Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause 267
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."
I'm deeply concerned (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously . . . (Score:2)
'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard" of her order.'
When you cut off your nose to spite your face, you never look better.
Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights.
There, fixed that for ya - just 6 words too many....
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm deeply concerned too (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm deeply concerned that the court is being the RIAA's pawn and making orders that have no other purpose than to protect a slimy group of companies' public image...
Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's deeply involved in a worldview where pretty much everyone looks evil. This means he'll be tempted to treat opposing council, grumpy judges and uppity clients like they're evil. That's a bad thing.
The test for crazy as a fox vs just crazy is to see if he's still got a sense of humor. If he's willing to make fun of himself, assume fox. If not, crazy.
--dave
Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much everyone DOES look evil, and properly so. Mostly because they care more about the approval of others than their own integrity, are petty, easily upset, manipulative, domineering towards those who are weaker than they but meek towards those who are stronger, and make excuses for doing things that they know are wrong if they want to do them badly enough. You can file all of that away under "not really leading your own life but instead being far too subject to outside influences which do not have your best interests at heart." It's evil, though it's not malicious as most people don't understand why this is wrong or the tremendous suffering it leads to and they think it's normal because it is common.
The way you said "treating opposing council, grumpy judges, and uppity clients like they're evil" reveals how normal people think this is. If you are not part of the problem I just summarized, then you treat everyone by the same standard. That standard is simple and also hard to explain but the basic idea is "if they force you to defend yourself in some way (i.e. legally in this case), then do it reasonably, without hesitation or malice, while regretting that things had to be that way. Otherwise, treat them with compassion and loving-kindness not because they do or don't deserve it, but because of who you are." The reason why returning evil for evil does not work is that it only increases the amount of evil in the world. The problem is that people can see how self-evident that is, and then they go and get the idea that being "good" means being a push-over or a doormat. There's a right way to stand up for yourself. You can do it while taking on none of the negative traits of those who made you do so.
Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I love the general principal of pissing off judges...why is this idiot pissing off the judge???
Because there's no reason this proceeding should be kept private. It's about copyright infringement, where enforcement should be a public issue -- especially when damages are being issued at those who break copyrights. Can you IMAGINE living in a world where you can get sued for copyright infringement and not let anyone know what you infringed, how you infringed, or what the reasoning was behind the order? How is there sanity in that?
Lawyer: Sir, we have 13 recorded attempts of you singing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging. These are blatant copyright infringements and for each of these public performances, you face a fine of $80,000.
You: Lots of people sing "Eye of the Tiger" while jogging, and they don't get sued!
Lawyer: Oh, thousands are getting sued for it. Now you'll have to agree not to discuss your case with anyone but your lawyer or you'll be spending jail time as well. We're willing to settle for $5,000. We take credit cards!
Copyright enforcement should never, ever be held behind closed doors unless at the request of the prosecuted in order to preserve their reputation if found innocent. I, personally, would be willing to spend jail time in order to make this point, if I had to. I would hope anyone who thinks themself an honest American would at least consider it.
Listen to the MP3's (Score:5, Insightful)
Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.
It's a horrible attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark about this whole ordeal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Listening now, but given that you have a strong opinion on the matter, do you care to explain? In fact, does anyone knowledgeable care to explain what arguments were made about these recordings, why they should or shouldn't be public, etc.? I scanned the linked articles and nothing caught my eye as a clear explanation of what's going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hell with lynching plaintiffs. Time to lynch judges.
More judges will stop being asshats if they realize the public will rise up and burn them in the courtyard.
Kind of expected (Score:5, Insightful)
The professor had to expect something like this. It's like playing chess. He'll respond with his next move, etc...
It's interesting to watch this and the Camara case unfold. Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
His next move could be to pull out his checkbook to pay a fine and/or go to jail.
Re: Copyright Chess! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! Slashdot's new game!
RIAA on White, Sanity on Black
It's an Alekhine's Defense to the mark!
1. RIAA-e4, Jammie Thomas - f6
2. RIAA-e5, Jammie Thomas -d5
3. RIAA-d4, Prof Nesson- d6
4. RIAA-c4, Jammie Thomas gets kicked to b6 with the 1.92Mil verdict.
5. RIAA-f4 , ____
We have only about 3 moves left before they get a total lock. Our move.
Eccentricities will get you no where (Score:3, Insightful)
These professors (this one and the city of heroes professor) are bypassing rules to basically focus on the x,y, or z. There are rules for engaging 2 or more people, societies and most definitely the judicial systems. Trying to focus on the abstract with out playing by the rules gets you kicked out of the game. It's no real loss when you get kicked out of an MMO by the player base you can move on.
However, when you mess up a court case you start setting precedents, and screwing a lot more people than yourself and your client. Pissing off a judge which this Prof. has done before is not going to bode well. Maybe he should stick to academia.
Re:Eccentricities will get you no where (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not excusing the professor(s) conduct in this matter, but I am not excusing a judge who should be putting his/her bias in the closet next to the raincoats either. Judges who act with willful contempt for either party (or favor... take the DeCSS case as an example) in a case should be thrown off the bench (preferably from a great distance up...) Bias has no purpose in black robes... Justice is blind.... and it should be a Vulcan.
End It (Score:5, Interesting)
Disconnect from the RIAA.
- Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly.
- Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.
As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:2)
Disconnect from the RIAA. - Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly. - Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.
As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"
I was tempted to ask if you even read the comment, but I suppose that isn't very reasonable. So I'll ask you an alternate question: why do you think the part about "not using ("consuming") their products, neither legally nor illegally" would fail to address that? It would help me to understand you if you can be as specific as possible.
So far, the fact that piracy does occur and is taking place has been the main excuse behind many of these bad laws. Personally, I think their failure to handle digital
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct. The RIAA does indeed have at least some argument on the grounds that music piracy does actually happen, and that is why they have pursued legal action against so many people. The thing you might not have come to understand when you made your comment was that the RIAA will continue to blame piracy for all of their problems whether it really is happening or not. They have brought people to court that never used a computer, let alone downloaded anything. They can't seem to decide how much mone
Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.
Radiohead made some good sales despite the option of downloading that album ("In Rainbows") for free. If that proved anything, it proved that when you offer to give away free music, many people will not pay but more than enough will decide to support you. By "more than enough" I mean that it was definitely a profitable venture for them, by any standard. You may find this [wikipedia.org] an interesting read.
I love how... (Score:3, Insightful)
The have been learing how to do it from SCO vs IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
Just look at the legal tactics employed in the various cases.
SCO (like the RIAA) needs to be put out of its misery but they refise to lie down & die.
The RIAA tactics to delay & avoid giving real evidence especially about the real damages incurred is (IMHO) straight out of the SCO textbook.
I wish judges had the nerve to standup to this obvious bullshit & lies and tell them to stop wasting the courts time and get to the nitty gritty. But judges (in the USA) are AFAIK, elected and have to run campa
Caroling DDoS the Courts (Score:5, Interesting)
DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...
Re: (Score:2)
I think a public performance of "Happy Birthday" on the 4th of July would have been fitting.
Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly. DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...
What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.
'Cause I wanted to. (Score:2)
Shooting yourself in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."
The many woes of the geek in court:
1 The lawyer who tells him what only what he wants to hear.
2 The pro bono lawyer with an axe to grind:
"You too can become a poster child for the EFF!"
3 The law professor who thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.
4 The defendant who also thinks he would have made a hotshot trial attorney.
5 The lawyer with an unholy gift for pissing off a judge.
6 The defendant who takes the stand.
Only a geek could unleash such a steaming pile of shit - and never catch a whiff of it. "Tar and feathers ain't good enough for him, boys!"
7 The lawyer who ups the stakes each time he loses a round. The defendant who comes along for the ride.
The Supreme Court accepts perhaps 150 cases a year for oral argument. You just might make the cut.
You might also be the big winner in the tri-state lotto.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, I when the law is against you, and the facts - on the balance of probability - are against you, then all you've got left is to throw a hissy fit.
When the facts are against you, bang the law.
When the law is against you, bang the facts.
When the facts and the law are against you, bang the table.
--- and when your client insists on taking the stand, bang his head.
I'm really curious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple (Score:3)
The public should have a right to view the proceedings of the court. As risk of judicial bias, due to party affiliation and political contributions; in addition to the high profile nature of the case, the additional access and disclousure is necessary to secure the confidence of the population at large.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals
Yes.
surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.
What have you submitted lately?
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Three cars are jumping rope when one breaks down, the other two look at each other; shrug; and then Tuesday starts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So... Firehose? I know it's a new feature and all, but still.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.
Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts. I've been around and posting comments since a few months after slashdot was created. Abandoned it about the time I decided I didn't want my boss knowing how much I was slacking off posting to slashdot (I had my name on my sig for a while and all it takes is one google search for my name to link me to it).
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts.
And my other car is a Ferrari.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure is. Or something.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Can't speak to how often it happens, as I've never seen anyone claim it before. In my case, I wouldn't actually want the account back unless I did get a job at slashdot (yeah, right) or was self-employed and didn't need to look for a job again. It has my initials as the username and I signed some of my earliest posts with my full name (yeah, stupid in retrospect but I was still a bit of a young-un at the time). Even after I had that account, I started mostly posting AC because I was getting paranoid.
Sinc
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Funny)
I remember my username. It's rather easy, considering it's my initials.
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In other words, your well-reasoned and clearly-articulated arguments were falling on deaf ears when people saw the username "AwSumDood69"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aagh! I just can't help it!
Nope, not bitter, just like to have discussions about something interesting, rather than rehash the same old arguments every time.
You *must* be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It will be a major occurrence if he actually gets sanctioned. If he doesn't, it will just be another blip. So why not wait until he actually gets sanctioned to post about it? Does anyone think that somehow we can change the judge's mind on this issue?
Having the minutiae ("someone is thinking about doing something but hasn't done it yet") left to blogs like NYCL's excellent one isn't depriving anyone. As far as the "don't read it" argument goes, the problem is that I am interested in the cases. I can't
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Interesting)
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
Their irrelevant business model is built on artificial scarcity that could only work in a time where information carriers and distribution were the bottlenecks. Now with the internet and ridiculously large storage devices, this bottleneck has been eliminated entirely. So much in fact, that everyone can carry tens of thousands of songs - entire genres - in their pocket.
They need and deserve to fail. This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!
It is a very important fight and one that needs to be won. I say: give us all the information there is!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?
That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fin
Re: (Score:2)
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?
That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.
I consider that, so far as I know, no one has forced you to read this story. I consider as well that you have probably made more posts in this story than any other single poster. Further, there are stories here on the Slashdot main page which really don't interest me; you won't see me posting in them.
In light of that, I believe that what you're doing here is like going into a Mexican restaurant and then complaining to the staff that you really don't like Mexican food. Further, you're getting outraged
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's funny that you're not the first to follow this line. Complain about me because I complain about something else. I have a lot of posts in this thread, but they're all in response to people responding to me. It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.
I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.
Re: (Score:2)
"That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders."
You would need to exempt the major shareholders from the pay back... ones with people on the board at least? Some top people would need to suffer some personally for the deed as well I would guess...
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).
You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.
Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be
Re: (Score:2)
An even better question is: do we really need copyright?
Re:Too much detail (Score:4, Insightful)
An even better question is: do we really need copyright?
Fair question, but I think the short answer is yes. But the point of copyright protection was once to protect creators from abuses by big business. In the time of Goethe, for instance, if he did not have family money and wealthy patrons, his writing would not have supported him. When he finished a book, it would get one good printing, and then all the feeder-level publishers would buy one copy each, and make copies themselves. All works would immediately become commodities.
A little more recently, you can look to artists like Little Richard, whose songs were used in Disney films, commercials, TV shows, over and over and over, without any payment to him, because ASCAP wasn't there to enforce copyright protections.
Metallica aside, most artists aren't worried about individuals pirating their music. Hell, I'd be thrilled if someone decided that my old band's music [dimspace.com] was awesome and it hit number one on the torrents. That would mean that my art touched people. But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.
My feeling is that copyright is necessary, but it's being abused, and the abusers are working hard to limit--even destroy--any "fair use" cases that we've taken for granted.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But if Roy Disney decided that one of my songs was great for his multi-billion-dollar film and didn't want to pay me a dime, that would be unacceptable.
I understand where you're coming from on feeling like you need to control your own music in such a way, but in reality I think you'd be far better off if they used it and didn't get a dime. It'd promote you far beyond anything you could do on your own, assuming people like the music. It's really only when bands get huge, like Metallica, that it makes more financial sense for them to be more restrictive with the music being played outside of their concerts.
Sorry, I accidentally posted something on-topic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes we do~
Re:Too much detail (Score:5, Insightful)
In a word, "yes".
You can see from this article and the pressure that's being put on Professor Nesson to keep the proceedings secret that the RIAA has reasons to keep what it's doing out of the media.
That's the best reason I can think of for making sure it gets in the media at every opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system or corporate media, both of whom are heavily influenced by corporate money, to tell us what's going on.
Maybe you think the most important thing we can read about on Slashdot is the latest patches for the iPhone, but what's happening in our courts right now is going to have a much greater impact on our lives and use of technology for years to come.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But it's not being posted in "the media." It's being posted on slashdot, a site where the great majority of us are already on-board the "RIAA is evil" bandwagon. It's not changing any minds having the legal minutiae posted here.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point with all this irritating self pity?
You click on a story that is minutiae overload for you, then whine and complain about the overload.
You can just not click on the story and spare yourself the heartache, so quit your childish whining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you know, the RIAAs crimes do not go away, just because you find them less interesting with time.
I bet when the Nazis rose in Germany, you would also stated that there would be too much stories about the NSDAP in the news.
Ooh, it bores you? Well, then we must stop. Because your entertainment is the most important thing on the planet! Nothing can come between you and it.
How rude of some people, to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom and of the Internet as we know it.
St
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Try reading my post. I didn't complain about coverage of the trails, but about the level of detail. Hell, it was right there in the TITLE.
My post was no more self-centered than your little rant here, and if I do say so myself it was quite a bit less petulant. Time to take your own advice about whining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom
I suspect that a systematic deconstruction of our freedom would actually be quite boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.
It was very astute of that particular AC to figure out that the entire world is separated into either RIAA shills or those who care passionately about the daily motions and orders and findings of every court case the RIAA is currently involved in. I bow before such a gifted mind. Maybe we should put them in charge of the Precrime division.
Re: (Score:2)
The person who called whiledo (1515553) a "shill" after his first comment on this thread did accuse him too quickly.
However, his subsequent posts, and his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners, do bolster the accusation, and indicate a shill-like nature, if not outright shill-dom.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners
[citation needed]
Seriously. Post some links rather than just making accusations. This should be fun.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I: Did you ever bother to read this? I didn't post anything agreeing with the RIAA. My post was how NYCL's post made it sound like the RIAA was gonna get smacked down, and the complete opposite happened. I was disappointed.
LOVE: This was basically the same thing, only the first time it was a general comment and the second time it was directed at Ray, who responded. It's funny you can take a comment where I say I don't like the verdict that Jammie Thomas is guilty and claim that's RIAA shill.
THE: Saying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that intellectual "property" affects practically every area of interest covered on Slashdot, it seems appropriate to discuss it when it comes up, no matter the section.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the word of support, mate. I think part of the problem is that many people read my post complaining about posting too often about legal minutiae and instead interpreted it as complaining about posting about the RIAA at all. That's why I wouldn't actually be all that interested in having a category that I can exclude. I want to know about how the trial turns out. I just understand that all this stuff has very little to do with it. I was also rooting for Jammie Thomas and you would thought she
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, honestly, how can anyone NOT read your crap seeing that you've taken up 3/4 of the god damn discussion. Suddenly this entire topic became about YOU and YOU alone.
The reason this thread is taking up most of the discussion is that there's nothing to discuss. This story is almost identical to yesterday's story [slashdot.org] that garnered a whopping 123 comments (including all the down-moderated ones). Today's "news" is just that the judge took the next step and asked Nesson to respond. Then they'll be a step after that when she rules based on his response. Couldn't we have just waited until the ruling, because you'd have the same thing to talk about, only then it would actually
Re: (Score:2)
Not about RIAA [slashdot.org]
Not about RIAA [slashdot.org]
Not about RIAA [slashdot.org]
In fact, only ONE topic about RIAA on the front page. This particular page about RIAA is, however, almost entirely about this one person's gripe with the admins. Your comparison was absolutely ridiculous, and "childish" since you're wanting to go in that direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy doesn't have enough sense to anonymously leak the recordings to the web so he can't be sanctioned for them, and he has the nerve to call himself a professor?
Congratulations.
You have now upped the ante to the point where you risk doing time for contempt of court -
your tenured professorship at Harvard Law is at stake -
and your license to practice is at stake.
You will also very likely have made such a wreckage of your client's case that he will have no option but to settle out of court.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When did you last put your neck on the line for justice?