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!

Prof. Nesson Ordered To Show Cause

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the does-not-sound-good dept.

The Courts 267

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Professor Charles Nesson, the Harvard law professor serving pro bono as counsel to the defendant in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be issued against him for violating the Court's orders prohibiting reproduction of the court proceedings. The order to show cause was in furtherance of the RIAA's motion for sanctions and protective order, which we discussed here yesterday. The Judge indicated that she was 'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard' of her order."

cancel ×

267 comments

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

Too much detail (0, Offtopic)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613243)

Do we really need so [slashdot.org] many [slashdot.org] status [slashdot.org] updates [slashdot.org] on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals. Isn't this why NYCL has a blog? [blogspot.com] The posting of this minutae is actually making me care less about fighting the RIAA. Considering how much I dislike them, that's a pity.

I don't blame NYCL (and others) for submitting them (hey, most people are pretty narrowly focused on their own hobbies), but surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

Hey RIAA shill (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613263)

you can't fool slashdot

Hey AC Troll (-1, Offtopic)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613421)

You can't even fool yourself.

Re:Hey AC Troll (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613835)

Holy fuck, did you tell him!

.

Re:Hey AC Troll (0, Offtopic)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613995)

No, you may go too!

Re:Too much detail (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613281)

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

Yes.

surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

What have you submitted lately?

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613363)

What have you submitted lately?

I like this guy.

Re:Too much detail (-1, Troll)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613403)

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

Yes.

No.

What have you submitted lately?

Didn't you read what I read? There are already plenty of interesting submissions. The problem is in the selection of the submissions. If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

Re:Too much detail (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613515)

You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.

Re:Too much detail (1, Troll)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613561)

You have heard of the firehose, haven't you? You have a say.

Yes, I have and I do. Turns out that's not all it takes to front page a story, though. Front paged stories get discussion. Hence, I would like more interesting front page stories in order to have more interesting discussions, rather than more and more anti-RIAA circle-jerks.

It's really not such a difficult concept.

Re:Too much detail (-1, Troll)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613855)

I would like more interesting discussion. +4 Insightful is a fucking joke when your post (essentially a whine that you don't like reading about RIAA) is Off Topic. Can someone mod this guy +5 Whiner and add a filter for Whiners?

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613979)

Can someone mod this guy +5 Whiner and add a filter for Whiners?

... said the guy, who, in an off topic post, whines about moderation of off topic posts.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613531)

You can submit your own stories via your journal. No need to make you official around here. You seem kind of bitter anyways.

Re:Too much detail (-1, Offtopic)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613611)

Nope, not bitter, just like to have discussions about something interesting, rather than rehash the same old arguments every time. Most of the slashdot is already sold on the RIAA=evil topic. We don't need what amounts to a blog about it as part of the front page.

Journals are useless for what I'm talking about. I'm looking for the discussions that come about by posting an article where the whole of the slashdot readership will see and comment about it. Journals don't fit the bill.

Re:Too much detail (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613877)

Want some cheese too?

Re:Too much detail (1)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614047)

Don't /. readers have a say in what makes it to the front page? Maybe your beef is with the community. I for one like keeping up on this topic, and I'll continue supporting it, as it has the potential to really affect the internet as a whole, which as you know it is very important to our daily lives.

Re:Too much detail (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614367)

Aagh! I just can't help it!

Nope, not bitter, just like to have discussions about something interesting, rather than rehash the same old arguments every time.

You *must* be new here.

Re:Too much detail (2, Interesting)

tuxedobob (582913) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613651)

So... Firehose? I know it's a new feature and all, but still.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613735)

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

Your uid is too high.

Re:Too much detail (-1, Offtopic)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613845)

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

Your uid is too high.

Nah. When they make me editor, I just get them to change the password on my earliest account that still points to my old college email address. It's 10k below timothy.

Re:Too much detail (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613963)

How is it that everyone on this site with a 7-digit UID is actually an old-timer with a single-digit UID who forgot his password? It's uncanny.

Re:Too much detail (1)

jimhill (7277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614141)

It sure is. Or something.

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614165)

Can't speak to how often it happens, as I've never seen anyone claim it before. In my case, I wouldn't actually want the account back unless I did get a job at slashdot (yeah, right) or was self-employed and didn't need to look for a job again. It has my initials as the username and I signed some of my earliest posts with my full name (yeah, stupid in retrospect but I was still a bit of a young-un at the time). Even after I had that account, I started mostly posting AC because I was getting paranoid.

Since then, I've went through a couple of different accounts because I realize that being such a slacker at work and leaving a nicer trail of bread crumbs showing frequent posting on slashdot might be an unwise career decision. I plan on sticking with the current account for a while, though, since I telecommute now and all my traffic goes out my own router.

Yes, far more information than you wanted to know in response to what was basically a rhetorical question so you could take a pot-shot at me. Sorry, but that's how I roll. If it makes you feel any better, you beat my original uid by over 7k. ;)

Re:Too much detail (3, Funny)

agbinfo (186523) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614333)

You remember your uid but not the password?

Re:Too much detail (3, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614445)

I remember my username. It's rather easy, considering it's my initials.

Re:Too much detail (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614373)

No worries, I understand...my original UID was CmdrTaco until some jackass hijacked it.

Re:Too much detail (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613831)

If slashdot wants to make me an editor, I'd be happy to help them out with that.

You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613919)

You know, you might want to be here for more than a couple of months before you start telling the editors how to do their jobs.

Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts. I've been around and posting comments since a few months after slashdot was created. Abandoned it about the time I decided I didn't want my boss knowing how much I was slacking off posting to slashdot (I had my name on my sig for a while and all it takes is one google search for my name to link me to it).

Re:Too much detail (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28614381)

Clue for you: you can create new accounts. My oldest one dates to right after they added accounts.

And my other car is a Ferrari.

Re:Too much detail (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613703)

Do you really need to be a baker to tell that a loaf of bread is stale?

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613865)

I don't get it?
Ok the news is stale. Who's the baker?

Re:Too much detail (1)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614349)

Can you put that in the form of a car analogy?

Re:Too much detail (1)

Artuir (1226648) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614353)

You don't even need to be a musician to make music nowadays!

Re:Too much detail (2, Insightful)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614383)

If someone keeps poisoning the bread, should we stop telling everyone that the bread is poisoned, because it's boring news?

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613383)

No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.

Re:Too much detail (1)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613497)

No, we really don't. But look, I see somebody has called you a shill already. Welcome to the Club of the Speedily Accused. We get together every year on Devil's Island in the Fall.

It was very astute of that particular AC to figure out that the entire world is separated into either RIAA shills or those who care passionately about the daily motions and orders and findings of every court case the RIAA is currently involved in. I bow before such a gifted mind. Maybe we should put them in charge of the Precrime division.

Re:Too much detail (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613999)

I see somebody has called you a shill already.

The person who called whiledo (1515553) a "shill" after his first comment on this thread did accuse him too quickly.

However, his subsequent posts, and his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners, do bolster the accusation, and indicate a shill-like nature, if not outright shill-dom.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28614241)

You're assuming the AC knows about any of those previous threads, which if they did, they didn't mention, let alone describe, so it's quite possible you interpret things in a way that I wouldn't. So it's still a problem.

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614267)

his many courageous statements in previous threads asserting support for the RIAA, MPAA, DRM and a broad interpretation of the rights of secondary intellectual property owners

[citation needed]
Seriously. Post some links rather than just making accusations. This should be fun.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613573)

Maybe it's time for a Copyright section on here? If they just front paged the general information (lawsuit filed, case concluding, etc.) and filed the rest in the section, I bet that's a compromise that'd work for everybody.

I read it all, myself, but I can see where it gets annoying if you don't care about it.

Re:Too much detail (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614019)

Maybe it's time for a Copyright section on here?

Considering that intellectual "property" affects practically every area of interest covered on Slashdot, it seems appropriate to discuss it when it comes up, no matter the section.

Re:Too much detail (3, Interesting)

moz25 (262020) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613617)

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

Their irrelevant business model is built on artificial scarcity that could only work in a time where information carriers and distribution were the bottlenecks. Now with the internet and ridiculously large storage devices, this bottleneck has been eliminated entirely. So much in fact, that everyone can carry tens of thousands of songs - entire genres - in their pocket.

They need and deserve to fail. This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

It is a very important fight and one that needs to be won. I say: give us all the information there is!

Re:Too much detail (2, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613693)

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?

That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.

Re:Too much detail (0, Offtopic)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613909)

I have no mod points but I'd like to see a +5 Redundant for the rest of this guys whines in this thread.

Re:Too much detail (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614079)

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?

That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.

I consider that, so far as I know, no one has forced you to read this story. I consider as well that you have probably made more posts in this story than any other single poster. Further, there are stories here on the Slashdot main page which really don't interest me; you won't see me posting in them.

In light of that, I believe that what you're doing here is like going into a Mexican restaurant and then complaining to the staff that you really don't like Mexican food. Further, you're getting outraged that said restaurant won't accommodate you when they point out that another restaurant serving food that you do like is across the street. It's something of an entitlement mentality. Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.

A more constructive approach would be to write to the Slashdot staff and ask for more flexible story categories, that way you can just set up your own preferences so that you don't have to be so bothered by headlines that don't interest you. I've written them on a couple of things myself and have found them to be quite reasonable and accommodating. That's even though I am not a paid subscriber. I have no idea if they'd help you with this since I cannot speak for them, but coming from a paid subscriber like you it would definitely be worth a shot.

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614335)

It's funny that you're not the first to follow this line. Complain about me because I complain about something else. I have a lot of posts in this thread, but they're all in response to people responding to me. It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.

Re:Too much detail (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613817)

This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!

The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.

I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.

Re:Too much detail (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614041)

The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???

An even better question is: do we really need copyright?

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28614283)

"Their irrelevant business model"

What is so irrelevant about actually expecting people to pay for the product that they produce?

Re:Too much detail (2, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613643)

These are cases that affect all of us. Your disinterest is not necessarily a reflection on the desires of the rest of us. Personally, if I never saw another MMORG post again I'd be happy as a clam, but you don't see me posting in those threads asking why they're so commonly approved. How about a little live-and-let-live?

Re:Too much detail (-1, Troll)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613723)

Getting tired of posting this, but once again - I'm not disinterested in the cases. I'm disinterested in the daily minutiae of legal maneuvering in the cases. Those who can't tell the difference between those two will continue to fail to understand my point. Won't keep them from responding, though.

Do we need another half-assed complaint from you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613787)

I mean, do we REALLY need another restatement of how you don't like the number of anti-RIAA postings on slashdot?

Cupid stunt.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613797)

And ktappe is tired of the constant MMORPG stories.

To get straight to the point that ktappe was leading you to: Stop bitching, and just -not- read the story if you don't want to.

Re:Too much detail (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614119)

If you are tired of reading them why must you read them just to post that you are tired of reading them. Have some compassion for those of us that are not tired of them and just cease and desist! Stop reading go away and shut the f*** up.

Re:Too much detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28614251)

The judge is disinterested in this case, presumably. You are uninterested in this case, presumably.

Re:Too much detail (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613791)

Yes, yes we do~

Re:Too much detail (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613813)

Do we really need so many status updates on the day-to-day goings-on in all the RIAA trials and scandals

In a word, "yes".

You can see from this article and the pressure that's being put on Professor Nesson to keep the proceedings secret that the RIAA has reasons to keep what it's doing out of the media.

That's the best reason I can think of for making sure it gets in the media at every opportunity. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on our justice system or corporate media, both of whom are heavily influenced by corporate money, to tell us what's going on.

Maybe you think the most important thing we can read about on Slashdot is the latest patches for the iPhone, but what's happening in our courts right now is going to have a much greater impact on our lives and use of technology for years to come.

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613991)

But it's not being posted in "the media." It's being posted on slashdot, a site where the great majority of us are already on-board the "RIAA is evil" bandwagon. It's not changing any minds having the legal minutiae posted here.

Re:Too much detail (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614237)

What's your point with all this irritating self pity?

You click on a story that is minutiae overload for you, then whine and complain about the overload.

You can just not click on the story and spare yourself the heartache, so quit your childish whining.

Re:Too much detail (-1, Offtopic)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614405)

My point and the reason I posted was to make some people realize that hey, this stuff has been posted in too fine a level of detail. Considering the moderation on my first comment, I can see I'm not the only one. I'm hoping it will influence people on the firehose and more importantly the slashdot editors reading it to reflect on just how much they're approving stories that are basically only about today's legal minutiae. I'm posting a lot on this particular thread following from my original comment because people keep asking me questions (even if it's just their rhetorical attempt to flame me).

And then I get the legions of people whining that they're tired of me whining. That's probably been the funniest part of the whole thread.

Re:Too much detail (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613849)

Well you know, the RIAAs crimes do not go away, just because you find them less interesting with time.

I bet when the Nazis rose in Germany, you would also stated that there would be too much stories about the NSDAP in the news.

Ooh, it bores you? Well, then we must stop. Because your entertainment is the most important thing on the planet! Nothing can come between you and it.
How rude of some people, to actually still care about the systematic deconstruction of our freedom and of the Internet as we know it.

Stop whining! If you want to stop those stories, DO SOMETHING against the RIAA!

Re:Too much detail (1, Funny)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613953)

Try reading my post. I didn't complain about coverage of the trails, but about the level of detail. Hell, it was right there in the TITLE.

My post was no more self-centered than your little rant here, and if I do say so myself it was quite a bit less petulant. Time to take your own advice about whining.

Re:Too much detail (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613969)

Yes! you may go!

Re:Too much detail (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614007)

surely the editors can find something else in the pile of submissions that would be even slightly more interesting.

Clearly, you haven't seen what the stories in the Firehose are like...

Re:Too much detail (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614137)

Hey, at least it's not SCO!

I'm deeply concerned (4, Insightful)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613313)

With the RIAA's blatant disregard for sanity with its imaginary damages. My imaginary friend Drop Dead Fred was more real.

Re:I'm deeply concerned (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613533)

My imaginary friend Drop Dead Fred was more real.

Its just a shame you cant split the fines between your imaginary friends.

Re:I'm deeply concerned (-1, Flamebait)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613715)

HEY SNOTFACE! Forgot to give you something!!!

Re:I'm deeply concerned (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28614259)

People with power really don't like to be disobeyed.

Whether or not Nesson can come up with some good reasons for his actions, the fact remains that he pissed off a powerful person. He has definitely picked a fight, and better be ready to start swinging, because he is looking at a pretty severe beat-down.

Seriously . . . (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613337)

'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard" of her order.'

When you cut off your nose to spite your face, you never look better.

Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war.

Re:Seriously . . . (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614287)

I don't know what it is about these cases that seem to make people want to act like dicks in the court room and then act surprised when they lose the case. Here's a tip when you're in court, no matter how unfair you think the case against you is, don't treat the judge and the court with the same contempt you have for the case. It's not going to help.

Maybe (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613341)

Maybe the court copyrighted them?

To be fair... (5, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613349)

...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights against the RIAA/MPAA and their ilk.

Re:To be fair... (2, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613393)

...as a citizen I've been "deeply concerned" by the US Court system's "blatant disregard" for our rights.

There, fixed that for ya - just 6 words too many....

Re:To be fair... (1, Flamebait)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614151)

What rights? You are the property of the government. Be glad we haven't drafted you yet and are content milking you for money. ~

Hey, I'm deeply concerned too (4, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613413)

I'm deeply concerned that the court is being the RIAA's pawn and making orders that have no other purpose than to protect a slimy group of companies' public image...

Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (2, Interesting)

Steve1952 (651150) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613445)

To me, Nesson's conduct is right on the line between brilliant tactics, and just plain nuts. I can see it either way.

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (1)

SterlingSylver (1122973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613923)

As much as I love the general principal of pissing off judges...why is this idiot pissing off the judge???

Re:Is Nesson crazy like a fox, or just crazy? (1)

davecb (6526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614425)

I think he's deeply involved in a worldview where pretty much everyone looks evil. This means he'll be tempted to treat opposing council, grumpy judges and uppity clients like they're evil. That's a bad thing.

The test for crazy as a fox vs just crazy is to see if he's still got a sense of humor. If he's willing to make fun of himself, assume fox. If not, crazy.

--dave

Listen to the MP3's (5, Insightful)

module0000 (882745) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613451)

Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.

It's a horrible attempt at keeping the taxpayers in the dark about this whole ordeal.

Re:Listen to the MP3's (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613811)

Listening now, but given that you have a strong opinion on the matter, do you care to explain? In fact, does anyone knowledgeable care to explain what arguments were made about these recordings, why they should or shouldn't be public, etc.? I scanned the linked articles and nothing caught my eye as a clear explanation of what's going on.

Re:Listen to the MP3's (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613815)

Check the mp3 URL's on TFA. Jury tainting is a bullshit excuse. They know damn well if the public knew the facts about what was going on in our courtroom[we pay for]: we would be outside with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch the plaintiff.

I've got the pitchforks, NYCL has the torches. Care to join us? ;)

Re:Listen to the MP3's (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614355)

I use trackballs. They're much nicer to use than regular mice, requiring no smooth surface (I don't have a desk) and can be corded without the cord interfering with their mobility.

Kind of expected (5, Insightful)

xbytor (215790) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613499)

The professor had to expect something like this. It's like playing chess. He'll respond with his next move, etc...

It's interesting to watch this and the Camara case unfold. Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.

Re:Kind of expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613655)

Much better than 'Lost' or Reality TV because the results actually do effect me.

Possibly they even affect you.

Re:Kind of expected (2, Funny)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613677)

His next move could be to pull out his checkbook to pay a fine and/or go to jail.

Re:Kind of expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613699)

You mean they 'affect' you?

Re: Copyright Chess! (4, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613885)

Yes! Slashdot's new game!

RIAA on White, Sanity on Black

It's an Alekhine's Defense to the mark!

1. RIAA-e4, Jammie Thomas - f6
2. RIAA-e5, Jammie Thomas -d5
3. RIAA-d4, Prof Nesson- d6
4. RIAA-c4, Jammie Thomas gets kicked to b6 with the 1.92Mil verdict.
5. RIAA-f4 , ____

We have only about 3 moves left before they get a total lock. Our move.

Eccentricities will get you no where (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613501)

These professors (this one and the city of heroes professor) are bypassing rules to basically focus on the x,y, or z. There are rules for engaging 2 or more people, societies and most definitely the judicial systems. Trying to focus on the abstract with out playing by the rules gets you kicked out of the game. It's no real loss when you get kicked out of an MMO by the player base you can move on.

However, when you mess up a court case you start setting precedents, and screwing a lot more people than yourself and your client. Pissing off a judge which this Prof. has done before is not going to bode well. Maybe he should stick to academia.

End It (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613513)

Disconnect from the RIAA.
- Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly.
- Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.

As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

Please Mod Parent Up! (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613873)

Disconnect from the RIAA. - Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly. - Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.

As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (3, Insightful)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613981)

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"

Re:Please Mod Parent Up! (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614281)

Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.

Convince two others to do the same.

This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.

Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"

I was tempted to ask if you even read the comment, but I suppose that isn't very reasonable. So I'll ask you an alternate question: why do you think the part about "not using ("consuming") their products, neither legally nor illegally" would fail to address that? It would help me to understand you if you can be as specific as possible.

So far, the fact that piracy does occur and is taking place has been the main excuse behind many of these bad laws. Personally, I think their failure to handle digital distribution in a way that people like is responsible for every last problem they are having and that their current business model deserves to fail. The problem is that piracy therefore does benefit them in a way because it gives them an easy excuse, something they can blame other than themselves. What I would like is for them to either take responsibility for their own failures or go bankrupt. I think at least one of those, possibly both, is what needs to happen. What I do not understand is why you believe that making them as irrelevant as possible in a perfectly legal fashion would be counterproductive towards either goal.

Re:End It (1)

Asclepius99 (1527727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613925)

Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.

Re:End It (1)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614377)

Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.

Radiohead made some good sales despite the option of downloading that album ("In Rainbows") for free. If that proved anything, it proved that when you offer to give away free music, many people will not pay but more than enough will decide to support you. By "more than enough" I mean that it was definitely a profitable venture for them, by any standard. You may find this [wikipedia.org] an interesting read.

I love how... (2, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613711)

this process is so clean and efficient when the RIAA's the victim but when the RIAA lawyers break rules this stuff, if it happens, gets dragged on and on until it's forgotten.

Me too, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28613743)

I'm deeply concerned that the court is deeply concerned that the people are deeply concerned about this case.

Piss (-1, Troll)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28613943)

Ass Cock Shit

Caroling DDoS the Courts (5, Interesting)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614033)

I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly.

DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...

Re:Caroling DDoS the Courts (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 5 years ago | (#28614157)

I think a public performance of "Happy Birthday" on the 4th of July would have been fitting.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>