Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Inaccuracies

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the nothing-to-see-here-move-along dept.

The Courts 69

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The other day I reported on my blog that the record companies had assigned, to the RIAA itself, a $4000 default judgment they'd gotten against some lady in Massachusetts, and that the RIAA was going after the defendant with an 'enforcement' proceeding to squeeze the money out of her. Today, it turns out, the RIAA withdrew its motion because, according to the RIAA's collection lawyer, the motion 'contained factual inaccuracies ... which plaintiff needs to sort out' (PDF). The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."

cancel ×

69 comments

Obviously the lawyer is backfilling (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26761805)

for all the RIAA scum that have new jobs in Obama's "Justice" department.

"The collection lawyer must be new around here; a few little 'factual inaccuracies' never bothered an RIAA lawyer before."

Re:Obviously the lawyer is backfilling (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26761937)

Hello, and think about your breathing.

Yes that's right, think about your breathing. Why you might ask? Well it's simple!

Your brain usually takes care of breathing for you, but whenever you remember this, you must manually breathe! If you don't you will die.

There are also many variations of this. For example, think about:

Blinking!

Swallowing saliva!

How your feet feel in your socks!

Your parents having hot sweaty sex!

In conclusion, the think about your breathing troll is simply unbeatable. These 4 words can be thrown randomly into article text trolls, into sigs, into anything, and once seen, will force the victim to take care of his breathing manually! This goes far beyond the simple annoying or insulting trolls of yesteryear.

In fact, by even responding to this troll, you are proving that it has claimed another victim -- You!

Re:Obviously the lawyer is backfilling (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26761959)

So um, did anyone start thinking about their breathing and then realise they had to keep thinking about it in order to not die? Because I thought about my breathing, and then I stopped thinking about it as I read the rest of the troll, and nothing happened. So then I thought it was just a stupid troll. But then I thought, maybe there's something wrong with me. Maybe it works for everyone else except me? Or maybe I'm already dead and I've gone to hell and my hell is exactly the same as my actual life so I can't tell the difference. That'd be pretty depressing. Or would it?

It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762785)

RIAA is starting a new legal campaign based on a copyright EMI has on "breathing" [wikipedia.org] ! Even thinking about it will attract a lawsuit!

Better late than never (2, Funny)

achten (1032738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761815)

They are learning the lessons.

Re:Better late than never (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761827)

They are learning the lessons.

I don't think so. I really think this collection lawyer is new to the process, and just realized his clients lied to him. The RIAA's main lawyers wouldn't care about that. This guy might be more of a regular lawyer, who does care about that.

Re:Better late than never (2, Interesting)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762023)

That would be interesting. Now you can never stereotype all lawyers (even IRAA ones?) or any group for that matter without there being those that are different than the heard. But in general, lawyers, as many/most professions go, would go with the flow and continue to make money one would think. Though, there are obviously some decent honest attorneys who have righteous principals in the world.

    However, having said all that, one may think that the IRAA would do their homework on prospective legal representatives in order to avoid any embarrassment or friction. Is this a sign they are slipping, or are they being underestimated again? Never underestimate your opponent, especially those who will sacrifice things of self value merely in order to deceive. I feel the IRAA has demonstrated this in the past. But this is what makes them intimidating to some. Was it intentional or not? One thing is for sure, it is hard to scratch your head in confusion and have your hands on both your sword and shield at the same time.

Re:Better late than never (1, Funny)

phantomflanflinger (832614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762685)

Indeed; the British government never underestimated the IRAA. Thankfully, the permanent ceasefire brought peace to Northern Ireland. Or rather, it stopped IRA bombs going off in England, which is all the British Government (and the British public) ever cared about.

I'm just glad I live in Britain - yes, the IRA used to be a threat to me, but the RIAA never will.

Re:Better late than never (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762235)

A lawyer with ethics...a novel concept.

Re:Better late than never (5, Funny)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762745)

A lawyer with ethics...a novel concept.

Says an Anonymous Coward to everyone's favourite NewYorkCountryLawyer...

Re:Better late than never (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26774651)

Actually ethical lawyers ARE novel.

NYCL's *uniqueness* only emphasizes it.

Re:Better late than never (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26764683)

in this day and age? must be a sign of the end times.

and my key would be schooled, so here's a lesson to you RIAA, SIT DOWN!!!

Re:Better late than never (4, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762249)

Whatever it is. Do not make assumptions. Yes, you're probably right, but this detail still needs to be investigated by the slash mob. For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual (which is hard to believe I know, but still let's be ready for anything -- even something that's even more absurd than it usually is).

Re:Better late than never (4, Interesting)

shawb (16347) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762297)

You are thinking along the same lines as me...

In particular, I was thinking they may have realized something about their argument which could be used in a judgment against them. Better to forfeit now than risk a retrial which could open the doors with court precedent in a ruling against the RIAA, endangering future legal action. (Note the liberal use of indefinite articles... pure speculation)

Re:Better late than never (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763897)

For all we know, the RIAA may have made a bigger error than usual, or better yet a more embarrassing glaring error than usual

For me the real news is that the lawyer cared that there was an error. Normally, to these people, that would not be cause for dropping a case, since they are always misrepresenting the facts. You use the word "embarrassing"; this is a foreign concept to most RIAA lawyers. The part of their brains that is capable of feeling shame appears to have been surgically removed.

Re:Better late than never (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26769033)

Obama took all of the RIAA's best lawyers (none of which successfully prosecuted even one file sharer, although many were persecuted), so now they can't be involved in copyright infringement cases, at least for a year or two. And it would still be conflict of interest after that.

The down side is that the Dept. of Justice is going to be staffed with people we know are more than willing to lie to us. No change there. But at least they don't work for the RIAA any more.

Re:Better late than never (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26769555)

Obama took all of the RIAA's best lawyers (none of which successfully prosecuted even one file sharer, although many were persecuted)

??????????How do you define a "best lawyer"? Lawyers who collected fees of ~$50m or more, and couldn't win even one fully contested case, against opposition which can't even afford a lawyer?

Re:Better late than never (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26769703)

??????How do you define a "best lawyer"?

No, the RIAA's best lawyers. It's a much, much lower standard.

Lawyers who collected fees of ~$50m or more, and couldn't win even one fully contested case, against opposition which can't even afford a lawyer?

Yep. That's them. The RIAA's best.

I should put sarcasm warnings in my sig.

Re:Better late than never (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26769733)

I should put sarcasm warnings in my sig.

Nah. I should develop a better sarcasm detection meter.

Re:Better late than never (1)

Zwicky (702757) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763447)

Ah, he has a larger ID then? Whether intentional or not I love the "must be new ... here" reference. I can only hope that you are peppering your speeches with such memes on a regular basis. ;)

As for the story, forgive my naïveté but how much difference would (will) this make? My pessimistic side makes me just think that the RIAA will go away and find someone who will do their bidding - can they reinstate the motion as though it was never withdrawn once the inaccuracies are (purportedly) sorted out? My optimistic side was unavailable for comment.

In any case, if this guy is new to the process, it is nice to hear of another lawyer who is concerned with ethics.

Re:Better late than never (2, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763973)

Whether intentional or not I love the "must be new ... here" reference. I can only hope that you are peppering your speeches with such memes on a regular basis. ;)

In the Soviet Union, the speeches would be peppering me.

As for the story, forgive my naïveté but how much difference would (will) this make?

I have no idea.

My pessimistic side makes me just think that the RIAA will go away and find someone who will do their bidding

Yes there are many such people pretending to be lawyers.

- can they reinstate the motion as though it was never withdrawn once the inaccuracies are (purportedly) sorted out?

Yes.

My optimistic side was unavailable for comment.

That's okay. I don't even have one.

In any case, if this guy is new to the process, it is nice to hear of another lawyer who is concerned with ethics.

Well let's not go too far in praising him, just yet. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

Re:Better late than never (2, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26767393)

That's "In Soviet Russia". You must be... ah, forget it.

Re:Better late than never (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26767631)

That's "In Soviet Russia". You must be... ah, forget it.

:)

Re:Better late than never (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764041)

A lawyer who cares about that would not work for the RIAA.

Re:Better late than never (3, Insightful)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762025)

The RIAA remind me of Ralf from The Simpsons like when Ralf said: Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers! I'm learnding.

RIAA: Me fail lawsuit? Thats unpossible!

Re:Better late than never (5, Funny)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762263)

I think learnding is a perfectly cromulent word.

What in the world is there to sort out? (4, Interesting)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761829)

Gee, Ray, I read the motion to enforce default judgment and I saw very few facts indeed other than an allegation of identity, and another of nonpayment. What the h*** could possibly need to be sorted out? Unless maybe Mr. Mann's firm, as a reputable one would, *reviewed the allegations of fact supporting the original default judgment* and found them, well, fantastical, to use a kind word.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761861)

I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.

And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.

What I find problematic (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762073)

Is that he's the first one out of however many the RIAA employs that seems to have a vestige of conscience and a care for due process.

Is it really that bad in your profession Ray? A single guy sparks up and says something decent and it's a news item?

You must have been pretty lonely in law school. We slashdotters always knew you were rare. We just didn't know *how* rare.

Re:What I find problematic (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762323)

Finding a lawyer that cares about the law might not be newsworthy, but finding one (probably accidently!) employed by the RIAA *IS* newsworthy.

Re:What I find problematic (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763923)

Finding a lawyer that cares about the law might not be newsworthy, but finding one (probably accidently!) employed by the RIAA *IS* newsworthy.

Yes, I find it 'stop the presses' newsworthy.

Re:What I find problematic (3, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763833)

Is it really that bad in your profession Ray?

Not at all. It's just that the RIAA's lawyers represent the bottom of my profession. IMNSHO.

Re:What I find problematic (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#26765491)

I'm actually pretty relieved to hear that. Thanks.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762075)

By guessing, you mean making up a reason that suits your own biased perspective.

But that is what lawyers do, come up with reasons that suit their goals.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762117)

By guessing, you mean making up a reason that suits your own biased perspective.

But that is what lawyers do, come up with reasons that suit their goals.

Uh ... the process of rationalization is something all human beings do, to one degree or another. In actual fact, Man is a rationalizing animal, and usually requires training to become a rational one. Regardless, what lawyers do (to varying extents, often depending upon their moral fiber) is come up with reasons that suit their client's goals. That's a very different matter, although if it turns out that their client wants them to do something that's amoral, they may have to find a rationalization that lets them do it.

In that, they're no different from the rest of humanity.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762367)

Some people will stick to their personal code of honor as well as their professional code and will not be tempted to rationalize them away to do anything amoral. These are things they learn from their families and other closer knit members of their corner of society. Familial or societal survival instincts being the lowest forms of rationalizing doing something that would otherwise be against their code. Others have very trivial personal codes and could care less about the professional ones, some care more for their professional codes then they do for their personal ones.

Everyone falls somewhere in variable degrees of those descriptions. Those are the epoxy resins your "moral fiber" is mixed with to form a person's backbone and the tissues that support, protect and enable it to move. Some are soluable, some break easy, and some seem nearly indistructable like Ford's car body he made from hemp fibers. [chanvre-info.ch]

Many people would have trouble "rationalizing" being so stiff necked in sticking to their code of honor, the strongest in that regard likely give it a thought despite the pain they may acquire from adhering to their code. Others "raionalize" breaking their own code of honor and professional codes on a regular basis. Literature is another place people learn their codes and gain the strength to adhere to them and far better discussions on this can be found in books then I can give so will hush about it. Just wanted to throw in a pause for thought.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (4, Insightful)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762209)

Can I just pause for a moment and point out the futility of attempting to argue with 'our champion' here? I mean, it's one thing to point out an actual fallacy in Ray's logic or reasoning, but when you just try and attack Ray, that will not work out in your favor very well. We all hold him in high regard, and appreciate his work at publicizing the wrongs that are being committed in the name of 'justice'. I know he's not the only lawyer out there doing this, but he's 'our' lawyer.

Then again, you did post AC, so perhaps you realize that.

Also, how is making a guess as to someone else's frame of mind a bad thing? Do you really expect NYCL to just "know" what someone else was thinking? All he can do is guess.

Way to reinforce the stereotype that AC comments have no valid substance on a regular basis, and for reminding me why my thresholds subtract 1 from AC comments. Cheers!

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762675)

he is YOUR lawyer, if you are a thieving, pirating little scum bag. he doesn't represent hard working people who actually fucking pay for stuff.

Plus if we cared about his predictable drivel we would read his ad-infested blog

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26765647)

LOLz

Your SOOO getting sued!!

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 5 years ago | (#26766041)

a) I don't even listen to music if it's not broadcast
b) He's not MY lawyer, but I don't need one, so...
c) You have obviously read his blog
d) Why am I responding to a AC with a list?

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26767803)

Regarding NYCL, said by you:

he doesn't represent hard working people who actually fucking pay for stuff.

He does, however, seem to represent hard working people who actually fucking pay for stuff, but then get sued by the RIAA anyway.

So - how does this work for you at your RIAA offices? Troll /. as AC, get a bonus for every reply, then subtract for a pwning reply? Hope your knees get nice and sore on this one, champette.

Seriously - you have to be one of them to lack even the fundamentamental (said it on purpose) skills to troll without having a single phrase ram your own words up your ass.

PS - Hope you had as much fun bending over and taking it as I had in putting it to you. COME BACK AGAIN - REALLY - you dumbass.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (4, Insightful)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762177)

It really sucks when you hire someone that turns out to
have integrity and won't roll over and be your lackey.

Sounds like RIAA could not afford to properly vet this lawyer.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (2, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763847)

It really sucks when you hire someone that turns out to have integrity and won't roll over and be your lackey. Sounds like RIAA could not afford to properly vet this lawyer.

Yeah. If he's going to be squeamish about little details like getting the facts straight, he won't have the RIAA as a client for very long.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26774699)

I was just thinking about this.

Anyone wanna count and see how long it takes for the RIAA to give this guy a pink slip?

Of course, I don't know if AC priv applies or not to your client's attempts to have you break ethical regs. If this guy can blow any whistles, I hope his lungs are full.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763567)

I'm guessing he found out the RIAA misrepresented something to him.

And unlike the lawyers the RIAA usually uses, he found that a tad problematic.

A lot of lawyers I know take zealous representation of the client a bit far, and give the client the benefit of the doubt far more than others would. Sometimes it is what pyschologists call "magical thinking", as in, I believe, the magic gravel pit tolerated by the Rule against Perpetuities. The problem is that this kind of excessive deference to client interest at the expense of common sense can be easily and comfortably rationalized as preserving the adversary system and by the feeling of an obligation to carry the client's case forward if there is any remote possibility the facts are as he claims based on the lawyer's credo that everyone deserves competent representation or a defense. Sometimes we know our clients aren't perfectly moral but we carry the cases forward ignoring the "peccadillos" because he is OUR client and we've decided we are *on his side*. That's the way it often is, don't you think?

Of course, catch the client in a lie to you, and I would bet for most civil lawyers, all bets are off.

Re:What in the world is there to sort out? (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763993)

this kind of excessive deference to client interest at the expense of common sense can be easily and comfortably rationalized as preserving the adversary system and by the feeling of an obligation to carry the client's case forward if there is any remote possibility the facts are as he claims based on the lawyer's credo that everyone deserves competent representation or a defense.

Not among real lawyers. Among us there is no confusion about that. We know who the whores are.

You really think so? (0, Redundant)

cb_is_cool (1084665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761835)

Are you kidding? I think the RIAA has proven they're incapable of learning.

Re:You really think so? (2, Funny)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761935)

If by incapable of learning, you mean severely mentally (and morally) handicapped, then yes.

Re:You really think so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762041)

See, I don't think the RIAA or their lawyers are stupid. I think they're cunning and ruthless, but just not particularly adept or interested in technology. I think it is hard to disagree with the idea that their lawsuits have had the desired affect, namely that rampant p2p filesharing has been much reduced in the average (non /.) population, even though they've actually collected very little money in damages. The fear that the RIAA lawyers will come a-knockin' has really put a chill on the free-for-all that was mp3 sharing 5 years ago. Stupid lawyers? I don't think so. I think they just don't care about technology the way we do.

Re:You really think so? (2, Insightful)

HadouKen24 (989446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762195)

Do you really think that it's the threat of the RIAA that has caused file sharing to drop?

First, I'm not sure whether or not that's actually the case. However, even if it is, the RIAA's lawsuits is not, I think, the best explanation. The rise of iTunes, free songs on MySpace, free music videos on YouTube, etc., has made a much bigger difference. People don't do filesharing as much as they used to because they don't need to. Why download a P2P client and expose yourself to risky files of uncertain provenance when you could just listen to Pandora?

I know that my own file sharing activities have significantly dropped, not because of anything the RIAA or MPAA have done, but because there are loads of television shows and movies available to watch anytime, for free, on Hulu.

Re:You really think so? (1)

Mystic Pixel (911992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762721)

...or just pull up the music video on YouTube and "listen" to that. Although downright offensive to anyone who considers audio quality important, it seems that this is perfectly acceptable in most cases -- especially where the intent is just to share a song with someone else. ...but then again, in that light, it seems that YouTube is cast as a sort of viral music marketing -- which becomes a strange beastie, far beyond the proportions of this post (especially since this has already gone several levels OT with respect to the original post...)

don't worry (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26761843)

With the Obama regime in power for the next 4 years, there won't be any more RIAA lawsuits.

Instead, the RIAA will just be allowed to arrest you and seize your property without a court trial.

Hurray for "change"!!

Re:don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762459)

I quite agree, lets have three cheers for our messiah!

Oh ##@!# missed the tag (0, Offtopic)

achten (1032738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26761863)

Eagerness to go for first post. damn... ..Can't help wonder who was cursing whom on Jan 20th just after noon.

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762011)

An attorney had some errors in a motion! Heavens no! This never happens for reasons that have nothing to do with any actual misconduct! Really, petty complaints like this don't help.

Damned if you do... (1, Insightful)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762055)

  The modern legal system: flip a coin, chances are better, either way.

  What a wonderful hole we've dug ourselves into. I wonder how many generations it'll take to sort it out? Assuming we start now, that is.

  Sure makes for plenty of material for future historians to debate ;)

  Pardon me if I think that our society is well and truly fucked.

  SB

Re:Damned if you do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762949)

I wonder how many generations it'll take to sort it out? Assuming we start now, that is

1. build space elevator
2. entice RIAA lawyers, banking CEOs, realtors etc onto elevator
3. when they are all on and on their way, disconnect Earth end
4. Profit!!!!

We Need a Boycott (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26763403)

This is an issue that many people have heard of, yet it does not appear to inspire very many people to protest.

But protest is exactly what it would take to end this nonsense. It could almost happen overnight. Get a rebellious populace to boycott RIAA-defended products. No, don't even pirate them. Make it clear that a large segment of the population is upset. That kind of unrest gets the attention of businesses and politicians alike.

Unfortunately, it won't happen in the foreseeable future because people just don't care. A business that donates a dollar to a community family planning service is much more likely to be targeted than an industry lobbying group that abuses the legal system.

Re:We Need a Boycott (1)

Blublu (647618) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763537)

Even if such a massive boycott took place(which will never happen), the RIAA would be all like "Shit, look, now everyone is pirating out shit!!!111 ZOMG!" And then they would sue everyone on earth who has an internet connection.

Boycotts and framing debate on likelihood of fame (2, Interesting)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764035)

I wouldn't recommend trying to help people not fight the RIAA. The RIAA doesn't behave in the public's interest. Also, as to the other part of your argument, we don't need to take a defeatist attitude fearing what the RIAA might say. The RIAA already complains about widespread illicit copying, the RIAA threatens to sue everyone, and sues many people. Some of the people they sue don't deserve to be sued. The RIAA is reckless and they lie. Clearly we should oppose their efforts by boycott and education.

You could only buy copies of music which you know to be good. This act shares the same outcome as a boycott but is quite different in its intention. Richard Stallman proposed this for MPAA-studio-made movies, recognizing that so few of them are worth seeing at all anyone who was so selective would see very few Hollywood movies.

You could buy tracks from distributors that treat you right, like Magnatune [magnatune.org] . Artists get half of the cost of each track, artists retain their copyrights (Magnatune licenses from the artist), you can preview Magnatune's entire catalog, you can get audio in a variety of formats, you can share tracks with others, you can include tracks in your other works (subject to the limits of the applicable Creative Commons license), and there's never any DRM to contend with. I don't work for Magnatune; it's remarkable what a great deal Magnatune offers in relation to their competitors.

But you can go beyond believing in market lies (as if you ever had any say in the market) and get into education. Explain to your musician friends that it's remarkably unlikely any unknown musician will become famous. The real choice before the musicians is not whether to sign with an RIAA label, it is how much control will the artist share with the listener. Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label. Musicians should choose to stop trading away what little they have in an attempt to become famous.

Re:Boycotts and framing debate on likelihood of fa (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26764117)

Artists can choose to keep control of their copyrights (songs, recorded performances) and sell their own stuff to the public, or artists can choose to lose those copyrights by signing with a label and going into debt to a label.

And that element of choice is exactly what is at the core of the RIAA litigations. Digitalization and the internet have given musicians and listeners the choice of leaving the record company middlemen out of it. And more and more of both are making that choice. Which is why these corporations are doing their utmost to put the genie back in the bottle, and to try and make the internet the kind of closed, monopolistic marketplace that existed before. Be wary of attempts of the record companies to 'work with the ISP's' and to take away net neutrality, because what is at the core is the desire to recruit the ISP's to be their gatekeepers the way vinyl record manufacturing plants, payola to radio stations, and expansive distribution networks were in the past.

Re:Damned if you do... (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26766149)

But there's an old saying:

"In war and before a court you are in God's hands." (E.g. no one can predict the outcome.)

Well, when you're filing that many lawsuits ... (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26762087)

it's quantity over quality, I always say.

Way to go! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26762193)

Chalk one up for ethics!

Sloppy work (3, Funny)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26763363)

I'll wager the facts that need sorting out include which Monica Buckley got sued and where she is.

Pulling the first one from the phone books is probably not a good way to proceed.

Re:Sloppy work (1)

mundanetechnomancer (1343739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26767087)

I got the *right* man. The wrong one was delivered to me as the right man, I accepted him on good faith as the right man. Was I wrong?

New Title (1)

Nonillion (266505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26765017)

RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Fabrications

There, fixed it for you...

Re:New Title (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26765671)

RIAA Drops Enforcement Case To "Sort Out" Fabrications There, fixed it for you...

Thank you.

What are these "inaccuracies" (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26775489)

Before you can obtain a default judgement, the plaintiff must assert that they have used due diligence to inform the defendant that there was an action pending against them. IANAL, but if I came into a case to collect a default judgement and found out that it was possible the defendant was not even aware of the case, I would be a little reluctant to proceed as well, since in that case sanctions against the legal team may be in order. Of course, since I don't have firsthand knowledge of the case, I'm just speculating on what these "inaccuracies" are.
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...