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!

Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Duluth

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the get-your-butts-up-here dept.

The Courts 231

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Lest there be any doubt that District Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding over the Duluth, Minnesota, case, Capitol Records v. Thomas, really does 'get it' about the toxic effect the RIAA, its lead henchman Matthew Oppenheim, and their lawyers have had on the judicial process, all such doubt should be removed by the order he just entered (PDF). It removes control of the decision-making process from the RIAA, Oppenheim, and the lawyers. In the order Judge Davis spells out, in the clearest possible terms so that there can be no misunderstanding, that at the extraordinary 2-day settlement conference he has scheduled for later this month, each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an 'officer' of the corporation, or a 'managing agent' of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, 'power.' The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable. This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past."

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

My heart leaped (5, Funny)

subreality (157447) | more than 5 years ago | (#27047989)

My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.

Re:My heart leaped (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048003)

My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.

I can assure you that if they do show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable.

Re:My heart leaped (3, Interesting)

subreality (157447) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048047)

I appreciate the glimmer of hope. :)

I dearly hope some of them eventually find it unenjoyable in a criminal PMITA prison kind of way, rather than a merely expensive civil way.

Re:My heart leaped (4, Interesting)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048111)

I'd prefer some kind of RICO act finding myself... especially with the illegal investigations by unlicensed investigators. Attempts at entrapment (if their actions had been done by police officers or federal agents), attempts at extortion that border on blackmail... "Pay us 5,000.00 or we'll take you to court for hundreds of thousands - oh and we'll keep your little dog as hostage until you pay up..." kind of things (the dog comment is an exaggeration, although it probably went through some of their minds)...

Re:My heart leaped (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048123)

And if they don't show up, can they be held in contempt? (oh pretty please let it be so :-)

Unfortunately I doubt it (5, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048249)

I don't think a contempt charge is possible since the order doesn't name a specific person to show up. It just asks for somebody in authority, don't care who. IANAL though.

But from the tone it sounds like "if you don't do this - you forfeit." And I don't think anyone wants that to happen.

Reason being, this bit:

If complete agreement is not reached, each attorney shall deliver to chambers on or before March 23, 2009 by noon, a letter which shall include: (1) the parties' respective settlement positions before the meeting; (2) the parties' respective positions following the meeting; (3) a concise analysis of each remaining liability issue, with citation to relevant authority; (4) a reasoned, itemized computation of each element of the alleged damages, with a concise summary of the testimony of each witness who will testify in support of the damage computations; and (5) a reasoned analysis justifying their client's last stated settlement position as well as any additional information believed to be helpful to the process of reaching agreement.

I don't read a lot of legal documents, but specifically points (3) and (4) sound an awful lot like a judge who's absolutely sick and tired of being jerked around.

If I read this right the judge is trying to expose exactly what's going on here. I hope that is his intention. It sounds like it to me. If that's the case, the RIAA will drop the case. If they don't, if the judge has his way, that that's it for the RIAA. And it certainly sounds like that's on the judge's agenda.

Because if the judge exposes this for the scam that it is, there will be the Mother Of All Class Action Countersuits, where the previous victims of this scam unite and get their money back. With damages added, of course.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (4, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048261)

Nah...

The RIAA companies (SUE-W) will declare bankruptcy and we, the u.s. tax payers will give them several billion dollars..

Oh waiter... "Bitter, party of one!"

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (4, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048583)

I'd like to believe that such an outcome is beyond the realm of possibility, but the RIAA has links into the Obama administration through Biden, so such a swindle could indeed occur all kidding aside. One of the side effects of electing the Democrats this time around is granting the entertainment industry, with all of their special interests, enhanced access to the government pocketbook and the federal prosecutor. I wonder if any of the young college students who voted for Obama factored this into their decision. They may soon come to regret Obama's VP choice and his ties to the MAFIAA on a very personal level.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048599)

Wow, that sounded gay.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (4, Interesting)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048741)

I think this judge's order indicates that he is keenly aware that the RIAA is a shell entity for the music industry, so there is some hope that a simple RIAA bankruptcy won't be a "get out of jail free" card for the involved members of the music industry.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (3, Insightful)

CoolCalmChris (991775) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048343)

I don't read a lot of legal documents, but specifically points (3) and (4) sound an awful lot like a judge who's absolutely sick and tired of being jerked around.

I agree, but I also think number 5 is a pretty good indication of his state of mind...

(5) a reasoned analysis justifying their client's last stated settlement position as well as any additional information believed to be helpful to the process of reaching agreement.

Re:Unfortunately I doubt it (1)

oliphaunt (124016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048643)

well, the RIAA can move to dismiss their own case. And while it's customary for judges to grant such motions, it would be really singular for THIS judge to deny and force the MAFIAA to actually show up and take their medicine.

Re:My heart leaped (2, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048231)

I can assure you that if they do show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable.

Okay, I'm crawling out on a limb here, but what if they are masochists by way of business tradition, and can't help but asking for pain?(yes, this may be far-fetched, but is it a factor?)

BTW, I hope you are right! Experience will have me 'betting' on your side.

Re:My heart leaped (3, Insightful)

kokoloko2k3 (878482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048341)

I can assure *you* that if they _don't_ show up for this, they will not find it enjoyable either.

Re:My heart leaped (2, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048555)

Would the settlement proceedings effect just this one instance, Capitol Records v. Thomas, or would the results be more wide reaching, perhaps setting a precedent for other cases pending around the country?

Re:My heart leaped (2, Funny)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048691)

No kidding, have you ever been to Duluth...?

Re:My heart leaped (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048027)

Obviously you've never been to Duluth in Winter.

Re:My heart leaped (5, Funny)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048031)

Trust me, Duluth, MN is worse.

Re:My heart leaped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048081)

Trust me, Duluth, MN is worse.

So hell really does freeze over? (sorry Duluth)

Re:My heart leaped (4, Informative)

dasunt (249686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048195)

As a city, I like it.

Kind of like San Francisco with the severe elevation changes, but if it was transferred to the frozen tundra for half the year.

The lake is pretty and Engers tower is worth visiting if you're ever in the area.

Re:My heart leaped (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048301)

Duluth is a nice town actually. Not that it matters here - the notice says they have to go to Minneapolis.

Re:My heart leaped (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048465)

There are social, economic, aesthetic, and regional elements to San Francisco that you've probably missed if you're comparing it to Duluth.

Re:My heart leaped (0, Offtopic)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048697)

Yes, sort of. Most of Minnesota is full of good straight-laced conservative liberals who would be absolutely mortified to discover they were racists, even though many of them are. And Duluth is small and has a lot of links to the rural communities surrounding it, so it's got this kind of odd mix of "We're liberal and open-minded, really! *BIG GRIN*" and "We're provincial hicks." going.

Economically, Duluth was suffering mightily from the decline of the steel industry in Minnesota. Now it seems to have stabilized and is growing very slowly. It does not have anywhere near the vibrancy and energy of San Francisco going though.

Aesthetically, Duluth is kind of the ruralish town that became a city. Lots of open spaces and forest still left. There are a few interesting buildings there, but nothing to compare to the variety or aesthetic quality of San Francisco.

Regionally, Duluth is Minnesota's most important port city. Duluth, through the Great Lakes, has access to the ocean. It's the easternmost place you can get without going through the Panama Canal if you start in Europe. So, in some ways it has a lot of resemblance to San Francisco in this regard.

Re:My heart leaped (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048505)

nah, Duluth is beautiful, right on lake Superior!

Re:My heart leaped (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048091)

This means that the law-suits don't get to end the law suites and that the corporate masters in charge of this farce are finally going to feel the fire for once. For too long the pendulum swung in the other direction, allowing the US constitution and civil liberties to be kicked to the curb in favour of corporate welfare and a failing business model (the film camera industry knew to top buying large amounts of chemicals more than a decade ago). It isn't 1950 anymore. Time to investigate new ways of making money. Working smarter and harder will let them still win against newcomers. Being old and crusty will let them be a historical oddity in the annals of history.

Re:My heart leaped (4, Funny)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048157)

Well, 'death', Deluth, Siberian gulag, it's all the same. Don't suffer from Premature Disappointment(tm). Be Happy!

Re:My heart leaped (1)

Docboy-J23 (1095983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048237)

Erm... Have you ever been to Duluth this time of year..?

Well, there's still time (4, Funny)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048315)

> The judge makes it clear that no one who has 'settlement authority' with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable

There's still a possibility that the settlement will include beheadings, since the agent will have the authority to grant it.

Re:My heart leaped (1)

thebigbadme (194140) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048393)

My heart leaped when I first read that as "Judge Orders Record Company Execs To Death". I'm so disappointed.

Have you ever been to Minnesota in March?

Lizards don't survive well in such a climate.

(I'm from Wisconsin)

Re:My heart leaped (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048425)

My first thought was Scorpion saying "Get over here!"

IANAL.. (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27047991)

so what does this mean?

This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past.

Re:IANAL.. (4, Interesting)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048033)

It means they'll probably drop the case to avoid the trouble. These lawsuits are scare tactics, they don't actually care if they win or not.

Re:IANAL.. (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048159)

It means they'll probably drop the case to avoid the trouble.

That would be the smart play, wouldn't it? But then again... they're not known for choosing the smart play, are they?

Re:IANAL.. (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048455)

For those of us that aren't good at legalese would you mind explaining it in English Mr. Beckerman? I tried to make sense of it but I'm afraid legalese just isn't my strong suit, so my questions are these- What changes do you hope this will bring about? Will this help to stop the RICO style extortion that has been going on with the RIAA lawsuits? Do you believe this will simply move the *.AAs into going directly for the ISPs instead of the courts, or will this case help us to finally shed light on what we really need, which is serious copyright reforms?

Sorry for not "getting it" but I'm just a humble PC repairman and trying to read a lot of this stuff is about like me trying to read Latin. I do know that copyrights and the RIAA have gotten totally crazy, with copyrights lasting 150 years or more and the RIAA suing dead folks and little kids. I want you to know though that I am grateful there are guys like you that are willing to stand up to those that think their money can buy the law like the RIAA. Too many of us when faced with an enemy that powerful simply have to pay up even if we did nothing wrong simply to keep from going bankrupt. But without having experience in case law it is hard for me to read between the lines and see what the long term effects of this will be, and I hope that you can explain it in plain English if you aren't too busy.

Thanks for your time and keep up the fight!

Re:IANAL.. (4, Interesting)

torkus (1133985) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048345)

Assuming the judge *lets* them drop the case without prejudice. Seems like the judge is more than tired of the nonsense and if the MAFIAA tries a 'oh! my bad! Let's be friends' he'll *find* for the defendant - which would amount to making case law out of his/her defense.

That would go a LONG way to invalidating their whole extortion scheme - they sue, defense cites this case and then puts in a counterclaim for legal fees and damages.

The MAFIAA doesn't care if they don't win - they just can't afford to actually LOSE because it would set a precedent.

Re:IANAL.. (1)

strredwolf (532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048037)

My guess is that Oppenheim's barred from negotiations. RIAA has to send in the head of each record company, or it's contempt of court.

Re:IANAL.. (4, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048055)

Not necessarily. It simply means that whomever represents the different companies must have full authority to agree to any settlement amount, from nothing to everything.

Re:IANAL.. (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048173)

My guess is that Oppenheim's barred from negotiations.

He wouldn't be barred from attending. He just won't be in control, as he is normally permitted to be.

What is this and why is it red? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048001)

frosty menstruation

Wow (2, Interesting)

teknosapien (1012209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048009)

Maybe this is the beginning of the end and a new business model will show up. take the lawyers out of the mix and get to the heart of the matter? This will be interesting to watch

Re:Wow (1)

nonades (1053946) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048077)

There better not be any music involved in this. There is no music allowed in the music industry.

Re:Wow (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048305)

More likely it will be a "new" business model with the same people trying to control it. Much like the government having many different presidents, but with the same old career cabinet members who carry the real clout going back to the 70s. IOW BAU

At last, a job for Alberto Gonzales! (3, Funny)

Steve1952 (651150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048041)

Work's been kind of slow for him lately. Perhaps he can represent one of the record companies.

If only... (2, Interesting)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048063)

I only wish that there had been some way to make it an official judicial order, requiring them to send someone, something that could have major legal / monetary penalties applied if they don't comply, preferably with U.S. Marshall escort, in hand-cuffs if they refused or tried to weasel out - but that would be dreaming big...

Re:If only... (5, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048079)

hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...

Re:If only... (4, Funny)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048163)

Sorry Your Honor,
we took a wrong turn on the way to the court house, and ended up in a country that doesn't have an extradition agreement with America. Yours Sincerely, RIAA lawyers.

Re:If only... (4, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048199)

hmmm - after reading the order... it sounds like if they probably do NOT want to skip this in any way shape or form...

That is correct. They are not going to 'skip' this. They will probably try to avoid it, by getting the best settlement they can get in advance of the hearing... but if they don't settle, they will show, and I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.

Re:If only... (1)

Hierarch (466609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048219)

Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what happens if they don't follow it to the letter? Contempt of court, presumably, but I don't know what that means for the RIAA's officers, or the organization itself.

Re:If only... (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048245)

Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what happens if they don't follow it to the letter?

It would never happen, but if it were to happen, the judge would throw the case out and grant the defendant her attorneys fees and costs.

Right, but.. SFW? (1)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048285)

That's really the worst that could happen? Why this then? I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.

Toss a couple of bucks to the defendant instead of winning is not exactly an eternity having your liver eaten while chained to a rock*. I still don't get what's so intimidating here.

*Also known as "justice", around these parts.

Re:Right, but.. SFW? (1)

torkus (1133985) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048367)

Actually, I think the judge would find for the defendant instead of throwing the case out. While the outcome for the defendant would effectively be the same either way, the impact on OTHER cases is huge.

The MAFIAA have cornered themselves, they'll probably sing and dance and offer any kind of settlement that doesn't set a precedent in case law against them.

Re:Right, but.. SFW? (2, Funny)

chiguy (522222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048545)

Toss a couple of bucks to the defendant instead of winning is not exactly an eternity having your liver eaten while chained to a rock*...

*Also known as "justice", around these parts.

You're from Greece?

....
Some would consider Prometheus' punishment for giving fire to humans an injustice.

Re:Right, but.. SFW? (1)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048559)

Good idea, we should set fire to them too.

Re:Right, but.. SFW? (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048685)

What's at stake is their own entire intimidation scheme... or a large part of it. They don't dare lose in court because the precedent would blow big holes in the way they go after people. If they think there is an appreciable danger of actually getting a judgment against them (other than a "confidential" settlement), they will probably drop the case like a hot potato. Because that way they will be free to try the same tactics again. But if the judgment went against them, that would set a precedent and likely they would have to either stop or make major changes to the ways they go about the whole thing. Changes that are not in their favor.

And the judge in this case is making it clear that he is tired of their games, and that he wants the principles involved (not just their hired guns) to come to the table and pony up, or go away. Three cheers for the judge.

I am not a lawyer, but that is my armchair analysis of the situation.

Re:Right, but.. SFW? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048839)

You're in ancient Greece, or possibly in the Caucasus mountains during ancient times?

Duluth and ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048087)

Let's hope that more judges do this in places that record company execs will hate to visit. Not to trash Duluth, but you know that the recording industry guys think that any place but NYC or LA is not up to their standard of cool. I want to see these jerks have to visit Phoenix in July, followed by Houston, St Louis, New Orleans, etc. Then in the dead of winter they can tour Fargo, St. Paul and Buffalo during the snow storm season. Fry em and freeze em.

Re:Duluth and ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048717)

Buffalo would be great, especially if they can time it RIGHT before a big ol north eastern storm. flights cancelled and major roads shut down for a few days... bwhahaha.

(and yes, i've been there when this happens. you get to meet some really interesting people in hotels this way also)

NCYL, the juicy details please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048149)

NYCL, would you favor us with your opinion regarding what you think will happen at the settlement meeting? For one thing, is it clear who the settlement will favor? How unusual is an order like this, and why do you think the judge entered it?

And why is it so important that Oppenheim can't represent the RIAA at the meeting? Presumably he was only following executive orders anyway. What does it matter who the representative is?

Re:NCYL, the juicy details please! (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048303)

NYCL, would you favor us with your opinion regarding what you think will happen at the settlement meeting?

If it goes forward, the Judge will lean on each party to soften its position, and get rid of the case.

For one thing, is it clear who the settlement will favor?

Most likely the settlement would be for a small payment by defendant. Most likely all parties will be unhappy with it.

How unusual is an order like this, and why do you think the judge entered it?

In my experience it is quite unusual, and the judge entered into to try to avoid another taxpayer funded circus serving no appropriate purpose. The courts have much more serious things to attend to than some lady allegedly downloading 24 MP3 files.

And why is it so important that Oppenheim can't represent the RIAA at the meeting?

Because he and his lawyer friends have been churning these cases to the detriment of everyone except themselves.

Presumably he was only following executive orders anyway.

I think the actual relationship is somewhat more subtle than that. Yes the record company executives authorized this, but both they and Oppenheim and the lawyers Oppenheim hired were all acting to the detriment of the companies themselves. Yes they had authority to do it. But they weren't giving their clients sound advice. And the record companies were being played for the suckers. Highly 'aggressive' clients are easy prey.

Re:NCYL, the juicy details please! (0, Redundant)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048737)

Well, I am not entirely convinced that the record company execs are quite so innocent in this case. Regardless, wouldn't it be nice if they really did realize that they have been given bad advice all this time?

"Hey, you guys in the glasses! Can you explain why we have been paying you millions of dollars every year these last 10 years, and all we have to show for it is... squat?"

I bet those fees bought a nice little pile of summer homes and fishing boats. Trips to Euro Disney.

Re:NCYL, the juicy details please! (1)

xous (1009057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048745)

each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an 'officer' of the corporation, or a 'managing agent' of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, 'power.'

Couldn't they simply grant one of their lawyers these privileges with certain restrictions meet the requirements and keep going on as per usual?

That said this would obviously not be a wise decision if the lawyers aren't acting in the best interest of their client.

Re:NCYL, the juicy details please! (1)

Geekbot (641878) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048799)

So, this is not so much about whether RIAA is behaving within the law, but more that they are sucking up the courts time for trivial matters?

And he is going to compel the record execs themselves to waste their own time if they are going to waste his?

IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (3, Funny)

wwwillem (253720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048161)

No matter if this is good or bad news against the RAFIAA, but when I read ...

"Lest there be any doubt ... the toxic effect [...] have had on the judicial process ... the decision-making process ... in the clearest possible terms ... can be no misunderstanding ... the extraordinary 2-day settlement ... who has corporate, decision-making, power ... with any limits or range attached to it", etc.

Oh bloody hell, don't know who did it, but this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one! Not a good sign....

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048203)

No matter if this is good or bad news against the RAFIAA, but when I read ...

"Lest there be any doubt ... the toxic effect [...] have had on the judicial process ... the decision-making process ... in the clearest possible terms ... can be no misunderstanding ... the extraordinary 2-day settlement ... who has corporate, decision-making, power ... with any limits or range attached to it", etc.

Oh bloody hell, don't know who did it, but this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one! Not a good sign....

A lawyer DID write it.

"NewYorkCountryLawyer writes.."

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048227)

Oh bloody hell, don't know who did it, but this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one! Not a good sign....

It certainly was! If you've not heard of NewYorkCountryLawyer then you're definitely new here!

This one man has done more than anyone else to bring to the public's attention what the MAFIAA have beeen up to for the past few years - check out his blog at http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ for more details.

Ray - keep up the good work, it looks like we're heading for the endgame now....

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (4, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048241)

Ray - keep up the good work, it looks like we're heading for the endgame now....

Thanks. Yes it looks to me like we are in, or close to, the endgame.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

DanZ23 (901353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048489)

Thanks. Yes it looks to me like we are in, or close to, the endgame.

Reading that just gave me chills. Thanks for your work.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1, Funny)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048571)

Part 1 [slashdot.org] - Cheerleaders in mini-skirts rushing out excitedly to hug NYCL and toss him in the air.
Part 2 [slashdot.org] - Cowboy Neal runs out and lifts NYCL in the air.

Part 3: During the Superbowl Half-Time ...

(Crowd cheering) Ray Beckerman! New York Country Lawyer!

(NYCL was standing in the middle of the football field. He stared at the field entrance warily, expecting CowboyNeal to appear again. Nobody came out.)

(Suddenly, NYCL was hugged from behind and hosted into the air! The spectators had ran onto the field and came to hug him!)

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (5, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048271)

this /. summary must have been written by a lawyer, or at least someone who desperately wants to become one!

Well you're part right.

It was written by a lawyer.

But he does not desperately want to be a lawyer; in fact he would prefer to be just about anything else.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048291)

And a slashdot subscriber, to boot. Is that recent, or am I just unobservant?

I've speculated elsewhere, but what do you think the world would be like today had the RIAA purchased Napster instead of suing them into oblivion?

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (4, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048395)

And a slashdot subscriber, to boot. Is that recent, or am I just unobservant?

And in case you hadn't noticed, Slashdot is now available online!

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048693)

Had RIAA used their heads, and bought out Napster and other startups, and USED the technology they acquired, they could have become a force for good. But, it's more likely that they would have used Napster to extinguish file sharing. Think of the intelligence data they could have reaped, and all the deliciously oppressive lawsuits THAT could have generated! Stealing a song today could well be a capital crime......

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048727)

Napster might have been the "itunes" of the marketplace, but there will still be Kaaza's or Bitorrents or emules.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048463)

...in fact he would prefer to be just about anything else.

Hey, I hear the Denny's over there is hiring.

*ducks*

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048495)

Yeah, he could be the head chef because he's real good at serving things up on a platter.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048605)

If you're even remotely serious I don't blame you.

I can't imagine it's easy manning the front lines.

Re:IAAL (I am a Lawyer) (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048329)

The username didn't indicate the same thing, with far less effort???

This is pretty standard (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048167)

Other than the fact that the settlement conference will be with Judge Davis instead of a magistrate, this order is completely standard.

For comparison, here is the relevant portion of a notice of settlement conference in another recent Minnesota federal district court case:

"Counsel who will actually try the case and each party, armed with full settlement discretion, shall be present. If individuals are parties to this case, they shall be present. If a orporation or other collective entity is a party, a duly authorized officer or managing agent of that party shall be present. This means that each party must attend through a person who has the power to change that party=s settlement posture during the course of the conference. If the party representative has a limit, or âoecapâ on his or her authority, this requirement is not satisfied."

Re:This is pretty standard (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048259)

Please give me the case number so I can verify what you're saying. If it's true, then I read too much into it.

Re:This is pretty standard (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048399)

I couldn't find that exact phrase online, but the closest thing to it [resource.org] is described as:

In this case we confront a lawyer caught between his client and the court. Specifically, we are presented with the question of when counsel should be sanctioned for a client's failure to appear before a magistrate as ordered. We conclude that a lawyer who has used his or her best efforts to secure the compliance of the client ought not be subjected to sanctions in these circumstances. In light of the facts outlined below, we affirm the fine imposed on Tribal Co-Operative Marketing Development Federation of India ("Trifed"), but reverse the magistrate's sanctions against Trifed's counsel, Larry Klayman.
...

On December 4, 1992, a settlement conference of sorts took place. Universal was represented by counsel and an officer with the requisite settlement authority. Appearing for Trifed were two individuals: local counsel William Henney and Sushovan Sengupta, an administrative assistant in the Visa Section of the Indian Consulate in Chicago. In the course of the attempted settlement discussions that day, Sengupta refused to offer any money to settle the case, stating only that Trifed viewed the case as meritless.2 On December 7, 1992, Magistrate Noel issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Klayman to explain why he and Trifed should not be sanctioned for their conduct surrounding the settlement conference. On January 19, 1992, Magistrate Noel ordered that Klayman pay Universal "any costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by the plaintiff in attending the aborted December 4, 1992, settlement conference" and that Trifed be fined $6,708, "which represents the sum of money [Trifed] thought it would save in air fare by reason of [Trifed's] willful violation of the court's order." The district court affirmed the magistrate judge's sanction order on April 2, 1993.

This all sounds quite serious, but then, IANAL. ;)

Makes sense (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048191)

Either you have someone at the settlement meeting that can make decisions, or you have a dozen settlement meetings with a few days in between while the person reports back to whomever can make decisions, which would be an enormous waste of the court's time. I think it's also fair to say if you're going to sue someone/etc. and say you're willing to settle you honor that and actually have someone who can settle at the meeting. Not rocket science. How they got away with this before is beyond me.

silly apostrophe (0, Offtopic)

seifried (12921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048197)

Oh no, here comes an S!!! Doh.

Re:silly apostrophe (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048277)

I read your parent comment several times, and although I noticed several other possible grammar mistakes (commas, I think), I only saw one apostrophe, which is correctly placed before the s in "court's" to show possession.

Re:silly apostrophe (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048389)

Oops, Ok, I missed one on it's. But that one was also used correctly to indicate a contraction of it and is.

Re:silly apostrophe (1)

theapeman (1068448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048695)

There are 4 apostrophes. All correct. (court's, it's, you're, you're)

Re:silly apostrophe (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048719)

Wow, next time I'm just going to copy the text and grep for apostrophes.

It's sad when you can trust your computer more than you can your own brain...

Re:silly apostrophe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048297)

??? I only see two apostrophes in your post, neither of them misplaced. Don't grammar nazi yourself, that never goes well. At least you didn't make an additional error in your correction. :-)

Re:Makes sense (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048221)

How they got away with this before is beyond me.

It's beyond me too. In Brooklyn several years ago the Magistrate Judge ordered the "principals" of the record companies to attend an in-person settlement conference. When the day came, however, the only person who showed was Matthew Oppenheim, who is not even an employee of any of those companies. If I was the judge I would have thrown their case out, due to their flagrant disobedience of his order. Instead, the judge said "okay" and said he was accepting Oppenheim as a "principal" of all of the companies, and the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.

How many years to get one judge? (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048215)

Talk about a long slog.

Since Obama take office, Jews losing power.. (-1, Offtopic)

New_Age_Reform_Act (1256010) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048287)

Yup. Look at the name of the RIAA lawyer. Have you wonder why so many law office have Jewish names?

Anyway, the good news is the influence of the Rothschild (the Jewish family behind the establishment of apartheid Israel) is diminishing due to the economic tsunami. For that the political power of American Jews are decreasing too.

May be Obama is the reincarnation of Lincoln. Lincoln freed the blacks from white slavery. Obama free all of us from Jewish slavery.

Re:Since Obama take office, Jews losing power.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048325)

"free all of us from Jewish slavery"

Yes it is good to be free of these Aryan dirtbags. :-P

Seriously, racism was so 60 years ago. Grow up and get a job.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048335)

No "Fly High Duluth" references yet?

For simplecolour (-1, Offtopic)

samin3269 (1490823) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048409)

Simple Colour Organ is a simple OpenGL plugin based on the 'colour organ' ideas of people like Father Louis Bertrand Castel and A. Wallace Rimington, where musical notes are seen as corresponding to specific colours. For more information visit: http://www.mastersmindtechnologies.com/simplecolour [mastersmin...logies.com]

This is a big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048435)

I don't know what the standard orders are like in Minnesota, but to me that looks like a standard settlement conference order that the clerk enters as a matter of course. In Massachusetts a judge I'm familiar with has an order just like that that's entered in every case where there's a settlement conference. NYCL, is there any reason to think that this one is aimed at the RIAA, or that the judge actually had something to do with it?

Not Duluth (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048473)

Duluth isn't Minneapolis. Just saying...

Duluth != Minneapolis (3, Informative)

sdhughes (235715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048507)

Looks to me like the record company execs are ordered to go to the courthouse in downtown Minneapolis, not Duluth.

Duluth? (2, Funny)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048791)

What is that, a Black Metal band?

The non-lawyers strike again.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27048807)

I'm afraid that non-litigators (non-lawyers?) are reading a great deal into judicial orders that they don't understand. This is a standard, generic settlement conference order that, in one form or another, judges conducting settlement conferences routinely use to set their basic ground rules. Nothing specific about the case, nothing at all. And as other commenters have noted, those rules are often honored in the breach -- I personally have appeared at settlement conferences where nobody from the other side (save the lawyer) showed up. Obviously a breach of the order, but it's not treated as serious.

    Slashdot needs a legal editor to moderate posts like this...it seems that half the law-related posts I read here are simply mistaken.

"A Delaware corporation" (1, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27048825)

Whenever I read that, in this case for Capitol Records, why do I just assume they will rely on dubious tactics?

The world would be a significantly better place if the US Government were to send out the cruise missiles to every building listed as a corporate HQ in Delaware, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos, Bermuda, Jersey, Guernsey, Monaco, Lichtenstein, Zug...when you start in business with an intention to defraud, the omens are not good.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?