×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

243 comments

Surprising (5, Funny)

count rostov (1128123) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899421)

The RIAA, lying? Who saw that one coming?

Re:Surprising (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27899435)

The RIAA are poster boys for the Legal profession in my book. Sorry NYCL but this is why we must bust your Guild. We also should replace most of the Judges in this country with lay men with good BS detectors and not lawyers.

Re:Surprising (5, Insightful)

futureb (1075733) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899515)

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. If you are ever served with a complaint, I would welcome you to the Guild and would look forward to your learning civil procedure in the time given to you to file your answer...if you know how much time that is.

Re:Surprising (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899603)

remove the NEED for lawyers, then.

you guys are not very smart, are you? you can't quite see that you created this monster and are still arguing that the monster 'needs' to continue living.

so that the monster can continue.

circular, huh?

simplify the laws, put normal 'thinking' people in charge as judges and we could NOT do a worse job than is being done now. not joking about it either, the system is just too complex and needs to be totally broken down and redone.

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

Re:Surprising (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27899731)

Sure. Simplify the laws. Good answer.

You know what happens in any game, be it online, tabletop, sport, or whatnot? You lay down a simple rule, it will get abused. You tell people they can't do something in general, they'll argue for specifics. If anybody disagrees, without a specific rule to account for the situation, it's all bitch, bitch, bitch.

Now, that's just in terms of games. Which don't mean shit. Move that to the real world, where things matter. Someone spilled hot coffee on themselves? Well, they certainly don't want to be embarrassed, so they'll take advantage of a lack of explicit warnings on the cup and sue the restaurant! Broke into someone's house and tripped over something they left out? Technically, you're in a legal grey area regarding trespassing, and besides, there's nothing in the trespassing law saying you don't have to clean up your junk, so sue the homeowner!

People will fight that much harder to abuse any law you give them until it's spelled out in such explicit detail that they can't find loopholes in time. And thanks to these assholes abusing the "simple" laws, we need to staple more laws on top of them to shut them up when they're being assholes. And that's what's happened. Lawmakers make a law that should be simple, some asshole wants to abuse it for kicks, judges set precedents to attach more detail to laws, repeat cycle.

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them. Either they'll get their way or they'll keep arguing you to a stalemate, and seriously, what else are they going to do with their day? You've got important things to do and they don't. They'll win. And regardless of your personal views of how reality works, you'll have that army of assholes whether the laws are "simple" or "complex" or if we "need" lawyers or not.

The laws and social norms are the only things keeping some overly creative asshole with too much time on his hands from picking you at random, finding some way to empty your life, and getting away with it scot-free. Yes, even if you think anarchy is teh bestz!!!!1!1 and we'd all be better off if we just did things your way. The legal system didn't make society into what it is. People did.

Unless it's your plan to eradicate all of humanity?

Re:Surprising (4, Insightful)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900021)

You cannot keep making more rules. In your world, integrity is assumed not to exist, and you rely on the rules to keep order. Consider two options. In the first, we rely on simple, clear rules and citizens with integrity to enforce them. In this system, some people will cheat, yes, but when the rules are clear, then we can deal with the cheaters by executing good-faith judgment in a trial of their peers, and delivering the full punishment when the law is broken, in speedy, reliable fashion. The downside is that the citizens are expected to be men of honor and we all then have a burden to keep our word. Abuses will occur. In the second option, which is the system you propose, we assume that everyone will cheat, in fact, we expect it. A little cheating is OK, but a lot is "bad." We punish the eggregious cheats, but let the little cheats slide with a wink, since we all do it anyhow, right? How dare some sanctimonious person dare judge our behavior? In this system, you have to keep making more and more rules to cover the edge cases because everyone is looking for a little advantage. Juries are not allowed to exercise as much judgment, instead the rules keep getting "improved". The good thing about such a system is citizens are no longer responsible for their behaviors -- they can blame the rules when things go bad. Or is that such a good thing? Hmm. The down side is that the rules become so twisted that cheating is the NORM. There is no such thing as 98% integrity. As soon as you accept 98% integrity, then you redefine 98% as 100%, and then you start having 96% integrity, which then becomes the new 100% etc. AT some point, we are going to have to admit that we as individuals are responsible for our entire lives and everything we do and say in them, and really be engaged in our society. It cannot work any other way. So yes, scrap the system, replace it with something simpler, I say, and then let's start actually FOLLOWING THE RULES. :-)

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900117)

The rules are largely irrelevant to people with integrity. That is, most laws have little effect on the majority of the population; murder being illegal has no direct effect on me, personally, because I've never murdered nor do I plan to murder. Would you argue that since murder being illegal has no effect on most of the population we should make it legal?

The whole point of laws is to keep the minority of people - the GP's "army of assholes" - from screwing things up for the rest of us. The only way to do that is to make laws more and more specific as those people try to find smaller and smaller loopholes to get out of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Re:Surprising (3, Informative)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900371)

I may have misunderstood, but I think wealthychef was suggesting simple clear rules should be applied to everyone by people with integrity, rather than hoping everyone will have integrity.

Rather than having to explicitly cover every little corner of human nature in laws, you have simple guidelines (don't kill, don't steal etc), and leave it down to a panel (ie a judge and jury) to decide whether the actions of the defendant were right or wrong, based on the guidelines set down.

It's pretty clear you'd have to go into a bit more detail than "do not kill", and some work would need to be done figuring out how to ensure consistency etc, but I like the idea in principle.

Re:Surprising (3, Interesting)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900663)

The problem is that such laws need to deal with complex circumstances (e.g. killing in self defense, "manslaughter" by drunk driving, estoppel [wikipedia.org] etc.). The more circumstances need to be dealt with, the more complex the laws need to be (that's ungrammatical, isn't it?).

Re:Surprising (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900239)

Rules? Who's rules? Your rules? What gives you the right to impose your rules on me?

I don't need any rules. The rules are great for keeping YOU in line. Rules are great for keeping YOU from bothering me. But don't ever assume YOUR rules apply to me. I don't need them, because I'm fine. YOU follow the rules, and leave me the hell alone.

--The general consensus among the populace if they were ever really honest with themselves. Seriously, when was the last time you heard a senator or congressman say "We have to pass this bill! It will protect ME from myself!"

Re:Surprising (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900231)

I really wish people would stop abusing the McDonald's coffee case, it's basically the hallmark of people who refuse to fucking pay attention. She didn't sue because there wasn't a warning the coffee was hot, she sued because it caused 3rd degree burns in under 5 seconds, as it was kept 60F _above_ what was industry standard.

Re:Surprising (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900305)

And McD's still can't make a decent cuppa. And they're slowly jacking the temperature again up as people bitch about 'cold coffee'.

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

spanky the monk (1499161) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900307)

true dat. Seems to me that PEOPLE are fundamentally the thing that needs to be reformed. This "monster" is really just a sickness of the people themselves.

You are not separate from the world people! you grew out of it and are as connected to it as an apple is to a tree. It's all YOU. Wake up!

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900325)

Sounds reasonable can we start with all the lawyers first thu?

Re:Surprising (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900395)

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them

So your argument is that we should make laws as complex/detailed as possible so that no one can even tell you if they're abiding by them let alone try to comply??? Did you pass that thought through a sanity check before posting it?

Re:Surprising (1)

insllvn (994053) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900545)

If you simplify the laws, you'll get nothing but an army of assholes abusing them.

And things would be exactly as they are now, except the army of assholes wouldn't be called lawyers anymore.

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900687)

"Someone spilled hot coffee on themselves? Well, they certainly don't want to be embarrassed, so they'll take advantage of a lack of explicit warnings on the cup and sue the restaurant!"

Before you use this example, you should take the time to find out the facts of the McDonalds Coffee suit : http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Re:Surprising (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899765)

simplify the laws, put normal 'thinking' people in charge as judges and we could NOT do a worse job than is being done now. not joking about it either, the system is just too complex and needs to be totally broken down and redone.

lawyers are slime and the fact that you 'need' them indicates a bigger social problem.

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian. So, if you want the law to be consistent, what your saying is that we should scrap all the existing precendences, but start over reestablishing them, which will eventually require lawyers again.

Or, do you intend to abolish precedence, and let each judge conclude for each case how to interpret and apply the law? Because I see the world where judges can arbitrarily apply law with no regard for established precedence to be far, far worse than the world we have now.

Re:Surprising (4, Funny)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899879)

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian.

Wait, why are you talking about thinking people in the first sentence and then switch to a totally different topic in the second one?

Re:Surprising (1, Insightful)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900681)

"Normal, 'thinking' people" can arrive at drastically different conclusions. See Conservative v. Liberal v. Libertarian.

Wait, why are you talking about thinking people in the first sentence and then switch to a totally different topic in the second one?

Libertarians are thinking people. The first two though...

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900035)

The ability to arrive at different conclusions is fine, that's why we have juries. We need to have simpler laws and let the juries have more discretion, all the time utterly respecting the rule of law.

Re:Surprising (2, Insightful)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899963)

Please mod this down. This is the trite masquerading as the insightful. The entire argument is predicated on the concept that 'normal' people* can agree when they sit down and talk peacefully. I cite precedent** that this is not the case.

Simplification of the law would be great, but it won't absolve the need for legal specialists, nor will it simplify the complex interactions between free agents in a democratic society.

*Lawyers, as we all know, are bred in special vats.
**c.f. the entire of human history

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899715)

But you're forgetting, there'd be a lot less poor innocents such as the OP being served if there weren't so many lawyers to begin with....

Considering lawyers as the answer is clouding your vision that they are also the cause.

It's a common situation to be in, "What's the answer to x? More x!". No. The answer is "NO x."

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900007)

Really? they wouldn't find a way to do more work with less time?

Isn't that what computers are supposed to enable?

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900415)

Considering lawyers as the answer is clouding your vision that they are also the cause.

Assholes are the cause. Asshole lawyers just make it even worse. In theory, non-asshole lawyers (and judges, and politicians, and just about everyone else) are the answer.

No complaint or reason for one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900091)

The only reason I can think I would need a lawyer is lawyers and their guild actually. I mind my own business and avoid entanglement with law courts and "law enforcement".

We need to knock this mandarin class down several notches and get their tentacles out of everything. Hitting the reset button on it all may be a good idea.

Re:Surprising (2, Funny)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900355)

Of course everybody hates lawyers, they are like giant vicious pit bulls. Still, you want the vicious fuckers to protect your property. And when the pit bulls come scratching on your door wanting to chew your balls off, then you have to get your own vicious pit bull and pay him your arm and leg in order to keep your balls.

They have banned Pit Bulls many places. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900521)

They have had the sense to ban Pit Bulls many places. I keep a gun for vicious dogs and the like. If they come in my yard I'll deal with them if necessary. Less laws and less lawyers is a good idea.

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900625)

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

If it makes you feel better, I hate lawyers even after I need one.

Re:Surprising (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899585)

A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties. Justice should have NOTHING to do with party affiliation.

Re:Surprising (4, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899895)

Judges are normal people like you and me. The right to belong to a political party of one's choosing is a pretty fundamental right.

Re:Surprising (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900041)

Not really, no. A political party does a lot in the way of telling people who operate under their banner to behave. For example, there was no way that a republican or democrat judge was ever going to follow the rule of law when it came to keeping Democrats and Republicans on the presidential ticket in Texas even though both parties failed to meet their deadlines.

While there are some rules and laws that may generally be subject to some interpretation, the enforcement of the law should never be related to or affiliated with any one party that happens to be in power. The enforcement of law should, under all circumstances be fair and even. We know they are not, but it should be.

You may feel it is okay for individuals to pick a side and defend it. But you can never be impartial when you do that. Are you okay with a justice system that is not impartial? I'm not. Judges are not normal people like you or me. They are people with extraordinary power that very often goes completely unchecked.

Re:Surprising (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900675)

Kinda like how the catholic church tried to influence politics by denying JK communion for his support of abortion.

Re:Surprising (2, Interesting)

number11 (129686) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900313)

A big part should be disallowing judges or anyone having to do with law enforcement from affiliating with political parties.

That'll just make it "wink, wink, nudge, nudge". In my county, sheriff is an elected "nonpartisan" position. I'm sure the fact that one candidate received lots of help from Republican sources and the police union, and the other candidate received help from Democratic sources, was entirely coincidental. In any case, the parties were technically not involved, they did not directly contribute. Most judges (also a "nonpartisan" elected post) are a little more discrete (one is married to a high Republican operative, but of course that doesn't indicate anything about her own politics), though I have noticed that for some reason the names of most of the individuals endorsing a particular judge tend to also appear endorsing the same flavor of candidate for more partisan races.

Re:Surprising (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900419)

In Texas, the party supporting the candidate is printed on the sign... it would be better if it weren't. But straight-ticket voting is very encouraged here.

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899775)

If I were to say that we should do the same for programming, engineering or open heart surgery, what would you think about it? If you can't see why law needs people who specialize in it, then you are a fool.

Most lawyers and attorneys are actually pretty reasonable (keep in mind that most are also not involved with trial law), and most judges get that job because of their well-tuned BS detectors. The only thing I got out of your post is that you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about, that you've probably never even been in a court, and that you honestly believe your reading a handful of blogs and news sites that just touch on law actually give you a serious capacity for it.

They've gone to the reverse psychology defense (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899455)

Bainwol: Lying? Baseless. We merely "made available" to Congress our statement that we would stop. You have no proof that we actually had intention to do so.

Perhaps... (4, Funny)

rakslice (90330) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899457)

... they discontinued initiating lawsuits on August 31st and started right up again on September 1st. Everyone needs a few hours off now and then. =)

Re:Perhaps... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899467)

Seems plausible. After all, they didn't sign their name in blood promising they'd never again start a lawsuit over an individual, using the old tactics.

Re:Perhaps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900145)

I don't think you can waive your right to sue _anyone_ ever again... just specific people in certain circumstances (like waiving liability against the stadium owner when you visit the ballpark).

Please (1)

Cheviot (248921) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899469)

They didn't commit perjury. The RIAA stopped filing new lawsuits in August of 2008 nearly a year ago!

Er... (4, Informative)

rakslice (90330) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899559)

Just to get down to brass tacks, the representation in question in the letter seems to be:

"Also, during this past summer, we began discussions with New York Attorney General Cuomo, who suggested that now was the time to take our practice of last resort -- lawsuits -- and replace that form of deterrence with productive engagement by the ISP community in the form of graduated response programs. At his request, as an act of good faith in pursuing these alternatives, we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August."

Re:Er... (2, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900103)

I'm all for spanking the RIAA, but nowhere was it implied they would "never launch a lawsuit again". I think it's just as much FUD from this side to imply "OMG they lied to Congress". Nowhere did they claim they would not resume such activities after reviewing things (with as much of a grain of salt for such a review as you'd like), and nor were, and nor should they have been bound to.

This is a non-story.

No. It CAN'T be true! (3, Interesting)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899499)

So you're saying the RIAA lied? Is that possible? I thought they always told the truth, and only wanted to protect society from the evils of piracy. I believe they said something to that effect under oath, in court, didn't they?

Oh, god, please let some of those whiny thugs get caught perjuring themselves. They'd make such lovely prison bitches.

They were technically telling the truth (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27899507)

While they were in front of Congress, they had stopped filing lawsuits... because their mobile broadband connection wasn't working. As soon as they returned to the office, they started again.

Re:They were technically telling the truth (2, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899755)

Nope. Believe it or not, they were telling the truth, and it still applies. This is possible due to a little-known law enacted in the summer of 1837, which states that lawsuits are not really considered to be lawsuits, if they're brought against defenseless pensioners who have no idea what the charge means, much less how to defend themselves against it.

Re:They were technically telling the truth (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899893)

Nope. Believe it or not, they were telling the truth, and it still applies. This is possible due to a little-known law enacted in the summer of 1837, which states that lawsuits are not really considered to be lawsuits, if they're brought against defenseless pensioners who have no idea what the charge means, much less how to defend themselves against it.

Thank you so much for the explanation; I never would have known.

And here I thought Mitch Bainwol was a lying, yellow bellied piece of garbage.

Boy did I have him wrong.

Perjury (3, Interesting)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899517)

Perjury - n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

So sue the RIAA for perjury (actually, that would be a criminal matter).

Re:Perjury (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899827)

In this case it was lying to Congress, so the body capable of enforcing sanctions would be Congress itself, which would have to cite the RIAA's representative for contempt of Congress. I'll let you guess what the chances of them doing so are.

Lying to Congress (3, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899527)

Lying to congress is just the new sport - remember when the tobacco companies said smoking was "good" for your health and that they swore to congress that they've never put anything into the tobacco that would cause people to become addicted?

Lying to congress - Congress can't handle the truth.

No *new* lawsuits (3, Informative)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899529)

Which means - and to my understanding, the RIAA was actually quite clear on this - they will still file lawsuits related to cases already in progress, but will not begin any new cases against new individuals.

And even still.. I believe the RIAA said they reserve the right to begin filing lawsuits again in the future.

Either way.. so long as the lawsuits they file are legitimate (ie. the person being sued actually broke the law) I, personally, have no problem with it..

Re:No *new* lawsuits (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899579)

Either way.. so long as the lawsuits they file are legitimate (ie. the person being sued actually broke the law) I, personally, have no problem with it..

Because the laws they bought are "legitimate"?

I hereby propose a law stating D_Jedi may never own a car, see his mother, or use the internet again.

Lawsuits against you will follow.

Re:No *new* lawsuits (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899667)

I don't think you understand how laws work. Using the word "hereby" doesn't actually make something a law.

For that, you need to donate to a few congressmen.

Re:No *new* lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900407)

More likely, you don't comprehend sarcasm.

Well, who saw that coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27899845)

"propose a law stating D_Jedi"

I hereby propose that anybody over the age of 18 who uses a moniker of "D_Jedi" has to slink away from normal people.

Re:Well, who saw that coming... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900119)

>>>>> I hereby propose that anybody over the age of 18 who uses a moniker of "D_Jedi" has to slink away from normal people.

Already done- That's why he's on Slashdot...

Re:No *new* lawsuits (1)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900479)

*Some* of the laws they have bought (retroactive copyright extension is the one that immediately pops into mind) are objectionable and illegitimate (IMO).. but wholesale copying of copyright protected (taking into account my above distaste for retroactive copyright extension) songs? Yeah, that should be illegal, and those who choose to do it should be punished appropriately ($250K / song is disproportionate for noncommercial copying.. but $750.. I think that's reasonable).

Re:No *new* lawsuits (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899623)

And all the lawsuits are related because you never know who might have, at some point, sent a few bytes to someone they've already sued with a p2p program.

Re:No *new* lawsuits (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900405)

With the shoddy "evidence" being allowed in most of these cases, how in the world are we to ever determine whether these lawsuits are legitimate?

Thus, I have a problem with it. I could care less if they started a new lawsuit every 10 seconds; as long as they had real evidence, legally obtained, followed proper legal methods for filing and continuing suit, and (the evidence was) legally used to fight their cases.

But of course, none of that is true.

Stop buying their music (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27899533)

There are good independent bands in every major city. Seek them out and support them. And pass the word, make it undesirable for bands to sign on to any RIAA label.

liars (-1, Troll)

wareze (1551209) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899565)

can we use this against the RIAA?? cuz i would like for these MF's to stfu and let me DL whatever i want... becuz of the Aholes my ISP slowed down my internet connection becuz the RIAA made them slow down people connection of there DL pirated stuff

Isn't it time to reclassify RIAA.. (1, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899637)

...as a terrorist organisation? Membership punishable by vacation in Gitmo. Time to accuse them of possession of weapons of mass (ISP) destruction. Think about it. They're organised. They use sophisticated methods. They've proven they operate using terror tactics. They target grandmothers and children.

Or perhaps just charge RIAA officials with good old fashioned treason against the U.S.

Same with MPAA.

Come on, turn some of that new draconian legislation back on them.

The geek in overdrive (3, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899913)

They target grandmothers and children.

So do countless other lawsuits. But that doesn't make headlines on Slashdot.

Re:Isn't it time to reclassify RIAA.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900637)

RIAA was reclassified last November.

You Obama-believing dorks voted them to be the new government.

Don't think so? Where are a whole bunch of RIAA lawyers now working?

PS - How's that withdrawal from Iraq going? How about stopping those "illegal wiretaps"? Or no longer using military tribunals to try detainees?

Extra, Extra, Read All About It (2, Insightful)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899653)

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900199)

Why? Because they don't do whatever NYCL and the anti-RIAA people tell them, and believe it's a lie when it's not?

Sure...I thought we didn't want Congress bending to the whims of folks with an agenda.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900447)

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Now how can this be modded "Troll"?

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It (1)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900733)

The RIAA is exposed (again) as lying sacks of pig-shit. By next week the Congress will have been exposed (again) as gutless wimps/corporate whores.

Now how can this be modded "Troll"?

Congressional staffers with mod points?

How is that lying? (3, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899685)

The RIAA might be a crew of pirates themselves, but it's not lying. I discountinued sleeping at approximately 8:00 AM this morning. That doesn't mean I won't be sleeping again later...

The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (4, Insightful)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899771)

The sentence "we discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August" really does not mean anything.

First, it doesn't say that the RIAA "stopped" doing anything. To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop," it means "to break the continuity of."

Second, anything it does say about the RIAA is limited to only the month of August. For example, if I say "Best Buy stopped having 10% off sales in August." That in no way means that Best Buy stopped having 10% off sales forever. It only means they stopped for a period, i.e., broke the continuity, for a single period of time, during the month of August.

Third, more ambiguity is added by the word "initiate." The use of "initiate" gives the RIAA a lot of wiggle room to start new lawsuits. If anyone complains, the RIAA can merely say, "this lawsuit was actually initiated sometime ago when we first started investigating it." And of course it gives the RIAA complete freedom to "initialize" new lawsuits after August.

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness. But when they're "initialized" in secret, that defeats the entire educational purpose. So what really is going on with these reinitialized lawsuits?

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899859)

"That depends on what the definition of 'IS' is..."

A pissed off legislator isn't going to care about "precise meanings."

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#27899929)

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode.

I'm guessing it's because they promised some politicians they would stop, but they can't get over their addiction to picking on defenseless people.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900161)

But where, Ray, did they promise they would stop such things in perpetuity? As far as I've read, they made a statement to Congress that they had "discontinued lawsuits in August 2008". Nowhere did they make a promise not to resume lawsuits, nor were they asked to. I'm no fan of the RIAA, but you're a lawyer. They're lawyers. Heck, most of the members of Congress they made that statement to are lawyers. If anyone should be on top of the issue of precision in use of language, it should be lawyers. That being said, demanding a promise to cease legal action against people committing torts against you (focusing for a moment on the principle, moreso than the RIAA's application thereof) would appear to me to be a dangerous precedent.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900471)

..people committing torts..

I thought we were talking about people downloading music.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (5, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900619)

The story isn't about them continuing to bring lawsuits. That would be like the Saturday Night Live bit with Chevy Chase where he would announce that Francisco Franco is "still dead".

The story is about them lying to Congress.

They represented to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that they had "discontinued initiating new lawsuits in August". That was a flat out, bald faced, lie.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900005)

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness. But when they're "initialized" in secret, that defeats the entire educational purpose. So what really is going on with these reinitialized lawsuits?

I'd guess that they're hiding the lawsuit until they're sure it'll fall in their favor. You know, advertise the lawsuits that go the RIAA's way and which actually show considerable wrongdoing on the part of an unsympathetic defendant and don't emphasize the lawsuits against tech ignorant grannies.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900437)

You said "To 'discontinue' does not mean to 'stop,' it means 'to break the continuity of.'"

Uh, no. From the OED (and omitting senses marked as obsolete):

discontinue, v.
I. trans.
        1. To cause to cease; to cease from (an action or habit); to break off, put a stop to, give up.
        b. ellipt. To cease to take or receive, give or pay; to give up, leave off.
        3. Law. a. To dismiss or abandon (a suit, etc.).
II. intr.
        5. To cease to continue; to cease, stop.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900459)

To "discontinue" does not mean to "stop,"

Really?

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900825)

Technically, stopping an action implies permanence. If you're stopping beating on someone, you probably aren't going to start up again unless the situation changes.

If you discontinue, you're halting. Halting is a temporary action with a contingency allowing for a permanent stoppage.

The issue arises from the sloppy manner in which the majority of English speakers use vocabulary. There are many nuances and degrees in the language, but people either don't know or don't care about more precise meanings, and in most communication, you can elaborate if it's not immediately understood, so precision can be expounded upon. This situation perpetuates the cycle, as people can make themselves understood eventually, so they feel it is unnecessary to clarify initial meanings.

Re:The RIAA didn't really promise anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900749)

What I don't understand is why the RIAA is conducting these lawsuits in a quasi-stealth mode. I thought the purpose of the lawsuits was to raise public awareness.

Might just be for money. Their lawyers may need to extort several hundred grand a month from people just to pay themselves. If they're getting only a few thousand from each victim, then they're going to need quite a few for it to add up.

Everyone does it (4, Insightful)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900059)

There is not really any severe penalty to lie in front of congress. The RIAA aren't required to do anything they say to congress. Tonnes of businesses have done it. And Presidents

Re:Everyone does it (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900483)

There is not really any severe penalty to lie in front of congress.

Unless it's about a blow-job.

Wheat germ and chessboard. (4, Funny)

xigxag (167441) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900149)

Poor innocent RIAA-tan [blogspot.com] will never catch all the piracy scofflaws using this time-consuming serial approach. Hasn't she ever heard of multi-level marketing? Or the classic wheat and chessboard problem [wikipedia.org] ? It's simple.

They need to sue the bejeesus out of someone, and offer to settle by forcing the person to buy the rights to a minor song, and then requiring that that person protect their rights by suing two other people. And those two other people will have to settle by each suing two other people, and so on, and so on.

Eventually everyone will wind up being sued, but at least having nice smelling hair [youtube.com] .

What Winston Said..sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27900439)

RIAA Filed 62 New Cases In April Alone

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight on the Internet,
we shall fight on Demonoid,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength on The Pirate Bay, we shall defend our culture, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on our iPods,
we shall fight with uTorrent,
we shall fight on usenet and in the streets of Mumbai, New York and London,
we shall fight in the Scene;
we shall never surrender

Terrorism (1)

portnux (630256) | more than 4 years ago | (#27900811)

The actions of the RIAA are nothing short of terrorism focused on those people that enjoy music and financed by those people that pay for music. Just like Al-Qaeda being financed by the buyers of opium and other related drugs. As long as some people are still paying for music these attacks will continue. We need to wipe out RIAA's financing!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...