to settle, and I don't think Nesson and his students are looking to do that.
DISCLAIMER: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would appear to be Bitstream's English 111 Vivace. [myfonts.com]
Re:Could it be that (Score:5, Funny)
they have really ugly lawyers?
No. Like most aliens who walk among us impersonating humans, they have modified their appearance.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, wise guy...I think I just swallowed my false teeth guffawing.
Well being modded "Funny" is, for me, a rarity, so I feel good about that. Except of course about the teeth.
Now, are you gonna take my case against yourself, or what?!?!?
You'd lose.
I do admire your ability to separate work from play
Haven't been good at that lately, every since I got into this war with the RIAA. My idea of play lately has been to hang out on Slashdot, which is not so different than what I do for a living -- i.e. argue, defend myself from abuse, try to make it clear what the law is, etc.
but at the same time being able to get your viewpoint across without compromising your clients, cases, or career in the whole process of upholding a cause by effective* means.
See, my play is a lot like my work.
Kudos, sir! BTW, thanks for all your contributions here on /., and more importantly for your 'real world' efforts in court.
There is a reason I added you to my friends list...keep up the good fight. (your website is the only one I disable Adblock+, and NoScript extensions in Firefox 100%
Thanks
as I also donate any income tax refunds to the EFF-I believe in the cause and am not afraid to support it)
They are a wonderful organization. The only thing I have against them is that