×

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!

Entire Transcript of RIAA's Only Trial Now Online

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the give-us-this-day-our-daily-fix dept.

The Courts 315

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The entire transcript of the RIAA's 'perfect storm,' its first and only trial, which resulted in a $222,000 verdict in a case involving 24 MP3's having a retail value of $23.76, is now available online. After over a year of trying, we have finally obtained the transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas. Its 643 pages represent a treasure trove for (a) lawyers representing defendants in other RIAA cases, (b) technologists anxious to see how a MediaSentry investigator and the RIAA's expert witness combined to convince the jurors that the RIAA had proved its case, and (c) anybody interested in finding out about such things as the early-morning October 4th argument in which the RIAA lawyer convinced the judge to make the mistake which forced him to eventually vacate the jury's verdict, and the testimony of SONY BMG's Jennifer Pariser in which she 'misspoke' according to the RIAA's Cary Sherman when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing.' The transcript was a gift from the 'Joel Fights Back Against RIAA' team defending SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston, Massachusetts. I have the transcript in 3 segments: October 2nd (278 pages(PDF), October 3rd (263 pages)(PDF), and October 4th (100 pages)(PDF)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

315 comments

Like anybody on /. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252885)

is going to RTFETRIAAOT.

Re:Like anybody on /. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253413)

I don't use illegal apps like Bittorrent, but here's my story:

I dropped a brown rope this morning the size of a small black child. At one point, I wasn't sure if I was taking a shit, or it the shit was taking me. And while I'm on that point, what's the deal with taking a shit? Shouldn't it be leaving a shit? I'm certainly not taking anything with me when I'm done.

But back on topic, the RIAA sucks ass

Re:Like anybody on /. (5, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253603)

Bit torrent is not an illegal application.

Re:Like anybody on /. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253791)

Sorry to say it, but YHBT. YHL, HAND.

Re:Like anybody on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253983)

Except in some countries (I think France is trying to ban it or make it illegal or something). You are correct though. Those trying to rid the world of bittorrent should also rid the world of cars, airplanes, electricity and work in general. All of the latter have been known to cause premature death in some cases. Bittorrent hasn't, but because it can be used for bad, they feel the need to rid the world of it. They should start with the latter first, then get on to bittorrent.

Re:Like anybody on /. (-1, Offtopic)

pcfixer (1391539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254075)

You are darn straight. Bittorrent is not an illegal program. I am so happy the RIAA cases are winding down. They didnt affect a thing and were totally pointless. They lost a lot of money doing this very spiteful "ego-based" thing. I occasioanly post about this on my blog L.A. computer repair [lapcfixer.com]

Re:Like anybody on /. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26254089)

About your blog: nobody gives a shit. Go spam somewhere else.

Cue - no, Clue... (4, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252899)

Cue the DMCA takedown notice in 5, 4, 3... ;)

Thanks, NYCL. I hope that making this transcript available does something to help make the **AA strategists have to adjust to this "new" internet technology in a way more beneficent to all, instead of just trying to sue the pants off anyone who they think might have crossed their rather arbitrary lines...

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253065)

Court transcripts can't be copyrighted.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253127)

And the RIAA will find some excuse still... c'mon, where have you been for the past few years?

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (5, Informative)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253189)

the transcript is public domain. as such, it should be easily available from any law clerk at the courthouse unless the judge orders the court case closed. now the RIAA could file a motion to close the court proceedings - but they would have to have a decent argument as to why that is necessary.

I wonder if this came out now because the RIAA decided to stop suing individuals and work via the ISPs.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (2, Interesting)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253287)

The leads us back to a story earlier about the attempts to broadcast the RIAA trial coming up (ongoing??). I do not remember the details, but the basics is that the RIAA claims that they want to educate consumers, while at the same time a group of lawyers for the defendants wants to broadcast the trial and the RIAA is trying to stop them. The defendants lawyers are claiming that broadcasting the trial would be education on the legalities of downloading music...

Sort of a catch 22 there...

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253617)

Yeah. The RIAA is like:

* We need new laws to make this illegal, hey Congress, can you hook us up? DENIED.
* Ahh, the problem is public perception.. we need to vilify file sharing. Marketing moguls, can you hook us up? DENIED.
* Ok, well maybe we can just scare people into our way of thinking. Lawyers, can you hook us up? DENIED.
* Maybe we can use impossible technology to force everyone into forgetting how to copy. Cryptographers, can you hook us up? DENIED.
* Ok, how about just crazy ass rootkit technology? That's doable. Hey Sony scumbags, can you hook us up? DENIED.
* Boy oh boy, this is harder than making water not wet, we need an international conspiracy of ISPs to give us unaccounted power over all their customers. PENDING.

What other crazy schemes will they come up with?

* Maybe they'll start putting poison in cases of blank media (cause they obviously have this stupid idea that people still burn the music they download - look at the tax on blank media in Canada).
* What ever happened to that lawsuit against Apple? Are they making so much money from the iTunes store that they've forgotten their water tight argument that an 80 gig iPod would take $79,200 to fill? I guess math never was their strong suite.
* Direct hacking attacks on file sharers? They have your IP, I wouldn't put it past them.
* What about voodoo? That shit works right? We just need everyone in the world to submit some of their hair or skin so the witch doctor can make a voodoo doll, then we can jab em whenever they share files.. how will we know when they share files? EVERYONE shares files, we just have to jab everyone equally, that's easy!

Ok, now I'm just being silly.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253731)

79.2K to fill an 80gig ipod? I thought they sued people for that much per song...

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253823)

They worked out each song cost about $3 and each song goes for about 3 minutes, and the typical compression is about 1mb/minute. Most of that is still accurate, except the price, so divide by 3. Still, no-one is spending $24k to fill their 80 gig iPod. I believe Apple's solution to this was to say "hey, you can use it for video too!!" and that just invited the MPAA to join the party.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253625)

Generally court proceedings are recorded but they are not transcribed (ie put into human-readable format) unless there is a specific reason to do so--because transcription is quite expensive and whoever wants to get the transcription is the person who gets to pay for it.

Example:

http://www.co.berks.pa.us/courts/cwp/view.asp?a=1186&q=445364

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (2, Interesting)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253659)

The raw text of the transcript may be in the public domain, but the header, footer, line and page numbers may not be (I believe this was the reasoning in Oregon I think, for them asking some site to take down the listing of state laws, it might be somewhere else).

And yes, this is part of the set of things that are so ridiculous, they must be true.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (2, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254179)

Cue the DMCA takedown notice in 5, 4, 3... ;)

the transcript is public domain. as such, it should be easily available from any law clerk at the courthouse unless the judge orders the court case closed. now the RIAA could file a motion to close the court proceedings - but they would have to have a decent argument as to why that is necessary.

My, you say that as if they would still not go ahead and file a DMCA takedown notice anyway, and later just say 'oops, our bad' instead of taking them to court.
It would cause some aggravation, and piss off the website owners, for next to no cost (lawyers on staff anyway), so why not?
That is their thinking.

As all of their other court cases except this one show, not having a case at all is no reason not to move forward with one.

Re:Cue - no, Clue... (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253409)

Just host it on any server not located in the US. Canada is right up the street. If I had more bandwidth I'd throw it up onto my dedicated server.

That's really awesome (5, Funny)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252903)

Just think... The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music. How does it feel to have a million dollars worth of product sitting next to you? Probably not as nice as if a solid gold bar were sitting there, but still, it's the same.. You are a millionaire. Go tell your friends that you're computer is worth 7 figures... cherish it, stroke it... oil it down and rub it for comfort.. until it glistens and shimmers like diamonds.

Re:That's really awesome (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252995)

Scan a $100 bill and print it 10,000 times. Here you go, you're a millionaire.

Re:That's really awesome (5, Informative)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253221)

If one assumes that all the music on my computer is stuff that the RIAA can sue over(some isn't, not sure the %), and ignores that some of the stuff that I have comes from legal purchases and my own rips(some, but not all that much to be honest), and if one uses the $9,250 per song figure from the summary:

My computer has a value of approximately $207,900,000.

For perspective, the current price of gold is $871.20 USD per troy oz. Alternatively, about $28,000 per kilogram of gold.
$207,900,000 / $28,000/kg = 7425 kg of gold
A Ford F150 truck comes in with a weight of 2,197kg.

My computer is worth almost as much as three and a half Ford F150 trucks made of solid gold

You're right Adult film producer... I feel rich, powerful! Excuse me, I'm going to go buy a bigger basement and a new family now.

Re:That's really awesome (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253267)

If you hadn't compared that to a car of some kind, i would have been totally lost.

Re:That's really awesome (5, Funny)

koalapeck (1137045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253439)

I would have preferred how much money it's worth in regards to Libraries of Congress but I suppose beggars can't be choosers.

Re:That's really awesome (4, Funny)

rakuen (1230808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253445)

Can I get that measured out in Dodge Intrepids? I need a car I can actively apply it to.

Re:That's really awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253505)

I drive a Stratus you insensitive clod!

Re:That's really awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253315)

Man, I can't believe my fileserver is worth more than a billion dollars.

Wrong... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253543)

Except if you made F150s out of gold, they would not weigh 2197 kg.

Re:That's really awesome (4, Interesting)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253891)

You have a flaw in your math. You stated that you would have 3.5 trucks made of solid gold. You failed to account for the difference in density between steel/aluminum/plastic and solid gold. Just for the sake of simplicity we'll say that the density of the materials in a Ford F150 average out to a little less than the density of steel. Conveniently this works out to right around 1 cubic meter of solid material. A cubic meter of solid gold weighs 19,300Kg, so you would be looking at only about 1/3 of a truck.

Re:That's really awesome (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253247)

I think that is a bit over the top, millions. A 1TB drive, will be about 930GB when formatted. That is 930.000MB. Say your average MP3/AAC is 5MB and costs about 1 dollar, you could stuff 186.000 dollars worth of music on it. Still a lot though.

Question: Can you insure a harddrive based on the price/value of it content?

Re:That's really awesome (2, Interesting)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253339)

The point is to use the $9,250 figure that the RIAA uses to sue so your 186.000 dollars of MP3's would get you sued for 1,720,500,000. One harddrive worth almost 2 billion, so cute 3

Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253599)

930 GB = 908,000 MB

Re:That's really awesome (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253277)

Just think... The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music.

Don't be modest, at "a lot of music" like say 1000 CDs * 15 songs and $10000/song as in this case you're ranked 178th on countries by GDP ahead of "Kiribati" and "São Tomé and Príncipe". Is it really any wonder this sort of thing threatens the world economy?

Re:That's really awesome (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253533)

The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music

At $9,250 per song, I have the feeling there are people out there whose computers would be worth far more than 20 mil.

Re:That's really awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253805)

dam i'm only at 136mil.

Re:That's really awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253575)

> cherish it, stroke it... oil it down and rub it for comfort.. until it glistens and shimmers like diamonds.

Sounds like my Friday nights :-(.

Re:That's really awesome (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253961)

Following this logic, we're in for some serious inflation! How much music has been copied? $10 trillion worth? $100 trillion worth? It's probably greater than the GDP of America. Wait till everyone starts spending their new found wealth, America will become the next Zimbabwe!

Ohh dear (0, Offtopic)

davro (539320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252983)

And this is the what the world has come to, im really please i dumped that girlfriend that wanted children as this world has become absolutely stupid like most governments, only another thirty/forty plus years of this bullshit world before i return to the great carbon dump in the sky !

Re:Ohh dear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253501)

Your spelling and grammar are awful; it's just as well you haven't reproduced.

She is a dumbass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26252985)

Her defense was simply bullshit. Basically, it went along the lines of:

Yes, I was sharing these copyrighted files online with other people. I seriously don't see what's wrong with this.

The reason why she got slammed with such high levels for each instance of infringement is because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid- never a good strategy when you want someone to feel pity for you.

Re:She is a dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253069)

Perhaps you ought to marry her? I think you would make a great couple.

Re:She is a dumbass (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253105)

So it's fair to fine the defendant $221,976.24 for having the view that their actions weren't unethical? Interesting.

because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid

Where did she do this?

Re:She is a dumbass (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253469)

No. It's fine to fine the defendant $221,976.24 for willfully breaking the law. If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.

Re:She is a dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253477)

It's -legal-, but not fine.

Re:She is a dumbass (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253525)

Read the post I replied to. The OP didn't say the fine was justified because it was against the law, he said it was justified because of a statement made by the defendant:

"The reason why she got slammed with such high levels for each instance of infringement is because she tried to make the jurors feel stupid"

If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.

That's irrelevant - that doesn't mean that such people should be fined excessively more for what they believe. If your point is to simply say that the law allows for such vast fines, then yes, we know what the law says, and no one is disagreeing with that point - that's a straw man.

Re:She is a dumbass (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253755)

My point was that there is nothing wrong with punishing people who willfully break the law with greater fines than people who accidentally break the law or break the law while not aware of the intricacies.

I think that's what the OP is getting at, too- they hit her with such high fines because they thought that she was willfully breaking the law, knew it, and was trying to slide past.

Re:She is a dumbass (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253763)

Legitimate channels like Jury nullification [wikipedia.org].

Posting anonymously so that I don't get booted off any jury I get picked for. If they find out you know about jury nullification, they don't want you on the jury! If I'm ever on a file-sharing jury, I will refuse to convict, and do everything in my power to convince my fellow jurors of the same.

Honestly... (3, Insightful)

G0rAk (809217) | more than 5 years ago | (#26252989)

PJ takes one week off, and everybody moves back to Slashdot.

Re:Honestly... (1)

slugtastic (1437569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253109)

Uh... Sorry for asking, but who's/whats PJ?

Re:Honestly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253205)

Good question actually. Here is you a starting point. [wikipedia.org] Many would like to know, especially SCO, but most of us are just happy that PJ exists and works to get the truth out. Chase the links to learn more then just what's on the wiki.

To Mr Beckerman (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253131)

Dear Mr Beckerman,

This trial transcirpt is an absolutely fascinating resource. As a lawyer myself, it provides me with plenty of things to think about.

I was simply hoping to ask you what you think of the Plaintiffs' lawyers. In England (where I practise) there is no concept of lawyers (or barristers, anyway) identifying with the case they seek to advance. On Slashdot, I have seen your disregard, to put it mildy, for the lawyers representing the RIAA.

My questions are these. To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance? To what extent do you think that matters? Do you think that they are bad people or poor counsel for advancing that case?

And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?

Kind regards,

Tom

Re:To Mr Beckerman (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253529)

To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance?

I don't know.

To what extent do you think that matters?

I think it matters.

Do you think that they are bad people

Yes.

or poor counsel for advancing that case?

Yes that too. I think they are a disgrace to my profession.

And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Re:To Mr Beckerman (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253797)

In England, clients come to me with a case. I advise them as to the merits. Sometimes, in spite of the fact that I have told them that I don't think their case will be successful, they choose to go ahead.

That is not my choice. It is theirs. Is it not possible that the RIAA has gone to lawyers, the lawyers have advised and the RIAA has opted to carry on?

That is why I think it is important to recognise that the lawyers don't necessarily believe the case. They have to been hired to do the best job that they can.

As to my last question, that you said you didn't understand. I conduct cases on behalf of large corporations. Without wanting to breach privilege, these cases involve similar facts and the protagonists are exteremly angry people.

The ones that we fight are ones where we have no confidence that if we agreed a confidentiality claue that the litgant would refrain from breaching it. For commercial reasns, it would be preferable to keep it secret, but if it got out that we had settled, it would be commercially damaging.

The way that this relates to the RIAA litigation is that a party could get into litigation and then reach a settlement in principle but would bqalk at a confidentiality agreement.

What I was asking, is how you would react to someone who didn't give a shit about confidentiality and would jeopardise a reasonable settlment for reasons that they would not espouse if they were properly represnted.

Tom

Anyone RTFA? (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253141)

Its way too long for me. Can someone sumarize please using the medium of dance.

Re:Anyone RTFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253271)

Its way too long for me. Can someone sumarize please using the medium of dance.

It will be way too long for most people, no doubt. Few here will read all 650 pages. But... Parts of it will be short enough. I could well see myself looking into it tomorrow, browsing past all the boring legal scripture that I don't understand and checking the testimonies that might be interesting and relevant to me (as active member of local Pirate Party). Such as what technical arguments were used exactly, etc.

I would think that a lot of people here could find something reasonably short but interesting there!

Re:Anyone RTFA? (1)

wharlie (972709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253395)

It's just a jump to the left

And then a step to the right

With your hands on your hips

You bring your knees in tight

But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane.

Re:Anyone RTFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26254013)

Let's do the time warp again! Let's do the time warp again!

Re:Anyone RTFA? (2, Informative)

NotRangerJoe (856719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253787)

From reading the opening arguments and some of the first witness, the prosecution attempts to make the case that an IP address, MAC address, a consistent username, and a specific taste in music identifies a single person. The defense tries to make the case that they don't. There's more on both sides, but I'd rather not dress up as a member of the Geek Squad and tango while I replace a hard drive.

the "copyright infringement is stealing" argument (4, Interesting)

crazybit (918023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253153)

is being widely used in my country (Peru), not only referring music "piracy" but also movie "piracy".

This includes commercials which are screened just before your favorite movie and printed ads in mainstream newspapers (which says "Piracy is stealing").

I have explained my son that this is a lie, because "piracy" and stealing are two different concepts, but many thousands of peruvians don't know this difference.

did I mention that the "Piracy is stealing" commercial showed before movies had the MPAA logo at the end?

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253251)

It's not just you, the rest of the world is also subjected to this bullshit.

"Disingenuous" is what some people call it. I think that's too polite.

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (3, Interesting)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253405)

I always cheer loudly when these commercials are played at the movie theatres. I think it provides some comic relief and lets everybody know that not everybody believes the bullshit.

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253491)

Not to a jerk, but the problem is that you are in the theater at all. I myself sometimes fall prey to giving money to people who will use it against me (MPAA, RIAA) but whenever I can I try to remind myself and others of the ills of even doing business with these bastards

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253689)

He sneaks into the theater, you insensitive clod! (Paying the theater by means of buying concessions instead.) ;-D

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (0, Offtopic)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253931)

When I go I look like an 600 pound man with all the goodies I have stuffed in my jacket. 7 bucks for a soda, no thanks!

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253771)

I heard stories that they don't even show these in Sweden anymore since Pirate Bay and The Pirate Party have succeeded in making everyone just laugh at them. Can someone confirm?

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (2, Funny)

Bloater (12932) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253873)

Is it okay if your camcorder recording includes the anti-piracy notice?

Re:the "copyright infringement is stealing" argume (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254055)

commercials which are screened just before your favorite movie

Oh man, nothing shits me more (well, that's not completely utterly true) than buying a DVD, slotting into my player and having to sit through a minute long "You would not steal a handbag, you would not steal a car..." spammercial. How about this, I bought the fucking DVD, doesn't that mean I am NOT a target audience for spamming me with this ad that I can't skip, can't fast forward through and generally does nothing apart from pissing me off?

A small light int he darkness though, I recently worked out that one of the languages generally skips right past the whole advert. I just have to work out that same language is for the other flavors of the same ad.

file share (5, Funny)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253249)

Wonder what they would have to say if I started seeding this on a bit torrent client.

Re:file share (2, Informative)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253913)

Wonder what they would have to say if I started seeding this on a bit torrent client.

Nothing. Court records are not subject to copyright (Westlaw and their ilk aside).

Let me guess on the whole jury convincing... (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253311)

Given the technical knowledge of your average joe...

media sentry guy and expert witness come in and bandy about as much technical jargon as possible while connecting it with vicious invective to nefarious terms like "theft".

defense asks them questions, which they answer in the same language, which may as well be fluent korean to the jurors.

In the end, jurors make decision based on the repeated misinformation from the media of the past 10 years equating downloading to theft, which was repeated amongst the foreign language the "witnesses" happened to be speaking.

The end.

Re:Let me guess on the whole jury convincing... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253865)

The jury in the case only has to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant infringed on the plaintiff's copyright.

.
Let us say that the files in dispute were downloads from the net - something that no one ever really disputed - downloads that weren't purchased through iTunes or any other legitimate source

- and that the jury wasn't buying the argument that she was not the responsible party.

She was the head of household. It was her account with the ISP. Her P2P nickname. Her machine.

That the defendant came across as a liar - arrogant as all hell - and that re-imaging herself "on stage" as a poster child for the FSF wasn't doing her much good.

This just says it all: (5, Informative)

Soulshift (1044432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253365)

FTFA:

Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a Delaware general partnership; Arista Records, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Interscope Records, a California general partnership; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Jammie Thomas,
Defendant.

I rest my case.

Re:This just says it all: (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253425)

I'm surprised they didn't challenge them on misrepresentation.

If any of those companies are from delaware i'll eat my hat, and my dram chips.

Re:This just says it all: (2, Interesting)

BlueCodeWarrior (638065) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253531)

Lots of companies incorporate in Delaware because their laws are sweet.

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

http://corp.delaware.gov/faqs.shtml#numcorps

Also, see the question right below.

Re:This just says it all: (0, Offtopic)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254027)

Yeah, thank God our new VP is from there - he'll REALLY put the screws to them.

Re:This just says it all: (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253511)

I honestly don't get it. Could you explain. I think you are referring to them all being from Delaware, which I have heard is where a lot of credit card and debt collectors are located. Is this the home of scummy corps?

Re:This just says it all: (1)

Soulshift (1044432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253547)

I was mainly trying to underline the fact that in most of these cases, the defendant is hopelessly outnumbered. Can there really be a fair trial when one side has access to nearly unlimited financial resources, not to mention significant political clout?

Re:This just says it all: (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253923)

That totally makes sense. I guess I was just surprised to see they were all from Delaware. But agreed, they are 500lb gorillas.

Why did this take a year? (2, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253597)

I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?

Re:Why did this take a year? (3, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253699)

I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?

1. The transcripts aren't free. I think this one cost around $2500.

2. For awhile the court reporter was on maternity leave. I don't know about other delays.

3. This was a gift from the Joel Fights Back" [facebook.com] legal team. If they hadn't gotten me one, I don't know if I'd ever have seen it, because the RIAA lawyers do not have the courtesy to share transcripts with their adversaries.

Re:Why did this take a year? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253843)

the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know.
so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days.
Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one

--
A_F

Re:Why did this take a year? (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253883)

the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know. so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days. Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one

You got it right.

The Key Is... (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253721)

...to make sure the relevant parts of this transcript are summarized and made so widely known that the RIAA will be perpetually afraid that no matter where they go, they're probably going to run into one or more jurors who will be determined not to be played for fools.

A catchy name for the Duluth jurors and/or decision might also help. I hate to label them "The Doughheads From Duluth", but if it helps prevent a similar miscarriage of justice...

keep an eye on the ball (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253765)

obama is out there and he's ready to put his hand in the cookie jar. don't let your dogma over rule your common sense. that bitch will rob you blind as soon as he thinks he has everyone in his pocket.

Bounty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26253901)

Lets say I innocently buy a used computer from a scrap dealer and find copyrighted songs on it. Can I get 10% ( ~$100) of the song's "worth" as a bounty for turning the machine in to the RIAA?

How about consulting fees?

"when she testified under oath... (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26253969)

...that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing'."

That one baffled me. I am neither a lawyer nor an American. However, I would assume that a witness' opinion of the legality of a given action is completely irrelevant. Establishing the legality of a given action is a task for the court, not a task for the witness.

So why was a witness asked about the legality of copying a CD?

And why was she breaking her oath (as NYCL is somehow implying) when she did not know the correct answer?

Re:"when she testified under oath... (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254019)

"when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing'."

That one baffled me. I am neither a lawyer nor an American. However, I would assume that a witness' opinion of the legality of a given action is completely irrelevant. Establishing the legality of a given action is a task for the court, not a task for the witness.

Agreed.

So why was a witness asked about the legality of copying a CD?

Beats me.

And why was she breaking her oath (as NYCL is somehow implying) when she did not know the correct answer?

She knew the correct answer. She was deliberately misstating the law in order to improperly inflame the jury against Ms. Thomas, convincing the jurors that even had Ms. Thomas done nothing but copy some CD's onto her hard drive, that in and of itself was a copyright infringement.

Re:"when she testified under oath... (1)

Gnavpot (708731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26254165)

She knew the correct answer. She was deliberately misstating the law in order to improperly inflame the jury against Ms. Thomas, convincing the jurors that even had Ms. Thomas done nothing but copy some CD's onto her hard drive, that in and of itself was a copyright infringement.

Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but was that wrong of her, even if she was deliberately lying?

Given that we have witnesses to establish facts, not legality, does a witness commit perjury when she lies about legality?

If this was not perjury, it seems to me that she was doing her job to her best ability.

But was the defendant's lawyer doing his job to HIS best ability? Shouldn't he have stopped the irrelevant questioning about legality?

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...