Beta
×

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 Tries To Appeal Order Allowing Internet TV Court Broadcast

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the panic-mode-setting-in dept.

The Courts 209

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has appealed the order entered several days ago allowing the January 22nd hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum to be streamed over internet TV. Additionally, they've made a motion for a stay. I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge. Well, let's hope the arguments in the First Circuit will be streamed, too. Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I apologize that this is O/T (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498549)

If you are spiritual or religious in any way at all, please pray for or send positive energy and love to a lady named Melody. Believe me, she needs it. I am sorry that this has nothing to do with the story or the summary. Please find it in your heart to join me in sending love and truth to this person. It is one of the more wonderful and selfless things you could do and would only take a moment. Thank you!

File sharing is illegal (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498575)

If you don't want to get sued, don't steal MP3s [goatse.fr] , simple.

Niggers. Niggers.

Re:File sharing is illegal (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499049)

Yeah I'm talking to you. The wannabe computer programmer who thinks they are good at computers because they can click around the computer enough times and find the reboot button and 'fix' an inherently flawed windows system. You think you're cool because you can pirate photoshop but not know anything about it, get Microsoft Office for free but have the literacy of a 1st grader when writing a paper, and get a copy of Norton Anti-virus because your inherently flawed system is useless without Administrative privileges. Get a clue, you are not smart, you are just a corporate sheep for a company that will bury you if you ever tried to write any software that did anything remotely useful. You are a clickaround and all you know is your ugly gray existence that is Windows.

Want the source code to windows vista?

head -n 1000000 /dev/random > Windows.com

Re:File sharing is illegal (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499261)

Bring back the steve jobs/coprophiliac copy-paste trolling. This is the blandest garbage I've ever seen on slashdot.

to educate the public (5, Insightful)

Eric Smith (4379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498577)

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

Re:to educate the public (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498617)

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.

Re:to educate the public (4, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498797)

It isn't a matter of degrees. They simply want to lie to the public. Here's a case where they're actually getting caught in the act.

Correct, they want to educate the public with their lies. However, this is not the way they want to do it.

Step one: win the court case by any means necessary, including not following court procedures, obtaining evidence illegally, etc. However, try to be discrete. Step two: after winning the court case, spin it such that the defendant was guilty as hell and you were the shining beacon of justice and honesty. Tell everyone that they need to do whatever it is you want because hey, the court just agreed that you are right.

What they don't want is for everyone to be "educated" before winning the court case. Otherwise, people will see the tactics they use and the unwashed masses may become actively hostile toward their cause.

Re:to educate the public (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498829)

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

Re:to educate the public (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498845)

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

Now why'd you hafta go and bring religion into this discussion?

Re:to educate the public (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498967)

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe. Now why'd you hafta go and bring religion into this discussion?

That's a pretty funny joke that seems all too accurate. It requires something like a religious belief to behave in the abusive and amoral fashion as, in my opinion, the RIAA has done. That is, they imbue this cause/agenda of theirs with an undue importance that, in their minds, justifies any measures they take to further it. They sacrifice even their conscience on the altar of this Cause of theirs and in their minds they can do no wrong. To me, this elevation of peddling music to a status of mattering more than human suffering is the real meaning of "idolatry" (and is probably different from how most religious people use the term). It's really not unlike the process by which peaceful democratic nations become warlike dictatorships, just on a much smaller scale.

Re:to educate the public (4, Insightful)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499853)

in their minds they can do no wrong

An excellent example of hubris. The ancient Greeks seemed to consider it the worst possible character flaw; tragic heroes afflicted with hubris inevitably ended up dead, insane, maimed, or some combination thereof. Basically, it's playing God. That said, may the Furies perch upon the shoulders of the RIAA, its clients, and agents.

Re:to educate the public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499363)

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Well, sure, but not to educate the public *too* much.

So often the message sent is, "you're educated if you agree with me." Truth does not mean very much to people like this. In fact truth, or at least the love of truth and the entire truth not for any agenda but for its own sake, was the first thing they had to sacrifice to become as sold to their own system as they are. The thing that (I believe) is often forgotten is that once people are compromised in this fashion, for any reason, they become "true believers" in whatever it was that compromised them and they give their allegiance to it. Most people are not entirely 100% themselves and are compromised in some way by ideas that did not come from a careful evaluation of available options. This is where the abuses and the underhanded maneuvers come from. That is, they come not from people who know they are doing something wrong and do not care, but from people who have an endless supply of rationalizations that they themselves believe.

Wow. You've clearly got a Bachelor's Degree. I can tell because you used a lot of very well constructed sentences comprised of effective vocabulary, in which you completely and thoroughly said pretty much nothing. Every finely crafted sentence after the first was, actually, just a waste. But that's how our schools teach people to write.

Damn the clarity, impress with obfuscity (yes, I know it should be obfuscation, but I wanted the tie to 'clarity' :P).

Re:to educate the public (3, Funny)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499837)

Just because you are unable to understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

Stating the Obvious (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498961)

They don't want to lose in public, and this is all about the counter complaints against them and their tactics, not about copyright violations of the defendant. They'll be on the stand and made to look like the domineering, aggressive, bullies they are.

Re:to educate the public (2, Insightful)

vell0cet (1055494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499329)

the education they want the public to have is "you will get sued" not "you will get sued, it could end up in court and you may actually win".

Re:to educate the public (5, Funny)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499825)

I think the original phrase may have been "teach the public a lesson"?

I'm just a country lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498585)

They don't have mercenary scum lawyers in the country?

Re:I'm just a country lawyer (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498793)

So I take it you've never seen Matlock? ;)

*ducking*

No more TiVo (2, Funny)

Caspase9 (1442471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498595)

Does this mean I don't have to TiVo Judge Judy anymore?!?!???

I Know I'll Be Watching (4, Interesting)

CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498603)

I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498641)

I can't wait for the RIAA to air out their ridiculous tactics and for the judge to laugh them right out of court. Would it be legal to record this and, say, put it on YouTube?

Good question. Presumably this is a matter of public record.

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498789)

While it may be a matter of record, one would think that since the lawyers are not media figures, you would have to get a release from each of them to display their likeness in a public manner.

Of course, IANANYCL (I Am Not A NewYorkCountryLawyer).

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (4, Informative)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498899)

Oh I doubt that. Once they enter the courtroom it really comes down to whether that preceding can be re-broadcast. The litigants are in open court and thus are not subject to privacy in this regard. It's just like taking a photo at a park. You don't have to get a release from everyone involved. IANAL either but I'd venture this is the case.

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499895)

I see your IANAL and raise by not being from the same country. But in Finland it is legal to photograph the crowd in a public location but illegal to photograph a specific individual without permission. If there are similar laws in the USA I could understand claims that it is illegal to photograph or film the specific individuals (lawyers, the judge, etc.) for perhaps several hours even though it is legal to take a photo in the park without asking everyone.

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499063)

Put it on YouTube?

No.

A single DMCA complaint will remove it, and three DMCA complaints will have your account deleted entirely.

It doesn't matter if there is or is not anything in any of your videos which warrants a DMCA complaint - by posting anything that in any way threatens, or seems to threaten any corporate interest, it'll be the end of you.

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499615)

No problem, just post it on Piratebay.org :-) Which is not as convenient as Youtube, but it will remain available...

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (1)

garry_g (106621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499679)

Wonder if it would beat download rates of other popular stuff, like 24 or so ... (one time I checked, one of the S7 season openers was at 10k Seeds and 25k downloaders)

Re:I Know I'll Be Watching (1)

Taxman415a (863020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499859)

A previous article [p2pnet.net] about this on p2pnet said that the Berkman center at the Harvard Law School intends to pay for rebroadcasting the footage and intends to do so under a creative commons non commercial license. They say details are still being worked out. It's possible CC non commercial might not allow posting to youtube, but I'm no lawyer.

Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498611)

First, please tell me you've seen the Futurama episodes with the lawyer chicken [theinfosphere.org] .

I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge.

Well, I'm not a lawyer but isn't it pretty much the modus operandi of lawyers who are paid insane amounts of money to toe the line in the interest of their clients?

I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing? If this becomes popular, the bawling college student they win a $500,000 suit against isn't going to help their image as heartless vampires.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498731)

I am by no means defending this action, but ... come on, you wouldn't do the same thing? They've been getting away with everything in private for so long, why ruin a good thing?

If you're asking me whether I'm surprised they're resisting it, no I'm not. If I did what they do for a living, I'd be ashamed too. The last thing I would want is for the world -- including my friends and relatives -- to see what I do.

But it's not really possible for me to imagine myself in their shoes, because -- having been born of a human mother -- I would never be in their shoes and -- being a lawyer and a gentleman -- would never do the things they do.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498907)

I guess what the parent is trying to say, Ray, is that he thinks that if it were in your client's best interests to not have it broadcast on the Internet, you'd be whining and moaning at the judge, too. After all, as a professional, you have to maintain a fiduciary relationship with your clients, which means that you always have to represent your client's best interests.

What you seem to be saying is that your ethics don't allow you to choose clients who fight dirty. I can respect that, but as a fellow consultant, I will also say that I, too, always try to do and recommend what is best for my clients. That would seem to make the most sense.

Example: One client wanted a file server and requested that Linux would be the OS that they wanted to run. They also specified that they wanted it to be easy to maintain from a Web interface. It was a small shop and they weren't going to hire IT staff full-time. Even though ethically I love free software, I told them it would probably be in their best interests to get a pre-packaged file serving appliance rather than trying to build one and load free software on it. Even though the free software would have been my own choice, I knew that something that came prepackaged with support would be in their best interests monetarily. So I steered them in that direction. I did let them know what the alternative would be -- I could build it out and provide support for my usual rate per call, but I also showed them how the dedicated equipment would save them money. They went with the dedicated equipment.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (3, Funny)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499125)

Only on slashdot will the supporting anecdote be longer than the point it's supporting.

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499341)

Ray, I'm a musician (just an indy blues player/songwriter in a blues band) and a fan of yours. I cheer your courage in standing up to these scumbags. I worry about you though. I'm sure I'm not alone.

I hope you figuratively/legally tear 'em a new one, but I also hope you pay proper attention to personal security. I doubt anyone that would conduct themselves in the way the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs and their masters do would totally rule out the possibility of arranging a "tragic accident/mugging/burglary" if sufficiently desperate.

There's plenty-enough money & power at stake here to make this, if not likely, at least plausible as an outlying possibility if they perceive you personally as enough of a threat to their revenue, power, and control. Scumbags that have demonstrated as little regard for the law and common decency as they have shown should not be underestimated.

I know you're certainly no fool, and are likely well-aware and taking proper precautions. I felt I had a duty to mention this distasteful possibility, however...men as honorable, principled, and courageous as you don't come dime-a-dozen.

Keep fighting the good fight my friend. My, and I'm certain many peoples', prayers & well-wishes are with you.

Bravo, Sir, bravo!

Strat

Re:Isn't That Just How Highly Paid Lawyers Work? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499527)

Ray, I'm a musician (just an indy blues player/songwriter in a blues band) and a fan of yours. I cheer your courage in standing up to these scumbags. I worry about you though. I'm sure I'm not alone. I hope you figuratively/legally tear 'em a new one, but I also hope you pay proper attention to personal security. I doubt anyone that would conduct themselves in the way the RIAA/MPAA attack dogs and their masters do would totally rule out the possibility of arranging a "tragic accident/mugging/burglary" if sufficiently desperate. There's plenty-enough money & power at stake here to make this, if not likely, at least plausible as an outlying possibility if they perceive you personally as enough of a threat to their revenue, power, and control. Scumbags that have demonstrated as little regard for the law and common decency as they have shown should not be underestimated. I know you're certainly no fool, and are likely well-aware and taking proper precautions. I felt I had a duty to mention this distasteful possibility, however...men as honorable, principled, and courageous as you don't come dime-a-dozen. Keep fighting the good fight my friend. My, and I'm certain many peoples', prayers & well-wishes are with you. Bravo, Sir, bravo! Strat

Well, Strat, (a) blues is my favorite kind of music, (b) indie music is of course the only way to go, and (c) I'm not afraid of bullies. Plus if anything like that ever happened to me, where do you think the police would look?

It is - read this (3, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499403)

Well, I'm not a lawyer but isn't it pretty much the modus operandi of lawyers who are paid insane amounts of money to toe the line in the interest of their clients?

If you ever want to know just how sleazy your "toe the line" lawyers can get, read this. [gaspforair.org] It's an interview with a tobacco lobbyist. He's dying from cancer and decided to come clean on tactics. It's unreal.

So yeah, the RIAA lawyers being creatures of the same stripe, sure. Filing all this crazy stuff is absolutely par for the course. Remember - every single day the laws stay in their favor, that makes them money. If they file these motions and it takes a week or a month to sort through then they've done their job.

When you're dealing with a gigantic industry and millions of dollars every day, even a single five minute phone call to delay makes financial sense. Look at the SCO fiasco for another example. Baystar invested $50M in a dying lawsuit. Why? Delay. Every day there is any legal doubt over Linux is a day where spooked customers will go elsewhere. It was an investment, and one that has paid off many times over. These RIAA guys are just doing the same trick. Delay to keep the gravy train going.

We all know the answer that will be forthcoming. (3, Interesting)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498629)

Meanwhile, one commentator wonders why the tooth and nail opposition to broadcasting, since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?"

Because they mis-spoke when professing their aims. Or that they mis-spoke/typed/approved from paralegal when they filed this.

This whole ordeal is starting to feel like one of those theological arguments where a side insists on interpreting arbitrarily defined sections of text as immutable and others as requiring human context with themselves as the only interpreter. Interpretation may vary depending on the point they want to drill into peoples minds at the time.

Matter of definition ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498637)

since the professed aim of the litigations was to 'educate' the public?

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

Re:Matter of definition ... (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498743)

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

Correct. They have as much interest in 'educating the public' as Hitler did in making the Jews "Frei" through "Arbeit".

Re:Matter of definition ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498779)

You lose [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Matter of definition ... (4, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498861)

I'm sick of people wasting screen real-estate with their references to Godwin's law, as if it makes an analogy any less valid.

For all we know, NYCL or anybody else who invokes a Hitler analogy has no idea or couldn't give a rat's ass what Godwin's law is. Fuck Godwin's law and the cheeky little fuckers who waste my screen real estate calling people on it. And fuck me for making an offtopic post.

Re:Matter of definition ... (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499267)

They're calling them wrongly, too. Godwin's Law simply states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." It says nothing about the appropriateness of the comparison.

That said, Godwin said (correctly, I think) that making comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis robs valid comparisons of their meaning. In this case, I would say that it's a little bit of a stretch to equate the two...but, unsettlingly, I had to think about it for a second to make that decision, where in most cases of Godwinning it's a no-brainer.

I agree (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499885)

Bunch of fuckin Nazis.

Re:Matter of definition ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498887)

Because forbidding rhetorical citations and comparisons to Nazi atrocities is the best way to make sure that no one forgets them, and that they never happen again.

Mike Godwin can go suck a hose.

Re:Matter of definition ... (2)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499275)

Godwin's Law is an observational one. The "you lose, hur hur" shit is ancillary and stupid.

Re:Matter of definition ... (1)

navyjeff (900138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499143)

An improper invocation of Godwin's Law.

The law applies in the case of an argument where one party uses a comparison to Hitler or the Third Reich as an ad hominem or to attack their opponent's stance.

In this case, NYCL uses the analogy to refer to the actions of a third party not involved in the discussion. Also, this jab is intended to be humorous and poingnant, rather than a mean-spirited barb. Therefore, Godwin's law cannot be applied here and the conversation is neither over nor lost.

Reference:The Godwin's Law FAQ [faqs.org]

Re:Matter of definition ... (1)

The FNP (1177715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499471)

Fuck Godwin's Law! The war is already about Pirates vs. Nazis. This recent issue has taken years of open warfare, espionage, and political maneuvering and considering that all the lies about how much the MAFIAA are losing due to piracy have been refuted and shown to be wildly inaccurate time and time again, I think it's time to draw comparisons to the casus belli of 70-some years ago.

You want a good Nazi comparison, try the rise of Hitler to power by whining about how the Germans were getting economically punished by the rest of Europe (for starting WWI) compared to MAFIAA whining about piracy eating all of their profits (while fighting Steve Jobs tooth and nail over what has since become one of the most popular distribution channels they have); or Goebbles's propaganda machine compared to the MAFIAA's; or the anschluss of the lebensraum compared to the DMCA's provisions ("Oh hey, we just need a little accomodation, then we won't have to seize it by force"); or maybe the blitzkrieg of Poland compared to the sudden launch of thousands of lawsuits against innocents. . . . . . . Must I go on? I'm not going to compare the MAFIAA pissing off their customers to the Holocaust, because there is no order of magnitude that is sufficient, but if the jackboot fits. . . .

Granted, there is not a complete comparison due to the fact that in one, actual people were dying, but the tactics are the same: Dehumanize your opponent, Lie, exert any political force you can muster, use propaganda to the utmost, and tell your people that all of it is for their own good.

--The FNP

(It is possible that I could have used a few more hours of sleep, but sometimes /. really pisses me off.)

Re:Matter of definition ... (4, Interesting)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498817)

The RIAA (and the MPAA) have a stated goal of educating the public about copyright law and the evils of infringement. However, the actual goal is to "re-educate" the public, much as our totalitarian friends around the world "re-educate" those who disagree with them. In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

My psychology professor used to say that people make up their minds first and then look for reasons to support their decisions. This way people can rationalize anything as the right thing.

The obvious purpose of the legal action was to spread fear and terror - like terrorists and serial killer do. Anyone out there, downloading a song, can be sued. There is no logic, no system - it's just random. This can strike fear to millions of people even though 10 people are prosecuted.

Of course, we want to scare and terrorize anyone who downloads MP3 is not a "good" reason. So, an absurd reason of educating the public is made up. This is not a rational or logical reason and we don't require the Greek style logical discourse method of justifying a reason (OK, I have Philosophy 101 knowledge of these things, please correct me if it's wrong). So, we hear absurd reasons for doing things. Maybe this is not the most straightforward example, but the war of Iraq's reason was first WMD and then liberation. You almost felt that the leaders were just trying to find any excuse to justify and rationalize their actions.

So, my point is why does anyone even bother anymore, questioning reasoning and such? People make up their minds about certain things first and build reasons for justifying them. So, let's not waste precious time and energy with snark remarks about educating the public and such. Just ignore them and focus on the matter at hand rather than going into illogical discussions about stated reasons for actions.

Re:Matter of definition ... (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498997)

Just ignore them and focus on the matter at hand rather than going into illogical discussions about stated reasons for actions.

I disagree. There's a substantial amount of logic and reason (not to mention pure black nasty evil) on the part of the RIAA and similar organizations. This deterrence campaign was well-planned, and implemented for a specific purpose. A purpose which, when pressed, they deny vociferously and cry "but we're only protecting the rights of the artists." That they've essentially failed in their quest to make file sharing and wide-scale copyright infringement appear too dangerous is irrelevant. They caused a lot of damage along the way, and are still. That needs to stop (or be stopped) but it will never happen as long as people accept what they're doing, or worse yet, see it as "their rights under the law."

When a group dissembles to such a degree, and with such an utter lack of concern for anyone but themselves and their corporate masters, the difference between what they say and what they do is extremely important. That's particularly true when dealing with those (i.e., the bulk of the American public) who don't follow the issues here, and would naturally be inclined to take their statements at face value. It's vitally important these bastards be shown as the crooks they really are, and if this Webcast helps to do that then it's worth it. People will be able to look at what they've been claiming they're all about, and then see what they're really about, and perhaps draw some correct conclusions.

Re:Matter of definition ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498867)

In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

None of which makes copyright infringement any less unlawful.

Re:Matter of definition ... (3, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498913)

In the RIAA's case, this absolutely does not include informing the public about their sleazy, if not outright criminal courtroom behavior.

None of which makes copyright infringement any less unlawful.

And that, my friend, has never been the topic of this discussion. Of course it's illegal. So are a lot of things. Some should be, and some shouldn't, but that's a matter for lawmakers to decide.

The issue that the RIAA has done a lot of really horrible (and, yes, probably illegal) things in their quest to put a stop to infringement. They're still doing them, in spite of having claimed that they have stopped. If this outfit had done a bit of due diligence, only sued people that were truly guilty, only asked for a reasonable amount of compensation, nobody would be complaining.

Re:Matter of definition ... (1)

greendoggg (667256) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498971)

Also, hearing the opposition's arguments, which point out the some of the absurdities of the RIAA's case, doesn't help their "re-education" campaign at all. They'd much rather the public only hear's their side of things.

Not trying to be a jerk, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498673)

These are your opinions

"(a) it's not possible to appeal the order, (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge."

A is wrong, and you know it. It's certainly possible to appeal, perhaps you should have said what you actually meant here.

B is your opinion again, stated as fact without arguement, which you wouldn't have room for in the summary so why make the point there?

C is AGAIN your opinion, veiled as fact.

Post a useful summary, not your assertions, especially when your assertions are nothing more than your own opinions and have no place for supporting arguments in the summary.

In short, you trolled the summary. Nice job.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498839)

I think anyone reading the post knows that those were my professional opinions. I specifically said "as far as I know". However, I think it is clear that my opinions were correct, as evidenced by the fact that they have not pursued their defective "appeal" but have instead filed a "petition for mandamus or prohibition" (they don't know enough to know whether it's 'mandamus' or 'prohibition'; in fact it's prohibition). (a) Under the Federal Rules it was not an appealable order; (b) it was procedurally improper and ineffective to file a notice of appeal, since the order was not appealable, and (c) it was improper to direct their motion for a stay to the District Court Judge, since it ought to have been directed to the appellate court, which is why the RIAA has now filed a motion for a stay in the appellate court.

I.e. even the RIAA lawyers have evidenced their awareness that all 3 statements were correct.

Re:"They don't know enough" (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499203)

Hi Ray.

Do you think they're hoping that if they compile enough consecutive legal errors, then 13 wrongs will add up to a right and then they're hoping they'll win?

Re:"They don't know enough" (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499479)

Hi Ray. Do you think they're hoping that if they compile enough consecutive legal errors, then 13 wrongs will add up to a right and then they're hoping they'll win?

:)

No I think the lawyers are still in control and still trying to do anything they can think of that they can bill for.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... (1)

curmudgn (1455213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499405)

While your first two statements are correct, the third is not. Under Fed R App P 8, a motion for stay pending appeal is directed in the first instance to the district court.

Re:Not trying to be a jerk, but... (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499571)

While your first two statements are correct, the third is not. Under Fed R App P 8, a motion for stay pending appeal is directed in the first instance to the district court.

You're absolutely right. Were there an appeal, a motion for a stay could have been properly addressed to the district court.

If you want an "Aw, shucks" intro... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26498687)

s/I'm just a country lawyer/I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid/

Go balls out, man.

The Impossible! (-1, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498723)

"I'm just a country lawyer, but as far as I know: (a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

Because doing so WILL BRING FORTH THE APOCALYPSE!!!

They've somehow done the IMPOSSIBLE!

Or maybe you should have said "an appeal has no legal basis for success" or something that accurately describes the situation?

Re:The Impossible! (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498761)

Because, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the United States Code, it's not an appealable order.

Um, great (-1, Flamebait)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498823)

You missed my point.

Totally.

They did someting you claim is impossible, so your claim is clearly not accurate.

Re:Um, great (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498849)

I did not say it's impossible to file a defective document.

Re:Um, great (-1, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498883)

*sigh*

No you said it's "(a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

They have.

You were wrong.

Re:Um, great (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499039)

No you said it's "(a) it's not possible to appeal the order"

It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.

Try all you want. You will fail.

Re:Um, great (-1, Offtopic)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499083)

"It's not possible for you to make an intelligent post.

Try all you want. You will fail."

Hi Zironic! Still pissed off I proved you were a liar here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1087679&cid=26467823 [slashdot.org]

Sad though that you wasted ALL of your mods points on me, especially since you just made it obvious it was you.

Re:Um, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499959)

Bzzzz!

Re:Um, great (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499321)

No actually. Filing papers that purport to make an appeal is not the same as appealing. To actually appeal requires some uptake from the court, not just the filing of some documents.

So, they have not appealed they have merely attempted to appeal.

Re:Um, great (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498859)

They did someting you claim is impossible, so your claim is clearly not accurate.

I don't think anyone meant that the act of sending them paperwork is impossible. The mail does run come rain and sleet and whatnot.

He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate.

Re:Um, great (-1, Flamebait)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498919)

"He meant the act of that actually bringing about an appeal is impossible. which it is. and they have not done, nor will. So his claim is 100% accurate."

No it isn't.

You're artificually confining the definition of the word to what makes his assertion correct.

They CAN appeal.

There may be NO LEGAL BASIS for their appeal to succeed, but that CAN and HAVE appealed, so you're both wrong now.

And this is stupid, you're both arguing they can't do something they've already done.

Read the dictionary much???? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499219)

From a commonly used online dictionary [reference.com] :

> 4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.

Repeat after me: words often have more than one meaning.

Epic fail.

Re:Um, great (1)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499025)

They are "trying to appeal", not that they "have appealed". Your concept of what divides possible from impossible is flawed.

Ok, I get it (-1, Offtopic)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498941)

I try to get this guy to be CORRECT ith his descriptions, and you people think that makes me a troll.

Says a lot about the priorities around here.

Re:Ok, I get it (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499061)

Looking at your comment history reveals a lot about your own priorities.

You're a deluded crank seeking attention, and you have reading comprehension issues.

So that's all you've got? (-1, Flamebait)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499013)

Well mods I'm disappointed. In my attempt to get this "lawyer" to actually clarify what he meant, and avoid posting his useless opinion in place of fact, you decided I was a troll.

And yet, I;m still factually corrct and this "lawyer" isn't.

Making people be ACCURATE with their discriptions of the case doesn't make me a troll, and if NewYorkCountry"so-called"lawyer ahd any self respect, he'd admit I was right and his description of the situtation was unclear at best.

What's that, I didn't slurp the pet-anti-RIAA "lawyer"? Oh, THAT'S why you think I'm a troll. I get it now.

Re:So that's all you've got? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499133)

Nothing NYCL said was factually incorrect. He said that it was not possible to appeal the order. While the RIAA can file as much bogus paperwork as they want, their request will not be honored.

An analogy might be that you bought a blender from a store. When you bought the blender, you were explicitly informed that you could not return or exchange this product. After bringing the blender home, you discovered that it's the wrong color and you try to go back to the store to return it. No matter how much you argue and pester the management, they are not going to permit you to return it, despite the fact that you brought your receipt and waited at the returns register for someone to help you.

6 mod points wasted (-1, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499045)

NICE JOB MODS!

You wasted 6 mod points on me in my attempt to get this self procalimed "lawyer" to be MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE in his description of this situation.

Well done, very responsible use of mod points.

And yet my objection is STILL true, and his description is STILL wrong.

Now it's 7 (-1, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499127)

And this guy was still wrong.

Re:Now it's 7 (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499377)

Shut the fuck up, you goddamn idiot! I'm trying to read this diccussion and I'm not interested in your pissant pedantry. One wonders why the fuck you're allowed to post that many times in a single discussion anyway.

CuloCulo [urbandictionary.com] , you're just a stupid first-year law school dropout. NYCL gets all the pussy while you're stuck beating your shrivelled, uncircumsized needledick on weekends. Even your own dog hates you.

Re:Now it's 7 (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499787)

Even your own dog hates you.

Okay, now there you went too far.

Re:6 mod points wasted (1)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499141)

Dude you're just like a little kid. Grow the fuck up, take your fingers out of your ear, and stop going "nahnahnahnahnah can't hear youuuuuuu". There's no need to shit up /. with repeated posts. That's why people mod you troll.

Re:6 mod points wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499207)

"There's no need to shit up /. with repeated posts"

And yet you keep posting.

"I don't kowtow to the pet anti-RIAA slashdot 'lawyer'" That's why people mod me troll.

FYP.

Re:6 mod points wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499727)

well said. im sick of kiddies on here kissing ray dickheads ass because it makes them feel ok about stealing.
Fuck these ignorant hippies.
he isn't a real lawyer anyway, just a guy that runs an adsense site and spams links to it here.

Re:6 mod points wasted (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499797)

well said. im sick of kiddies on here kissing ray dickheads ass because it makes them feel ok about stealing. Fuck these ignorant hippies. he isn't a real lawyer anyway, just a guy that runs an adsense site and spams links to it here.

Damn! I guess Ripley was right ... IQs DID drop sharply she was away. That, or ignorance really is bliss.

Re:6 mod points wasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499191)

didnt waste them. your karma is down by 6 points. idiot.

the point.... (4, Insightful)

budword (680846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498763)

The point has never been to "educate" the public. The point has been to THREATEN the public.

Re:the point.... (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499289)

This (opposition to the broadcast) is very, very simple. They're about to get shellacked and they don't want anyone to see it any more than absolutely necessary. Much less do they want it spliced up and replayed on YouTube for eternity.

Heck, there'll probably be a montage on The Daily Show in 24 hours.

It is not that they don't want you to see it (5, Funny)

cortesoft (1150075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498783)

What the RIAA is upset about is that people can download it for free. They don't want people pirating their court appearances!

Re:It is not that they don't want you to see it (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499095)

can we pirate it before it is officially released.

Re:It is not that they don't want you to see it (3, Informative)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499213)

I wonder if i can pirate it before it is released.

In this, as in everything... (4, Insightful)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498807)

What one says is not necessarily what one means. What one professes to do is not necessarily what one intends to do.

That is the credo of the modern world in which we live.

It is disgusting and dishonorable. But it is a fact of life. One that I've had to learn the hard way. I'm honest to a fault, but my "bullshit detectors" have been calibrated by dealing with this world in which we find ourselves. Many people (especially scientists) find this hard, since there are many wrong answers and only one right answer in many circumstances. At other times, there are no right answers, just some that are less incorrect.

And people wonder why I hate the world and would much rather deal with computers.

Re:In this, as in everything... (1)

tyroneking (258793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499151)

"politically correct moderators can suck my white pierced tattooed dick." - so do you really MEAN what your tag line says or is this bullshit too?

Re:In this, as in everything... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499241)

Yep. 2 gauge Prince Albert, 10 gauge Frenum. Shaft tattooed like a WWII-era bomb. Did the piercings myself (it's how I put myself through most of college, running a body piercing shop).

And what's this "is this bullshit too?" bullshit? Are you making a reference to my original comment, or what?

Re:In this, as in everything... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26499835)

Did the piercings myself

that takes balls.

Real reason: compensating the performers (4, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498825)

The RIAA has appealed the order entered several days ago allowing the January 22nd hearing in SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum to be streamed over internet TV.

They went on to explain this was because the court refused to give fair payment to the artists/performers (lawyers) for the massive distribution of the video over the internet.

Intimidation not Education (5, Insightful)

jcwynholds (765111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498835)

The MPAA and RIAA have been using their legal team to "educate" the same way that loan sharks use hired thugs to "educate" people about their outstanding debts.

Both the loan sharks and the **AA want their tactics and motives hidden. The message is intimidation.

I can see why now... (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26498857)

they want to educate the public, but don't want to be seen losing in court...

So why don't they (3, Funny)

arun84h (1454607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499179)

just charge people to view the court broadcast? That way, no persons involved can come back and sue the viewers who got free "entertainment".

One trick pony. (1)

kulakovich (580584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499257)

These guys have a one trick pony. Once we've seen the trick, no one will pay. ~kulakovich

Why fight tooth and nail? (2, Interesting)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499501)

Probably because it's in the best interests of their clients. Yes, public education is a stated goal of their campaign.. and these videos may have a benefit to that. But not by much - as these legal proceedings in and of themselves do not make for particularly compelling watching.

On the other hand, these videos would also assist defence lawyers arguing against the RIAA. There's also the potential for a 30-second sound byte of an RIAA spokesperson saying something stupid appearing on the 6 o'clock news. And the potential to pull short clips out of context (a la negative political ads).

On the whole, I think it's understandable but disappointing for the RIAA to be opposing this.

new acronym (0, Offtopic)

ca111a (1078961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26499759)

IAJACL = I'm just a country lawyer
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?