×

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!

Veoh Once Again Beats UMG (After Going Out of Business)

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the winning-through-losing dept.

The Courts 229

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Veoh has once again beaten the record companies; in fact it has beaten them in every round, only to have been forced out of business by the attorneys fees it expended to do so. I guess that's the record companies' strategy to do an 'end around' the clear wording of the DMCA 'safe harbor': outspend them until they fold. Back in 2009 the lower court dismissed UMG's case (PDF) on the ground that Veoh was covered by the DMCA 'safe harbor' and had complied with takedown notices. The record companies of course appealed. And they of course lost. Then, after the Viacom v. YouTube decision by the 2nd Circuit, which ruled that there were factual issues as to some of the videos, they moved for rehearing in UMG v. Veoh. Now, in a 61-page decision (PDF), the 9th Circuit has once again ruled that the statute means what it says, and rejected each and every argument the record companies made. Sadly, though, it did not award attorneys fees."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

229 comments

Another such victory... (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year ago | (#43194679)

...and I am undone -- Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Re:Another such victory... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194929)

Shut the fuck up you worthless troll.

Re:Another such victory... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194959)

My fly surely is. Undone. I'm sitting here at the computer with my cock in my hand. I'm using dice.com's adult "job" board, if you get what I mean.

Re:Another such victory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43196077)

I think he knew what he was referring to.

ttruly (1, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year ago | (#43194685)

I need more videos of interracial trigonometric substitution strategies. And chicken broth!

Re:ttruly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194995)

u r fukkin boring plz turn ur login over 2 Ethanol-fueled so he can do some real trollin

fukkin fascist

Re:ttruly (-1, Troll)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43195323)

How about you grow an IQ instead, matey?

Fucking cretin.

Re:ttruly (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43195637)

Please stop feeding the trolls, they're too fat already. Ignore them and they'll go away.

Re:ttruly (1, Offtopic)

Pikoro (844299) | about a year ago | (#43195919)

Sadly, the meaning of the internet "troll" has been lost. It's ties to fishing have been misunderstood as the things that hang out under bridges. Trolling has nothing to do with "trolls".

Sad (5, Insightful)

Tmann72 (2473512) | about a year ago | (#43194693)

It's so sad that they can sorta "win" by pushing Veoh out of business via litigation. Even though Veoh won they still lost. Sad. The judge should have awarded fees.

Re:Sad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194715)

Maybe people should just stop being little thieves? Has that idea ever crossed your mind?

Re:Sad (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43194737)

From the banking scandals it should be clear to anyone with half a mind that Washington wants you to stop being a little thief and start being a very big one.

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194801)

So since one person is a thief it's ok for everyone to be a thief? What kind of logic is that?

The kind that would... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194833)

even out the playing field? :-D

Re:Sad (2)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43194847)

No they don't.

They want you to back off and save the pie for them to pilfer.

Besides, you don't GET to be rich and powerful without their cooperation in the first place.

By the time you get invited to join the old boy's club you've already been indoctrinated.

Re:Sad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43196145)

Why is this being modded as funny?

That is the nature of government; it legitimizes violence as a means of keeping those who are part of it in power. This is just as true now as it was when aging tribal leaders turned to divine right and mysticism to stay dominant after their physical strength was gone. It is a lie to permit the few and the weak to rule over the many. Washington indeed wants you to be a big thief, which is to say part of the club that is permitted to steal and grants that privilege to others who play along. This describes our court system perfectly. To see this, just ask why Veoh didn't simply carry on as normal. Ask why they would destroy themselves financially giving money to a bunch of lawyers and such? What could compel them to commit suicide like that?

The answer is violence; it is violence that most everyone here worships as good and necessary. Had Veoh ignored the 'requested' summons, had they simply dismissed and recycled the ever more threatening letters, eventually, the owners of the company would have had a visit from some guy in a nice black suit. He would be very morose yet it would be made clear that some guys with guns and rape rooms and access to their bank accounts were getting very very annoyed at being ignored. Soon after that Veoh would find many of its assets stolen. Should the company leadership continue to ignore these savage threats and somehow continue operations, eventually guys in matching costumes would break into their homes, shoot their pets more likely than not, and kidnap them, and lock them in cages with various tortured individuals on either side of the bars.

This isn't some obscure flaw in a sound design. It is the very heart of statism: that moral rules have exceptions and that violence against innocent people is right when done by certain people.

Re:Sad (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43195601)

That's exactly what Tmann72 said.
I guess it all depends on whether you agree with the result of several courtcases or think you know better than all those judges.

Re:Sad (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year ago | (#43194841)

And that's why Google bought Youtube. Without Google's pockets, video uploading or user-generated content sites in general would be in deep, deep trouble, and as common and popular as limewire, emule, TPB, etc.

Google needed another platform to sell advertisements, and it protected user-generated content sites in the process. Sometimes, things DO work out.

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195377)

Google bought YouTube because they completely bungled Google Video.

> Sometimes, things DO work out.

Really? You missed all the stories where legitimate youtube content gets automatically taken down with no recourse?

Re:Sad (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43195503)

The people complaining about "no recourse" could have filed a counter-claim, and chose not to, then complain how the system doesn't work.

Re:Sad (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43195765)

Such actions make them subject to a court case, which can be costly even in you win (which is exctly what this article is about). Furthermore, the reinstating won't usually happen for ten days. For a lot of content, particularly news, being gone that long is a significant disadvantage.

Re:Sad (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43195841)

You are agreeing with me in the most disagreeable manner. You are arguing they had a recourse they chose not to take. That's exactly what I said.

Re:Sad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195993)

Are you dense? If the recourse is that costly, it's not really a recourse.

Re:Sad (4, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43194855)

Even though Veoh is out of business the record companies lost a lot in this. Veoh may be gone but any attempt to treat someone else this way will cause severe penalties. You can run this scam once and then the courts get wise to it and punish you for trying to sue someone when it was made clear to you previously that you didn't have a case. Anyone else they sue will get attorney fees and the right to counter sue for harassment.

Re:Sad (4, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year ago | (#43195339)

No, the record companies will simply alter a few words in the same arguments that made the judges waste time before, enough to encourage the court to re-evaluate the suit's merits again, and again, and again. A great deal of software patent law works the same way, as does movie and record company "SLAPP" or "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". This case is nowhere near enough to help eliminate such abuses precisely because legal fees were not awarded to the victor, who is now bankrupt. This has demonstrated that such ill-founded lawsuits can achieve business goals, even when they lose.

Re:Sad (5, Informative)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#43195511)

Companies will simply wise up and shift to countries like Australia where loser pays and losing one case can set powerful precedents and barretry laws can come into pay, not only does loser pay but they can be sued for damages and penalties. Quite simply if you are becoming the target for bullshit lawsuits remaining head quartered in the US is crazy and a shift to Australia makes legal sense.

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195695)

I imagine the context changes too, though. Does Australia recognize the DMCA and the safe harbor bits?

Re:Sad (5, Funny)

fido_dogstoyevsky (905893) | about a year ago | (#43195771)

I imagine the context changes too, though. Does Australia recognize the DMCA and the safe harbor bits?

Not yet, but as soon as the US gives us democracy...

Re:Sad (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43195519)

Courts are all about legal precedent. When all your legal precedent says you're full of shit then things look really bleak for you in court. The legal system has plenty of problems but even now you can't scam them continuously or it will end up biting you.

Re:Sad (4, Insightful)

gmanterry (1141623) | about a year ago | (#43195175)

This is why the U.S. has a legal system and the word justice is nowhere to be found. This way of winning cases is the norm not the exception. The powerful and wealthy can always prevail because they can exhaust the financial resources of almost any citizen and any small company. Justice... my ass! For justice to prevail the loser HAS to pay all court costs. Period!

Re:Sad (2)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43195271)

The judge probably wanted to but since we don't have loser pays his hands were tied.

Justice by economic intimidation sadly is the norm.

Re:Sad (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about a year ago | (#43195987)

What I don't understand, is why lawsuits in the US have to cost millions of dollars. Where does all the money go? Surely, in the case of a clearly frivolous lawsuit, if you take just one single lawyer with experience in copyright law, and you let him work full time for an entire month (without working on any other cases), he's unlikely to find any new arguments after that. So what would that cost, a lawyer for a month? $10,000? $20,000? We're still far, far away from millions! So what else are they doing? Why do you need whole teams of dozens of lawyers working full time for many months (still not quite enough to reach a million dollars) just to defend a frivolous lawsuit? What exactly are they doing? Where is all this man power going? Are there really that many avenues of copyright law to explore? Is it really that hard to just say "here's what the law says, here are a few precedents, this is clearly frivolous, period"? Really, millions of dollars?!

I'm not criticising, I just honestly don't understand where all the money goes.

Still... (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about a year ago | (#43194699)

At least it's legal precedent.

US Law (2, Informative)

damicatz (711271) | about a year ago | (#43194729)

The adversarial system is the biggest injustice ever created. Such a system dates back from the times when people solved disputes by beating each other over the head with clubs. The US legal system literally derives from the law of Germanic tribes back in antiquity.

The adversarial system turns everything into a game. Fact is irrelevant. Law is irrelevant. Justice is irrelevant. All that matters is whose lawyer is the best at legal gamesmenship. A typical civil trial in the US is a game of trying to bury the other party in motions and frivolous lawsuits until they can no longer afford to fight it. The adversarial system ensures that no help is given to a party who has a significant financial disadvantage because the law is simply not important and if you can't afford a good lawyer, that's too bad and you're going to go bankrupt even if you've done nothing wrong.

Civilized countries (e.g. the majority) realized a long time ago that the adversarial system is not just. In most countries, the inquisitorial system is used in which the judge, rather than the lawyers, are the ones who do the investigating and asking of questions. In an inquisitorial court, it is not a competition to see which party has the best lawyers and legal arguments but rather a search for the truth.

Re:US Law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194817)

Civilized countries (e.g. the majority) realized a long time ago that the adversarial system is not just

When someone tries to define "civilized" as "does this one thing the way I like", what they are really saying is that they lack confidence in their position and live in constant terror that they will be exposed for the ignorant troglodytes they secretly know themselves to be.

Re:US Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194861)

Although i had to bust out my monster manual to translate that comment, I believe that you may be a reptile as well.

When a troglodyte is angry or frightened, it secretes an oily, musk-like chemical that nearly every form of animal life finds offensive. This is very much like your comment.

source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troglodyte.htm

Re:US Law (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43194873)

A civilized country is a country that follows some widely accepted precepts for a modern civilization, like having a justice system that actually enforces its law code equally for all people, not one that works only for the highest bidder.

A civilized place, on the other hand, is a place that doesn't have assholes like you.

Re:US Law (2)

Solandri (704621) | about a year ago | (#43195209)

A civilized country is a country that follows some widely accepted precepts for a modern civilization, like having a justice system that actually enforces its law code equally for all people, not one that works only for the highest bidder.

In other words, nobody's actually attained civilization yet.

The problem with trying to link a definition of civilization to justice is that it's highly probable that justice/fairness is an impossible goal. It's been proven that you can't create a perfectly fair election system [wikipedia.org]. And that's a very specific case of justice/fairness. In the general case, it's very likely that any justice system will be flawed in some way. The best you can do is pick which flaws you're willing to live with.

Re:US Law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195241)

Civilized and civilization are not the same concepts despite the similar appearance.

Re:US Law (3, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43195349)

Thinking in absolutes is silly. That said, there are countries that manage to get nearer this ideal and others that unfortunately are much farther. When you try to define something you have to keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish with such definition. What distinctions exactly you are looking for. In this case you can see this definition of a guideline of civilization, and those countries that are nearer it can be considered "civilized" whilst those that are farther cannot.

Re:US Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195247)

Neither of those is true, nor do you believe that they are.

You are lashing out at me because I pointed out a dishonest argument whose conclusion you agree with.

Re:US Law (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43195367)

Nope. I am lashing at you because you do not make sense. You try to psycho analyze a poster with your mabojambo and half-assed preconceived ideas of what his behavior should be. You added nothing to the discussion and should learn to stay quiet when you don't have anything useful to say.

Re:US Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194977)

Civilized countries (e.g. the majority) realized a long time ago that the adversarial system is not just

When someone tries to define "civilized" as "does this one thing the way I like", what they are really saying is that they lack confidence in their position and live in constant terror that they will be exposed for the ignorant troglodytes they secretly know themselves to be.

Typical answer from someone who was brainwashed from birth to accept "american exceptionalism" that is anything but. To realise this you would need to travel, and live in other countries something most americans don't do. Or are afraid to do. You'd think the moment their little feet step outside the US they're in the land of the heathen.

Re:US Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195159)

At no point did I say anything to indicate such things. You made it up as a strawman because you knew you could not refute what I actually said, and that it describes you as perfectly as it does the GGP.

You agree with me completely, even though you don't want to. You will now inadvertently admit that.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means (5, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#43195287)

It sounds like you think Americanism Exceptionalism means American betterism. It does not. It means, simply, that the origins of the US, the founding, was DIFFERENT than other countries. Not superior, just different. In general states are based on nations, on ethnic groups. Ethnic groups formed kingdoms, and they persist today as countries. France, Germany, China - these are like most nations in that they are also ethnic groups, based on ancestry, led by kings and empererors at various times.

America, on the other hand, was not the formalization of the boundaries of ancient tribes. Instead, Americans were united by certain IDEALS. (Ideals they often don't live up to, but ideals nonetheless.) Rather, people came to America for the promise of individual liberty and the opportunity that implies. In America, you were free to practice whatever religion you wanted, and free to succeed on your own merits. A "low class" store clerk born in a log cabin could become president. In other countries, being born low class meant you stayed low class your entire life.

Does that imply that America is better? Not necesarily. Critics will point first to slavery, which once existed in the US. How does that square with a nation "founded on the proposition that all men are created equal"? It doesn't, and that, my friend, is the whole point of American Exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism tells us that BECAUSE the country was founded on these ideals of liberty, freedom, and equality, we had better make great effort to live up to those ideals. It doesn't mean that we do, it means that our founding documents demand that we SHOULD.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195369)

It never ceases to amaze how some people are willing to spend stupefying amounts of time trying to rationalise away stuff.

Or perhaps practising their speech-writing for that City Council run...

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43195781)

Ideals like, it's ok to make treaties with other nations and then break them. It's ok to invade and steal someone else's land. It's ok to have colonies and empire, so long as you don't call them that. It's ok for big business to hire thugs to shoot workers who just want a fair deal.

Yeah, the USA is exceptional alright.

Re:US Law (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43195343)

WTF? You still high from last night, or what?

I've lived outside the US for the last ten years or so, and I don't find the "troll" post to be trollish in the least. Nor do I detect any hint of American Exceptionalism in it.

Re:US Law (1, Flamebait)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43195413)

When someone tries to define "civilized" as "does this one thing the way I like"...

Mon petit naïf pauvre, alors... Do you actually believe that "civilised" means anything else?

Oh, you do? How unfortunate.

Re:US Law (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#43194915)

Yup, in USA today, money wins, or at least doesn't suffer in losing. Going to an inquisitorial system, I fear one might become a modern Diogenes, seeking an honest judge, one who's fair, impartial yet passionate about right and wrong, smart enough to either know the matter at hand or to seek counsel of those who do.

Re:US Law (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194961)

Actually, Roman law was mostly adversarial. Europeans think that their civil law derives from Roman law, but it doesn't. It derives from the interpretation of extant Roman codes by scholars beginning in the 11th century. And almost all the Roman law that those scholars knew about came from the Justinian Code, which was promulgated near the end of the Roman Empire. When Justinian published his code all the legal scholars and practitioners literally revolted. It was not representative of ancient Roman legal customs, which were largely based on something like a case law tradition (except the case law was literal, and unlike either European or Anglo-American legal systems you weren't usually supposed to derive abstract legal precepts from the law to apply to novel situations.)

Any scholar will tell you that the best legal systems in the world tend to be Common Law based, although German law is very highly regarded and some argue the best. And that's because on the whole Common Law is driven by the courts, and not the legislature. The more that legislatures and politicians get involved, the quicker things turn to crap. Courts tend to be retrospective, so they're much more grounded in necessity and practicality. Politicians are always trying to solve imaginary problems, or to shape people's behavior according to their predilections and prejudices.

The problem w/ inquisitorial systems is that it's effectively law by bureaucrats. If you think American legal stories are nightmarish, you should read accounts of people and businesses getting reamed in civil law jurisdictions like France, Italy, Brazil, etc. In Common Law jurisdictions most disputes are settled outside of court. And a far as being evidenced based, the Common Law rules of evidence are one of the greatest achievements of modern society. In inquisitorial systems, the judge can take into account anything he wants. That means prejudice and bias are dramatically more likely to effect the outcome of cases... and in fact do.

None of this is to excuse what happened in this case, of course.

Re:US Law (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43195537)

Any scholar will tell you that the best legal systems in the world tend to be Common Law based, although German law is very highly regarded and some argue the best.

If you think American legal stories are nightmarish, you should read accounts of people and businesses getting reamed in civil law jurisdictions like France, Italy, Brazil, etc. In Common Law jurisdictions most disputes are settled outside of court.

Wait, so what does Louisiana mean? It's formally Civil law, yet there's no push for lawsuits to be filed there or explicitly not there.

Re:US Law (5, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43194997)

In an inquisitorial court, the notions of "fairness" and "justice" are determined by the inquisitors, rather than the people actually harmed. Nevermind how much an offense actually harmed you - it's what the judge thinks that matters. That sentimental statue that the mugger smashed? The one your great-great-grandmother carved while on a ship coming over from Europe? In the eyes of the inquisitorial court, it's just a trinket, and is of no consequence.

While an inquisitorial system does give a more objective sense of justice, the people involved don't really get any outcome that seems fair. This is why inquisitorial systems in practice have such poor reception. Consider how much hatred is seen even here on Slashdot for arbitration clauses in contracts. People expect that the inquisitorial arbitration will simply side in favor of the bigger company, and don't expect a fair chance to present their own side of the story.

Inquisitorial systems are also games, but the game is different. Rather than argue for one's case with reason and law, one gambles with the statistics of inquisitors. Since there is no risk of of encountering a particularly skilled opponent, any criminal can simply adjust their illegal activities to the skill of the state, since only the state can argue against them. A few well-placed bribes can ensure that investigators never really find anything too badly wrong, regardless of how the aggrieved may want to interpret the law.

The adversarial system is based on the concepts that only the aggrieved can determine how badly they've been harmed, and the state cannot be implicitly trusted. The government is supposed to be only the representative of the society, closely following society's standards for morality and formality as the plaintiff's arguments change. In an inquisitorial system, the state is assumed to be an infallible and absolute embodiment of fairness. The inquisitorial system's opinions of right and wrong only change as judges retire.

That's just a few reason why most countries actually have an adversarial system for most grievances, and only a handful [wikipedia.org] actually use an inquisitorial system.

Re:US Law (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | about a year ago | (#43195157)

That's all well and good as long as you know how to "determine" fairness and justice. US courts are set up in such a way to deliberately obfuscate the law.

Federal courts in the US are a mess. There are entire books worth of byzantine rules that even the lawyers have trouble understanding. To make matters worse, each of the federal districts has their own local rules as well (because every federal district court needs it's own rules for what font size motions should be in...).

Pro se parties are routinely discriminated against. Lawyers essentially have unlimited power to issue subpoenas; the US is one of the only countries that allows lawyers to do this with no oversight. Pro se parties cannot do this. The clerks of court will go out of their way to answer questions about the law to lawyers (again, even they can't keep track of all of the rules) but will refuse to answer any questions for pro se parties.

In addition, the salaries of lawyers are artificially inflated through the cartel known as the bar. The amount of lawyers is artificially restricted by the state through economic rent seeking. Even offering your opinion on something related to the law can subject you to the imposition of violent force by the state on behalf of the bar (Free speech doesn't apply to non-lawyers). Since judges are members of this cartel, and judges are lawyers themselves, they will never rule such a thing illegal even if it is.

If that doesn't get you, case law will. Lawyers have access to tools like LexisNexus which allow them to figure out WHAT the case law is and what cases have been overturned and such. The average person can't afford that and has to resort to inferior tools.

It is criminal to have a system where someone with millions of dollars can simply use the state and its courts as a means to steal money from people simply because they can't afford to fight it. It is criminal to have a system where shysters can issue one subpoena after another without needing any sort of approval. It is criminal to have a system where someone is subject to violence because they offered legal advice to the less fortunate simply because they haven't paid money into the bar racket.

As far as I'm concerned, US Courts no longer have any legitimacy. They are a joke and should be treated as such. So help me if I'm called for jury slavery because I would be the juror from hell.

Re:US Law (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195277)

Next you’ll be telling us about how all the courts in the US are really military courts because they have fringes on their US flags? And since you’re a sovereign citizen, they can’t try you in such a court?

Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on. Pro se parties are “routinely discriminated against” only by themselves. The US legal system goes back through the English system more than a thousand years ago. If you don’t have real legal training, you’re very likely to shoot yourself in the foot. And if you’re up against any sort of real lawyer, then prepare to be demolished.

If you really give a shit about your case and can’t afford legal assistance, go find a real lawyer who is willing to take your case pro bono. If you can’t find one, maybe it’s because your case is bullshit and you’re an idiot? Oh no, not at all. It’s the vast conspiracy of lawyers set to make your life miserable, not because you’re an incompetent fool trying to cite case law from the 18th century about your neighbor’s fence.

Re:US Law (-1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about a year ago | (#43196063)

You'd never get on a jury because you're an obvious idiot. Never heard of corrupt judges before? Oh forget it, you obviously got jammed up and had to deal with it because you got a crappy lawyer. Next time, stop selling meth to kids.

Re:US Law (2)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | about a year ago | (#43195585)

only a handful [wikipedia.org] actually use an inquisitorial system.

My country, Germany, is not in the list, although it uses an inquisitorial system. Maybe Wikipedia is not a very good source :-/

Re:US Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43196015)

only a handful [wikipedia.org] actually use an inquisitorial system.

My country, Germany, is not in the list, although it uses an inquisitorial system. Maybe Wikipedia is not a very good source :-/

Germany will be on the list as soon as the majority of the home educated believe that Hitler is dead.

Re:US Law (1)

Udo Schmitz (738216) | about a year ago | (#43195605)

That sentimental statue that the mugger smashed? The one your great-great-grandmother carved while on a ship coming over from Europe? In the eyes of the inquisitorial court, it's just a trinket, and is of no consequence.

Not true. That would be mental or, non-material harm and can be recognized by an inquisitorial court as well.

Re:US Law (2)

Sabriel (134364) | about a year ago | (#43195733)

If you are correct that inquisitorial systems are flawed, and the GP is correct that adversarial systems are flawed, is there a compromise between or synthesis of the two that would be better?

Re:US Law (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43195329)

The adversarial system benefits lawyers.

Lawyers become politicians.

Therefore, nothing will change.

Re:US Law (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#43195393)

Do you realise that, under an inquisitorial system, the State holds all the cards, right?

You must be heaps more trusting than I am, that's all I've got to say.

Re:US Law (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43195563)

You realize that under the adversarial system, the State holds all the cards, right? They can make any case go either way, and can prosecute civil matters on their own behalf as well.

Settle out of court (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194739)

With a gun.

Re:Settle out of court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195321)

This is where we are headed. When there is no justice to be found within the system, people will inevitably take justice into their own hands. The willingness to do so will only increase as people are driven into poverty by the ruling class.

Wait, out of buisiness? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43194753)

I googled veoh to see what they were, and was surprised to see that Veoh is still around. The wiki page says they were bought by an Israeli company. Is the new Veoh something similar in name only? I'm genuinely confused.

Veo out of business? (4, Informative)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year ago | (#43194799)

"I googled veoh to see what they were, and was surprised to see that Veoh is still around. The wiki page says they were bought by an Israeli company. Is the new Veoh something similar in name only? I'm genuinely confused."

The current Veoh appears to show only trailers or brief snippits, with links to paid-for sites ...

UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (5, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | about a year ago | (#43194823)

I worked for mp3.com from 1999 to them folding in 2003 from UMG's (and others) lawsuit. I worked for Veoh from 2008 to 2009 when they folded from UMG's lawsuit.

I HATE UMG.

Those were the most fun jobs I've ever had. The work was challenging, the environment was fun, and my co-worker were some of the smartest people I've ever met. I had the opportunity to write code that solved problems no one had every faced before. It was awesome.

UMG has screwed me out of 2 very fulfilling jobs.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (5, Funny)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year ago | (#43194885)

Face it dude:
Either you're a bad omen for co-workers or UMG is actually after you, or both.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (4, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | about a year ago | (#43194901)

Ok, but what do you make of the claims posted on one of the sites links to in the original article, where someone claims Veoh was horribly mismanaged from the start, and blowing through as much as $4 million a month while not having any business or contracts lined up to justify the expenditures?

I don't know enough about the company to say whether any of that is true ... but unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. One would think that if the company really had a great, profitable business model all put together, even these lawsuits wouldn't make them disappear -- as another investor would come along and revive Veoh, knowing the path was now clear with winning all of the court cases.

I've seen a number of start-ups which were clearly very fun, challenging and rewarding places to be employed ... but in the big picture, they just didn't have something profitable enough to sustain them. Usually, they simply spent too much money trying to give off an image of success, rather than going through the much less pleasant (but far more workable) growth over time from very minimalist beginnings.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (4, Informative)

geekd (14774) | about a year ago | (#43194979)

That may be true. I'm a developer, so I can't comment intelligently about the financial side of things. It may be that Veoh would have went under anyway, but we would have lasted a lot longer without those attorney's fees, and without the chilling effect the lawsuit had on us. I was told that some companies did not want to advertise with us because of the lawsuit.

I hope they get shut down some day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43196125)

> I was told that some companies did not want to advertise with us because of the lawsuit.

I only wish there were some way to prove whether and how the labels were behind that. Supposing they were behind it, there are laws that could have been broken.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#43194925)

mp3.com's my.mp3.com was profoundly and obviously illegal.

"prove" to us that you have a copy and we will send you a copy of our copy, without a license from the copyright holder to do so.

whoever came up with that either didn't have a lawyer or had a crackhead for a lawyer. there are even legal ways to accomplish the same goal, amazon and google and apple all run

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (3, Interesting)

geekd (14774) | about a year ago | (#43194945)

In the all hands meeting when Michael Robertson told us all about his idea for my.mp3.com, one guy, a developer, (we'll call him "D") raised his hand and said "So, how are not a warez site, then?", and Michael had some explanation, and D asked the question again, and was insistent about it, and eventually was told to shut up and sit down (in nicer language). He was right, though, as history has proven.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195123)

"prove" to us that you have a copy and we will send you a copy of our copy, without a license from the copyright holder to do so.

by "prove", do you mean buying the cd from mp3.com and having them stick an mp3 version in your locker? it iswas THE completely logical next step in the (still had a decent pulse) cd-buying business. i still think it is retarded to need a license for something so benign. it should be no different than me ripping my own cd and uploading it to my own easily accessible locker/site/"cloud" (/shudder). were they doing anything more nefarious than that? were they charging for the labor of said process? still sounds completely reasonable. if i can rip my own cds and you can rip your own cds, i can surely be paid to rip your cds for you.

there are even legal ways to accomplish the same goal, amazon and google and apple all run

unless my views on what they did wrong is off, how are these companies doing it differently? licensing the digital good but w/o the physical good?

mp3.com was not illegal. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195939)

You do not need a license to copy a work to use as intended. Read the fucking Berne Convention, you copyright tool.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194933)

Can you post where you're working now (or plan to work?). Seems like you could be an albatross.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195717)

Can you post where you're working now (or plan to work?). Seems like you could be an albatross.

OK wise guy. Shows what you know. Here's my history. I started out at Circuit City, moved to a job at Gateway, then some time at Palm, MySpace, Digg, RIM, and now Slashdot. So there. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year ago | (#43196013)

I started out at Circuit City, moved to a job at Gateway, then some time at Palm, MySpace, Digg, RIM, and now Slashdot. So there. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

You seem to have destroyed over half the companies that you have worked for.

UM..... What is your name again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43194999)

and where do you work now?

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195311)

Sounds like it's time for you to work for UMG. Since they sue everywhere you work into destruction, if you work for them then they'll sue themselves into oblivion.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#43195319)

But would the legal system in the US allow you to sue (and potentially win) UMG for making you lose your job? Not saying you should do it; it is only a theoretical question.

Re:UMG has screwed me out of 2 jobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195809)

Get a job for UMG. And steal.

Beaten? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43195059)

I swear between the stories and the poor grammar it's just a matter of time before we see ads for non-hybrid seeds on this site.
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...