×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA's Oppenheim Tries To Protect MediaSentry

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the investigators-in-crosshairs dept.

The Courts 216

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks, has requested permission to intervene in the 'probable cause' hearing scheduled next week in Raleigh, North Carolina, against MediaSentry. The hearing was convened by North Carolina's Private Protective Services Board, after complaints were filed by a law firm representing a number of North Carolina State University students who had been targeted by the RIAA based on the unlicensed 'investigation' conducted by SafeNet (the new name for MediaSentry). I guess the RIAA is worried. They should be."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

216 comments

Fuck em (5, Insightful)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015305)

Fuck them and what the stand for. Legally sanctioned oppression. Fuck em.

Re:Fuck em (5, Interesting)

Divebus (860563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015319)

Maybe they should try changing the name again.

Re:Fuck em (4, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015327)

what was the name of teh RIAA before?

mafia?

Re:Fuck em (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015329)

Or maybe have a very public dissection and destruction of the company stating that through no fault of their own the name has been overly discredited.

(while having the assets sold to wholly owned subsidiaries and partner companies who then resell the assets to a newly company that happens to do the exact same things but has no link to the original after a few layers of shuffling around the people and equiment).

Re:Fuck em (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015331)

if you're not a common thief you have nothing to worry about. how about you stop acting like the law is there to break and that this is some kind of socio-political movement. anyone with half a brain knows that it's about you fucks being a bunch of cheap faggots.

Re:Fuck em (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015549)

Yeah, because what the other guy does always excuses your own unethical behavior and abuse (in my opinion) of the legal system. You want to be sanctimonious and talk about how other people should behave ethically? Try leading by example first, and try convincing the RIAA to do something like that (though apologists like you with your "ends justify the means" pronouncements are not much better and are quite possibly worse).

Again this is an exhibit of what I call fanboyism. I call it that having no certainty as to whether this is what other people mean when they use the word, but it seems to apply. Most Microsoft apologists fit this pattern as well, and it's one of the few viable explanations of why any average person would want to defend and advocate for a company with a marketing budget that could purchase a few small countries. It's the typical "us against them" bullshit where you envision two competing "teams" and you root for your favorite "team" and take their losses personally and celebrate their victories personally. It's pretty nice, except for that little fact that you yourself have done nothing to contribute to either "team" and have never participated in either faction's activities, so really it's your own need to live vicariously and maybe also a need to feel like part of something greater than yourself. It's a shame that with a whole unknown Universe out there, people settle for petty sports teams or corporations/brands or legal contests to fulfill this need to be a part of something greater, but I digress. It's like football fans when they say "we won" instead of "they won" or "my team won" even though I didn't see said fan out there in the field playing the game. I know that the difference may sound like minor semantics but it's actually a reflection of the mentality.

The remedy to this self-limiting mentality is to consider the morality (for lack of a better word) of the long-term consequences and how the implications could affect everyone. From this perspective, the reality is that if the RIAA/MPAA went bankrupt and its leadership decided to disband it tomorrow, life would go on with little or no impact to anyone else and in all likelihood they would not be missed; in this sense they are expendable. Meanwhile, if these kinds of legal tactics and the intimidation/extortion (in my opinion) that they create become more acceptable, it could adversely impact many people including those who have nothing to do with the entertainment industry. It's the kind of thing that could be a detriment to the legal system and the rule of law as a whole; these are things which are not expendable. In the face of these questions, the "evils" of copyright infringement in and of itself are barely a footnote when compared to the damage that can be caused by not correctly reacting to them.

Re:Fuck em (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015833)

"If you have a point commander, PLEASE make it." - Ambassador G'Kar

I didn't really understand what you were saying. To me saying "Fuck em" is a perfectly valid to thing to say when dealing with a tyrant or tyrannical oligarchy. It makes clear exactly what you think of the oppression you are experiencing & what you'd like to do to said tyrant.

Re:Fuck em (5, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015859)

P.S.

To elaborate: "Fuck em" is what Harriet Tubman & the owners of safety houses probably said when she stolen slaves from southern masters and led them to the north. It's what Ghandi said when he arranged protests against the British oppression. It's what Rosa Parks probably thought when she illegally sat in the white section of the bus - "fuck the law; it's wrong; I will do as we please".

"Fuck em" is an effective method of protest against unjust laws.

Re:Fuck em (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016851)

"Fuck em" is an effective method of protest against unjust laws.

I agree. Sleeping with a few politicians and judges might get some laws changed!

Re:Fuck em (2, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016131)

"If you have a point commander, PLEASE make it." - Ambassador G'Kar

I didn't really understand what you were saying. To me saying "Fuck em" is a perfectly valid to thing to say when dealing with a tyrant or tyrannical oligarchy. It makes clear exactly what you think of the oppression you are experiencing & what you'd like to do to said tyrant.

Yeah, I probably should have quoted the AC to whom I was responding, especially since he/she was modded down to -1. I apologize if that caused any confusion. This is the verbatim text of the AC:

if you're not a common thief you have nothing to worry about. how about you stop acting like the law is there to break and that this is some kind of socio-political movement. anyone with half a brain knows that it's about you fucks being a bunch of cheap faggots.

In other words, the AC was saying that because people infringe on the copyrights of others, they bring all of the RIAA's tactics upon themselves, as though that makes the RIAA's tactics good and acceptable. I agree with the "fuck 'em" idea. In my opinion the *AA organizations and their tactics are reprehensible. It was the AC and his/her attempt at an "ends justify the means" rationalization that I was addressing. When I pointed out that I believe this to be an instance of fanboyism, it was an attempt at an explanation for why this AC is so upset over the whole thing and unwilling to participate in anything resembling constructive discussion.

The AC's post is the kind of post that I would normally write off as a troll and would therefore be less inclined to respond to, except that there really are plenty of people who have such shallow black-and-white views on what are actually complex issues that don't have such easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys". I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb at all when I say that people who immediately take such a narrow black-and-white view on the subject of copyright, in spite of evidence to the contrary, are quite likely to use similar decision-making on other subjects (I would speculate that they're more interested in feeling "right", implying someone else was wrong, than they are in deciding what is true, making this a sort of ego-induced tunnel vision). Therefore, copyright is only one example of such an issue and happened to be the subject of discussion, but it's really the mentality behind such viewpoints that I was trying to describe.

Re:Fuck em (1)

Anton Styles (1336251) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016229)

Causility was not responding to GP saying "Fuck em", he was responding to an AC who said:

if you're not a common thief you have nothing to worry about. how about you stop acting like the law is there to break and that this is some kind of socio-political movement. anyone with half a brain knows that it's about you fucks being a bunch of cheap faggots.

Thus was the discourse directed at an uninformed defender of what is in my opinion an extortion racket, who also implied that everyone who violates copyright law is a "common thief" - akin to "all Jews are greedy", "all arabs are terrorists", "all americans are George Bush" etc etc. As you can see, Causality did not by any stretch argue against the "fuck em" stance, he eloquently elaborated on that stance in an effort to give AC a clue as to why exactly the RIAA can get fucked.

Off Topic (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016397)

You have an awesome User ID number.

Re:Off Topic (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016555)

You have an awesome User ID number.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought it was at least unusual (especially in a numerological sense).

Yes, mods, I know this is off-topic.

Re:Fuck em (3, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015339)

Legally sanctioned oppression.

I think the jurry is still out on that one, after all, there are several RIAA cases pending that don't look good for the RIAA, and it looks like MediaSentry may be brought up on the unlicensed PI thing in several venues...

Re:Fuck em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015703)

What, exactly, is a 'jurry'?

Re:Fuck em (4, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015355)

I quite agree with this sentiment, but I think there is more to say. The fact that someone is intervening on the behalf of the criminals formerly known as Media Sentry is indicative that they need help. Clearly, that is a good sign for those being persecuted by means of egregious use of the court systems.

It would be very nice to see Media Sentry or SafeNet (or whatever name they use) barred from courtrooms everywhere, and their 'evidence' be forbidden in the court room. That might just put an end to all of this business of using the courts to validate using the government resource to act as the investigative arm of the **AA and associated groups.

What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong. Setting right this one problem would probably end all this bs. I hope so anyway.

Re:Fuck em (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015599)

I would have thought PI activity would have been worth a prison sentence...

Re:Fuck em (2, Informative)

perlchild (582235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015661)

that's PI activity, without a license.

Re:Fuck em (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016677)

What's the sentence for this unlicensed Pi activity? 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406 28620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940 81284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461 28475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249 14127372458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436789259036001133053 05488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931 05118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656 64308602139494639522473719070217986094370277053921717629317675238467481846 76694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249 53430146549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960864034418159813629 77477130996051870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859502445945534 69083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206 17177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957781857780532

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

mauthbaux (652274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016387)

What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong.

While I completely agree that their methods are abhorrent, I'm left wondering what legal means the RIAA had of pursuing their case. The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers. Their methods under the guise of Media Sentry are obviously less than ideal (both morally and legally), so what *should* they have done? Getting a PI license is obvious, but the evidence gained this way is still shaky. Getting warrants for each and every individual infringer? Probably, but as I understand it, the evidence necessary to justify a warrant needs to be a little more significant than just a name attached to an IP address. I suppose they could pay ISPs to monitor their traffic and get the same results they did with Media Sentry, but can ISPs legally monitor their own traffic that way (and report the results to a third party)?

I'm not trying to be an RIAA apologist. I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized by all of us.

Re:Question (2, Insightful)

hedrick (701605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016819)

Probably the only thing left is to lobby congress to change the law in some way to make it practical to go after people, e.g. requiring ISPs and colleges to be responsible for enough monitoring to identify people for real. I'm not happy at the thought of this, but you ask for courses of action, and that's a likely one.

Re:Question (4, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016881)

They can use the same method that hundreds of thousands of renters use when their landlords illegally keep $50 or $100 of their cleaning deposit. They either take a legal route that costs more to prosecute than it is worth, or they write it off as the inevitable screwing that you get when you are dealing with values too low to warrant a lawyer.

The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.

And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016977)

The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers.

Yes, they do. I don't think that we'd have had a problem with them if they followed the rules of the game. The problem is that they keep changing the rules in their favor to make money.

The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact copyright laws, and in 1790 they did [wikipedia.org] . The original copyright term was 14 years with the right to renew for an additional 14 year term. So, at most, 28 years.

But in the last 200 years, the copyright has been extended 5 or 6 times to a point where it's flat-out ridiculous. Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.

Copyright is, in modern times, basically meant to protect content creators' works so they can exclusively make money from those works. This would ostensibly allow people in creative industries like writing, composing, etc. can have a livelihood since they do not produce tangible goods like machinists, farmers, etc. It's supposed to encourage content creators to create new works for the greater public good.

But they don't. Sure, people write new books and make new songs, but the incentive isn't really there anymore. Most copyrights nowadays are held by corporations, not people. I personally believe that this is one of the factors that contributed to the emerging anti-copyright movement (copyleft, creative commons, etc.)

For copyright to reform, changes need to be made. One day the system may be functionally obsolete if people continue to give up their copyrights as it, and its enforcers, is being viewed as a less palatable scheme more and more over time. A good start, in my opinion, would be:

1) Bring down copyright back to reasonable terms - something like 5-10 years. How often do books/music/etc. make money after the first few years? Certainly not enough to justify such a long copyright.

2) Make it so only people - not corporations - can hold copyrights. Copyright cartels literally sit on their duffs getting fat off of royalties and trying to protect that money. It's the very definition of protection money and most of the time it doesn't even go to the artists themselves anyway.

3) Make fines in the case of restitution more reasonable. A fine of hundreds of dollars for a song that can be bought for $0.99 is patently ridiculous. Restitution on fair market value with a 200%-300% penalty would be more than fair enough to make up any money lost.

Ultimately, reforms like these will help unclog the courts and make it much more likely that money actually gets into the artist's hands - where it's intended. The RIAA is necessary in some ways - like a union for artists. But rather than working for the artists, the artists work for them. Put the power back in the hands of the creators.

Re:Fuck em (1)

forgoil (104808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015445)

Sir, I couldn't agree more!

And I think the article got it wrong, it's not safenet, it's SkyNet...

Prince of Darkness, hah! (3, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015347)

"The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim..."

How lang has he been Prince of Darkness? I bet not since 1979 [youtube.com] !

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015395)

Actually, Prince of Darkness is his job title. Says so right on his card and on his office door, Mr. Matthew Oppenheim, Chief Prince of Darkness.

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (3, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015409)

How lang has he been Prince of Darkness? I bet not since 1979 [youtube.com]!

Trust me on this one.

Sort of reminded me of this bit (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015469)

The whole Prince of Darkness bit reminded me of this:

Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came.

That was the last time in those wars that he passed the doors of his stronghold, and it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for though his might was greatest of all things in this world, alone of the Valar he knew fear. But he could not now deny the challenge before the face of his captains; for the rocks rang with the shrill music of Fingolfin's horn, and his voice came keen and clear down into the depths of Angband; and Fingolfin named Morgoth craven, and lord of slaves. Therefore Morgoth came, climbing slowly from his subterranean throne, and the rumour of his feet was like thunder underground. And he issued forth clad in black armour; and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable unblazoned, cast a shadow over him like a stormcloud. But Fingolfin gleamed beneath it as a star; for his mail was overlaid with silver, and his blue shield was set with crystals; and he drew his sword Ringil, that glittered like ice.

Possibly a bit too poetic, and we're hoping Robertson does better than Fingolfin...but it's the first thing that popped into my head.

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016099)

So the tarheels have the phoney gumshoes and the RIAA so terrified they are bringing in the Prince of Darkness? Someone call the Dukes! Heck, Boss Hogg might even want to get in on this one as he hates competition.

It has been many years since I was in that state but when I was last there the real good ole boys still ran around and some had stills hidden about. In decades of trying the revenuers etc never were completely able to shut them down completely. They tend to learn what they need to for survival and more. NC has The Triangle now too. The people in those parts hate phonies. The RIAA may have bitten off more then they can chew this time.

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016171)

I'm not really sure. Did Nixon give up the title when he resigned the Presidency, or only on his death? Not sure what the rules are on this one.

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016729)

"The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim..."

How lang has he been Prince of Darkness? I bet not since 1979 [youtube.com] !

What I would like to see is the RIAA go toe-to-toe with IBM over copyright infringement. Prince of Darkness he may be ... but my money would be on the Nazgul [wikia.com] .

According to the linked article Slashdot is responsible for the appellation:

This usage appears to have originated in a comment on Slashdot:

"Not long ago, the Black Gate of Armonk swung open. The lights went out, my skin crawled, and dogs began to howl. I asked my neighbor what it was and he said, 'Those are the NazgÃl. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'" (IBM is headquartered in Armonk, New York).

Goog Grief! (3, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015379)

Could someone please introduce Ray Beckerman to a decent CMS and donate some design work so his site doesn't hurt the eyes?

Re:Goog Grief! (5, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015427)

Could someone please introduce Ray Beckerman to a decent CMS and donate some design work so his site doesn't hurt the eyes?

Why thank you.

Dear Slashdot Mods, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016835)

Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way. Seriously mods, go find something else to masturbate to. He's a wonderful guy, no one is disputing that, but when he takes a shit it still stinks and he cannot walk on water. The definitions of clearly-worded guidelines, such as the moderation guidelines, don't change because it would suit your personal feelings. To pretend otherwise is utterly childish.

Re:Dear Slashdot Mods, (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016995)

To pretend otherwise is utterly childish.

Sarah Jane: Oh, Doctor. You're just being childish."

Doctor Who: "What's wrong with being childish? I like being childish."

Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.

Re:Dear Slashdot Mods, (3, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26017017)

Just because you really like a guy (and I like NewYorkCountryLawyer too -- his work is invaluable) does not mean that "Why thank you" is Insightful in any way.

You are of course 100% right about that. I wasn't being 'insightful' or 'informative', I was just expressing my gratitude. But the thing is, sometimes when I do that I get modded down as 'redundant', so this just kind of evens things out.

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015563)

The site (template) looks good. Clear, clean, with enough air.

The content just misses basic formatting.
The pictures are not thumbnailed, but resized via html/css, which is very unprofessional.
The text is formatted in the style of the last millennium. There are even <font> tags in it. A clear sign that the developer's skills are completely outdated.
In fact the whole content misses any correctly used semantic markup, and uses no CSS.
And I would recommend a non-serif font for the normal text (better to read on the screen), and the Georgia font for headlines, tough. Looks better. :)
If someone gave me 50, I'd fix the whole markup mess in an evening. A complete redesign would cost 400 tough (but is not required).

Euro = € = â (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015575)

It seems, that in the above post, the Euro sign was eaten by Slashdot's outdated, non-Unicode-compatible system.

It's 50€ and 400€. And this time I'll preview and use &euro;. :)

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015615)

The site (template) looks good. Clear, clean, with enough air. The content just misses basic formatting. The pictures are not thumbnailed, but resized via html/css, which is very unprofessional. The text is formatted in the style of the last millennium. There are even tags in it. A clear sign that the developer's skills are completely outdated. In fact the whole content misses any correctly used semantic markup, and uses no CSS. And I would recommend a non-serif font for the normal text (better to read on the screen), and the Georgia font for headlines, tough. Looks better. :) If someone gave me 50, I'd fix the whole markup mess in an evening. A complete redesign would cost 400 tough (but is not required).

Thank you very much! Couple of questions:
1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture?
2. What should I do instead of using font tags?
3. What is semantic markup?
4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else.
PS There is no 'developer' just one unqualified unschooled amateur... moi.

Re:Goog Grief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015757)

You've done exceedingly well considering your generation. I've visited a number of times and I come for the content, not the presentation, so I never really noticed. Not everyone needs a Sun or Microsoft style homepage awash in CSS. The old way gets it done same as the new way. It renders the content, doesn't it? Just because it's not the new and cool way doesn't mean it doesn't work. I wouldn't sweat the little stuff too much. Focus on your lawyering.

Re:Goog Grief! (2, Insightful)

MathFox (686808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015781)

There is two issues with websites: content and presentation. Let me say that the content of RIAAvsPeople is unique and worthy of a mention in "History of the Internet". The presentation is acceptable, as you work within some Blogspot limitations. If you spent a few 100 dollar on website design and your personal education (Ray, you are a very good amateur web-publisher), it would look better, more professional. I am not convinced that your message would hit harder; my philosophy is that, for websites like yours, design can distract from the message. Keep it simple, concentrate on the message! You have something to tell that is important.

Re:Goog Grief! (2, Informative)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015793)

This is pretty off-topic and I'm the last person to give any advice on web design.. but whatever...

1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture?

See where you have:

<img width="263" src="http://beckermanlegal.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/2_hands_towards_right_side.18052817_std.jpg" height="175" class="yssImg yssImgD" >

That means the browser on my computer is downloading the full size image (which is actually 450px Ã-- 301px in this case) and resizing it. What he's suggesting is that you replace that picture (and any others on the site) with one of the correct size so the browser doesn't have to resize it locally. Relying on the browser to do this correctly isn't a great idea.

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015843)

Relying on the browser to do this correctly isn't a great idea.

There are 2 main reasons why relying on the browser to scale is bad:
1. Browser image scaling is fast but HORRIBLE quality. Images that are scaled by the browser look horrible since rows are dropped instead of any kind of interpolation, to speed things up and use less memory.

2. it wastes bandwidth, people are downloading a bigger picture than they are seeing, for no gain.

However, it does let you hotlink images from other websites and change the size, but you risk that image being replaced with something inappropriate, like a penis or goatse.

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015815)

Thank you very much! Couple of questions: 1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture? 2. What should I do instead of using font tags? 3. What is semantic markup? 4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else. PS There is no 'developer' just one unqualified unschooled amateur... moi.

1. Your images have certain dimensions (say, 100x300), but you are using html to make them display smaller (say, 33x100). This causes wasted bandwidth as well as wasted cpu for the viewer. The solution is to resize the actual image file to be the dimension that you want it to display.

2. 3. Font tags are an archaic method of formatting text that predates today's presentation mechanisms [wikipedia.org] . Semantic markup is a way to express structure to your document. With today's presentation mechanisms, you can use CSS to format your text. Semantic markup can give machines (eg, search engines) a clue as to how text contextually fits into a document or set of documents.

Eg:

<font size=18px face=your-font-name>Your Headline</font> <font size=10px face=some-other-font-name> Your article text.</font>

The above will look a certain way, but there is no inherent meaning to any of the blocks. While:

<h1>Your Headline</h1> <p>Your article text.</p>

is not only smaller, but you've declared one section to be a "headline" and another section to be a "paragraph". So things like search engines can parse out the "headline" a possible extract of your article. You can then use CSS to make it look the way you want.

I don't think anyone expects you to be an expert in this, or holds it against you. I'm sure some really good web designers would be happy to come up with an improved fancy blogger template for you. If for no other reason than to get their name on a widely read blog.

Also, just a side note -- I don't know how much money you make from all the amazon links, but I personally find them distracting, which takes away from your valuable content.

hth,

Re:Goog Grief! (2, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015855)

I don't know how much money you make from all the amazon links, but I personally find them distracting, which takes away from your valuable content.

Thanks very, very much for all of the valuable advice.

I make almost nothing from the affiliate ads, but hope springs eternal. I spend so much uncompensated time doing the blog, I'm hoping people will buy stuff through the links and offset some of that.

Re:Goog Grief! (3, Informative)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015919)

You might consider a blog post asking for page redesign suggestions. This is common when a blogger doesn't have the time or the skills, but has a large technical audience. This sounds like you :)

You might also consider pulling the amazon noise and being more straight-forward about your desire to be compensated for your time and effort. Maybe a simple Paypal "donate" link. Or maybe you could put a call out to illustrators and creatives to create cafepress shirts/mugs/etc which you could sell from your blog. The subject matter at hand is a bottomless mine of material.

There are obviously a lot of folks who want to support your efforts and see them continue. The hard part is figuring out how to mobilize them.

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016009)

I'd like to second this suggestion, regarding Amazon, a donate link, and CafePress.

If you think about it, Ray, this is what PJ does with Groklaw -- a "Donate" button and a CafePress link for Groklaw gear.

Re:Goog Grief! (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016895)

I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant.

And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016987)

I agree with the others who want to support to your efforts. Don't worry so much about the advertising, but add a direct donation button, take Paypal and credit-cards, and I'll bet you'll be surprised how much support you get from Slashdot users alone. Me, I'd be first in line, since I subscribe to your RSS feed (thank you for that, by the way.) As a group, I'd say we're pretty cheap (after all, we spend so much time downloading (ahem!) "free" music) but what you offer on your blog is unique and relevant. And for all you nitpickers that don't feel Ray's site is quite up to your aesthetic standards, well. If I wanted pretty pictures and no content I'd head over to FOXNEWS.COM. Ray's site is exactly what the World Wide Web was intended to be by its inventors: fast, efficient and most of all informative. The Web has largely been conscripted as a marketing tool, with all the hype and overhead that goes along with that. Keep it simple, Ray, and those of us who really care about your content will keep coming back. I'd say that's especially important: so many modern Web sites leave dial-up and foreign users out in the cold with all the baggage they have to download.

Thanks, ScrewMaster. I've restored the PayPal payment button in the sidebar here [blogspot.com] . The last time someone suggested that, over $900 came in, which was very pleasant. (Thing is, what I like about the affiliate advertising is that it doesn't cost people anything. They're going to need to buy things anyway, so just by making sure they buy it through one of my links, they help me out, and it doesn't cost them anything.)

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015845)

2. What should I do instead of using font tags?

unless I'm mistaken, you can use CSS to control fonts, but I haven't done much web design in awhile

Re:Goog Grief! (2, Informative)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015847)

1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture?

The image "080229lefthandup.jpg" is displayed on the page using scaling (your "img" tag has a "width=225 pixels" to make the picture smaller). This is considered unprofessional because you are forcing the user's browser to load a big picture when a small image would do (and would load faster). Some browsers also won't scale it nicely. So the "professional" solution is to resize the image (in Photoshop or GIMP or whatever) to the correct size and use that image, unscaled. You can always link to the full-size version if you want people to have access to it. That having been said, I don't think it's a big deal on your site: as you said it's only a single image, and you're only slightly rescaling it. (This becomes a much bigger issue when people use gigantic pictures scaled down to thumbnails, because the page load takes forever.)

2. What should I do instead of using font tags?

Modern practice is to define styles in a "cascading style sheet". You either redefine how the standard tags will display, or you create new styles with custom names. Then you always consistently use the appropriate style tags. Changes in font (and font size, etc.) can then be made just in the style file. That having been said, you run your blog off of blogspot; I'm not sure if it allows you to define custom CSS or not.

3. What is semantic markup?

This is the same complaint as #2. Basically if you're defining a site "properly" you define classes of text, like "emphasis" or "quoting" or "blogentry". Then you flag your text (using markup like "div class=blogentry" or whatever) and it gets formatted properly. This is better because you avoid hard-coding the changes for each and every time you want to change a look. For example, once all the quotes have been labeled with "quoting" you can easily change the look/feel of the entire site just by changing the definition of the style for "quoting". This also means that the various text regions have been flagged semantically (all the quotes are labeled as such). As much as possible you should use the established html tags (p for paragraph, ul for a list, etc.), since their meaning is, in principle, already defined.

4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else.

Your font is fine... but sans-serif [wikipedia.org] fonts are almost always easier to read on computer screens.

Again, I think the complaints are somewhat unfair, because you are using the blogspot engine, which is restrictive. Many of the ugly markup in the page source are the fault of blogspot.

I do confess that I find some parts of the page inelegant (the large number of links at the bottom of the page seem disorganized and not properly aligned; I would prefer clearer demarcation between comments on the post pages (bounding boxes, or horizontal lines, or color contrast or something)...). But overall your blog is such as great source of insightful commentary and information that any such complaint seems trite by comparison.

Remember that if you ever want suggestions or help the Slashdot community is here for you. (And plenty of us are willing to help without even the nominal fees that Hurricane78 mentioned.)

Re:Goog Grief! (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015883)

Thank you very, very much, JustinOpinion..... I'm really getting an education here. This is great!!!

Re:Goog Grief! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016231)

I think I speak for all of slashdot when I say: we owe you so much for the incredible education and information you've given us (above and beyond your absolutely unparalleled fight for justice, to say the least). Keep on being awesome - you're an inspiration to all of us.

If you're interested in updating your website's design, i'm sure people around here would be happy to help. (That... and it would be massive nerd-cred to be the person who helped The Ray Beckerman with his website design! Not even kidding.) You could paste your current Blogspot template code somewhere where people can see it and invite them to tweak it and pick the best result. But if it's something you enjoy working on, keep it up by all means! You're probably the best web-designing lawyer around. : )

(Posted anonymously so i'm not a total brown-noser.)

Re:Goog Grief! (3, Informative)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015939)

(I've realised about 400 other people answered this while I was typing up a reply, but one more won't hurt)

  1. What do you mean about thumbnailing the pictures? Isn't there only one picture?

    I think he means that one picture near the bottom of the page using width="225", maybe there's other ones. The main reason you'd want to use proper thumbnails for things like that is it saves bandwidth. Also most browsers have crap resizing algorithms optimised for speed. Properly done thumbnails look nicer.

  2. What should I do instead of using font tags?

    Depends how you're using them. You can replace <font size=> with <small> and <big> (but read the next point) and font face tags with <span>/<div>/<p> using class="" and a bit of CSS.

  3. What is semantic markup?

    Basically just saying what you mean in the HTML, instead of saying what it should look like. For example you've got a <font size="-2"> for your keywords thing, which could be done as <p class="keywords"> (or "tags", as web2.0 is calling them these days) and putting p.keywords {font-size:x-small} in the CSS. As a side note, I've seen google's search results are displaying more details than they used to do - as far as I can tell they do pay attention to class names in some places.

    If you want an example of semantic markup, have a look at the completely-overdone html in this post.

  4. I thought the old fashioned fonts were more reflective of my 19th century personality, but maybe I'll experiment with something else.

    The looks are a matter of opinion more than anything. I don't mind serif fonts but I think your layout could use more separation; try adding background colours on things like the replies (div.blogComment) to break it up a bit.

Question for Hurricane78, the Web Designer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016429)

Dear Mr. Fancypants Highly Skilled Designer,

Did you know that "tough" and "though" are two different words with two different meanings?

I would certainly hope that your failure to handle this basic distinction is not indicative of your ability to handle more advanced detail work such as Web design. This is especially true considering that you exhibited this failure while attempting to correct someone else's work; therefore, I believe this question is justified. I realize that you may not like this question or the manner in which I have asked it, but that does not mean that the question is rhetorical or insincere. I look forward to your answer.

Oppenheim(er) (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015401)

I am become death destroyer of digital rights

It's only going to get tougher... (4, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015477)

As the internet matures more and more, questionable legal methods are only going to get more and more defined. Remember in the bad old days (7-8 years ago) when there were legal threats being brought for things like "deep linking"? Back when the technology was new (compared to the legal system's understanding of it) I can see where the RIAA might have been able to strongarm people just by saying "we know you're doing it" but that's getting harder and harder to do. Thank heavens for progress.

Fifteen scripts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015487)

and who knows how many ads. I'm all for you pal, but I'm not going to look at them.

why are used cd's allowed, though? (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015493)

this has been a logical flaw in the 'the artists must get paid' argument.

I just bought some used cd's from amazon. some are sold from stores, some from net-only businesses and some from regular old individuals.

in NO case (that I'm aware of) is anyone required to pay any additional amount to any artist or association. yet used cd (and book) sales on amazon are 100% legal.

how come downloading bits on the net (which causes no revenue to return to riaa or artists) is 'illegal' yet used media sales are legal?

I'll even go further than that - lets talk about libraries and how they loan out (for free) books and also cd's.

with all this non-money media stuff changing hands, how come riaa isn't bothering the used sellers and libraries?

answer: their arguments about 'stealing' are less than paper thin...

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015605)

The first sale doctrine exhausts the copyright owner's ability to collect further revenue from that copy of the purchased CD. When the first owner sells that copy to another person, they are selling the purchased copy. However, if you make 5 copies of the CD and sell them, you are no longer selling the CD that you purchased (in which the copyright holder's right have been exhausted), you are selling illegal copies that you made (in which the copyright holder's right have not been exhausted).

Downloading bits on the internet is "illegal" because you are creating unlicensed copies. Libraries lending books is okay because a single copy of the media exists at all times. Prior to you taking the book out, the library is in possession of a single copy. When you take it out, the library is no longer in possession, you are. Return the book, the library is back in possession. The library would be in trouble if they gave you a photocopy of the book, and left the original on the shelf.

Under this same logical framework, we should be able to resell legally purchased MP3s, if you certify that you are not retaining a copy for yourself. I'm not holding my breath on it though.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015971)

what if you have a 'cable subscription'
and can't get fair use due to 5C flagging....

not so gray now is it ?

jr

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (4, Informative)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016241)

Under this same logical framework, we should be able to resell legally purchased MP3s, if you certify that you are not retaining a copy for yourself. I'm not holding my breath on it though.

Your remark is oddly (perhaps not coincidentally) timely. There is now -- for the time being -- an online second-hand MP3 [bopaboo.com] shop, hosted in the US. News item [guardian.co.uk] here. As far as I'm aware it's very new. It's still online at the time of writing.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (4, Informative)

ewhac (5844) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015675)

Shh! Don't rub it in; you'll just annoy them.

As you know, GameStop makes a tidy sum reselling used games, and the game developers don't see a penny of it. This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought. No matter how much irrefutable logic or facts you throw at them, they're absolutely convinced they're "losing money" to this, and want to re-structure the market to prevent it, or at least get a cut of the action.

Schwab

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016763)

This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought.

True, but hey ... I'll bet most leeches get pissed off when you cover them with salt and pull them off their prey before they're finished.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015725)

Because none of what you are describing involves "copying", one of the key items in the laws surrounding the concept of "copyright".

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015737)

how come downloading bits on the net (which causes no revenue to return to riaa or artists) is 'illegal' yet used media sales are legal?

Well, it isn't from a lack of effort on the media's part. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/0042227 [slashdot.org]

It's not quite illegal yet to buy and sell used cd's, but certainly moving in that direction. But even if they can't make it illegal, they're going to regulate the hell out of it, so that it will become too cost prohibitive and invasive to privacy for either the seller or buyer. Then the market will either dry up or be forced underground like the drug trade, or stolen merchandise market.

Be careful what you ask for (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015741)

Im sure they would love to ban used CD sales ( books and movies by their respective cartels ).

Libraries i think are safe as that would be a real tough sell, even with their purchased legislatures.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015773)

I think in the case of libraries they have deals with the publishers on what they get and how many copies. Which is part of the reason the library doesn't have a full music catalog. The great part about CDs from the library is you can legally make a digital copy of them, just once though I believe; bitch to find a non-scratched CD though, usually takes me three or four copies.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015941)

The great part about CDs from the library is you can legally make a digital copy of them

cite?

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015775)

they like to talk from both sides of their mouth that the CD is your license to listen and yet the license is a separate issue. The law accepts the right of resale, the RIAA can't fight that. While I agree copying is a lesser evil than made out to be, copying bits is still copyright infringement (note, not stealing).

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015791)

I should add- I tend to think that copying without gain or distribution should more or less be ok- and artists should focus on making money the old way - tours, products, endorsements, etc. On that track, I also think sporting individuals are overpaid and actors and musicians are severely overpaid and people like teachers should be the ones raking it in, but we'd rather spend ourselves into dramatic oblivion watching movies than go to school. People don't like forced learning, so our money goes elsewhere.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015953)

As a software developer, I disagree. We don't do tours, endorsements, etc. The problem is that the software industry is a different beast than the music industry. But, once we've legitimized filesharing for music, no one will believe that filesharing software is wrong, either. I also disagree that consumers should be allowed to destroy one revenue stream just because musicians have other revenue streams. If you were a waiter, I don't think you'd be too happy with a movement to stop tipping waiters - simply because your employer pays you a measily $2.50 an hour (aka a second revenue stream).

> musicians are severely overpaid
Actually, only the famous ones make money. Most of the musicians I know personally make pocket change from music (even though they went to college for music) and work a day job.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016079)

I understand your point, and I should have limited my scope of my musicians statement- I did mean the famous ones. We overvalue entertainment, in general, is mostly what I was after. I over simplified a decade of thoughts in a short space.

I generally don't agree with filesharing- and think people should pay for their music, software, and movies- and receive a right to listen/watch/play in any format reachable through algorithm (eg not through re-engineering). That said, I don't think if someone rips a copy of a movie they rented they should owe hundreds of thousands of dollars and spend 5 years in jail- or if they download a song they didn't pay for. It should be discouraged, certainly, but I'm not sure how much legal discouragement I support.

here, have some cheese (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016185)

Musicians and artists aren't allowed to *patent* their work. The software industry needs to make an executive decision as to which they really are, is it creative art like writing and making purty pictures or singing, protected by copyright, or is it some sort of digital structural engineering protected by patents. Oh look, for some reason you get *both* Isn't that just special. Either way, show us your warranties for your patented engineering "products". Oh, you don't have them, because it would be "impossible" and "too hard". You want more revenue and be treated with more respect? Then the software industry needs to step up to the plate and offer the public code that isn't perpetual beta ware with no warranties. How many billions a year lost to the general economy because of crap code? How many millions of manhours lost because code simply doesn't work as advertised and ships with hundreds of bugs and exploitable holes? Hell's bells, they make beauticians at least get a license to sell their service, they have to be able to show at least some competence and they are liable for screwing up, software for the most part doesn't even have to make that lowball standard, yet for some reason the "software artists" involved in it think they are all worth a hundred grand and up a year, plus "residuals" for unlimited digital copies.

Enjoy your snakeoil profits while it lasts, within one generation it will be back down to entry level data entry clerk wages. There are hundreds of millions of new coders coming out in the next decade, all over the planet, in areas where ten dollars a day means you are quite well off....your skills won't be that rare anymore.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016641)

Tipping is a very American thing. In many European countries it is insulting to tip. Waiters should be paid to do their job well by their employer and not need to beg for money (different point of view than we generally have in America). Besides, waiters aren't the only ones responsible for for experience. They don't usually cook the food, or wash the tables or utensils and dishes, both of which are important to the quality of your experience. Sure some places share tips, but that prevents you from rewarding the specific people you want, so that is counterproductive to the supposed point of tipping. BTW, I worked as a waiter and a cook (nothing high class, but also not fast food) for a few years when I was younger.

First Sale Doctrine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015991)

Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016525)

Pretty much one of the best points I've ever seen.

I help... (5, Funny)

cffrost (885375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015541)

I use PeerGuardian [sourceforge.net] to help protect MediaSentry from accidentally downloading any potentially copyrighted works from me. I'd feel awful if they inadvertently came into possession of illegal data on account of my negligence. Suppose I mis-named something that I copyrighted? I'd cry if I were forced to sue the fuck out of them for casual infringement.

Re:I help... (2, Funny)

dq5 studios (682179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016049)

I use a rock to keep away MediaSentry. It uses less resources than PeerGuardian and is just as effective.

Fair and Balanced. (-1, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015623)

The "Prince of Darkness," eh?

Welcome to Slashdot. Faux Fox News For Nerds.

Framing an argument this way all but guarantees the desired - Pavlovian - response.

It's rather a pity, I suppose, that judges really don't like to see this sort of thing brought into a courtroom.

it would make your job so much easier.

Re:Fair and Balanced. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015937)

Framing an argument this way all but guarantees the desired - Pavlovian - response.

Yep, because the slashdot crowd assuredly has a ton of faith in Satan.

Re:Fair and Balanced. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016769)

Framing an argument this way all but guarantees the desired - Pavlovian - response.

Yep, because the slashdot crowd assuredly has a ton of faith in Satan.

I'm not sure that faith is the right word, exactly.

"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown (4, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015679)

The only thing that he's asked for is the (entirely reasonable, IMHO) chance to give specific testimony because he believes that the complaint is factually incorrect. Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece. It's not like the board will somehow be in a worse position to sanction MediaSentry/SafeNet for whatever violations they have committed.

To me this is basically a non-story. Aside from the involvement of the RIAA, you could reduce it to:
Corporation asks to give testimony in regulatory hearing that directly impacts its business. Truly shocking.

Re:"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown (4, Interesting)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015901)

Well... I am not that familiar with the US legal system, but I really don't see how he can claim standing.

Indeed, he could be a witness (for either side) -- but if that doesn't happen, I don't see it.

So, it seems important for him to PREVENT the case from proceeding, even (or because) of his potential testimony. Indeed, what would he say? Pre-trial, "I am sorry, there are inaccuracies...", at trial "Yes, Media Sentry was engaged for investigations...".

I believe that the strategy is to supply the desired answer, while never getting into the position of being asked the "wrong" question. I further believe that the idea is to attempt to keep the issue in the "copyright infringement" domain, and out of the "unlicensed investigation" domain.

Re:"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26016307)

Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece.

If it can be denied, it is not a right. It's a privilege.

m6od down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26015739)

DOG THAT IT IS. IT clear she couldn't toosers, went out gplay parties the

Re:m6od down (1)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016559)

Anyone know what these posts are about? I've been seeing em more and more. Are the interwebs talking to us?

Re:m6od down (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26016801)

Anyone know what these posts are about? I've been seeing em more and more. Are the interwebs talking to us?

Yes, most people don't realize it, but this is all Cisco's vault. Their routers have had the potential to act as a neural net for some time now: the Internet became fully self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th, 1997. We just haven't realized it yet.

Smear-campaign (2, Funny)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#26015851)

The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks...

Satan called, he wants his good name back.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...