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!

LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the everyone-seems-to-know-except-the-lawmakers dept.

406

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"

cancel ×

406 comments

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

For those lawyers out there (2, Informative)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195419)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.

Re:For those lawyers out there (5, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195427)

Still, it's the P2P services pushing back. The P2P services don't offer music, they offer files.

It's high time that a P2P service fight back in a meaningful way.

Re:For those lawyers out there (3, Insightful)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195437)

I'm just not sure a borderline-frivolous lawsuit is a "meaningful way" of pushing back.

Re:For those lawyers out there (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195459)

Given the number of frivolous lawsuits that the RIAA puts out?

Re:For those lawyers out there (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195601)

sanctimoniousness + false equivocation == karma whoring

Re:For those lawyers out there (5, Insightful)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195461)

... a borderline-frivolous lawsuit in your humble opinion. Obviously not for some lawyers representing Limewire.

Re:For those lawyers out there (5, Informative)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195641)

Yes, IAAL: It's hard to gauge frivolity without knowing more about the case, and about any evidence that Limewire may have that could prove out their claims. If their claims have no basis in existing law or lack any evidentiary support (i.e. are frivolous), then the lawyers, their firm, or even Limewire could be sanctioned under Rule 11.

Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think. Few lawyers go out and just take a piss when it comes to filing motions. There is too much at stake. Sadly, it's only the frivolous suits or the cases involving plaintiffs who receive big judgments from what at first blush seem like frivolous suits that the public really cares to hear about.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195465)

Perhaps not meaningful pushing. But - it is something that *we* are talking about. Publicity = good here.

Re:For those lawyers out there (4, Insightful)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195471)

I'm just not sure a borderline-frivolous lawsuit is a "meaningful way" of pushing back.
There's no such thing as a frivilous counterclaim once you've been sued. It's defensive. Lime wire didn't bring this suit... they only need the jury to consider their side of any part of the issue when it comes to damages.

Re:For those lawyers out there (5, Informative)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195487)

You can certainly get FRCP 11 sanctions on a counterclaim on the grounds that its frivolous. So, yeah, you can have a frivolous counterclaim.

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test? (2, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195525)

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;


That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.. This reminds me of the language from the "INDUCE act", except applied to frivolous lawsuits.

Notice how no lawsuits levvied by the wealthier interest in such cases are tossed out, but a class action lawsuit alledging numerous breaches of labor and antitrust laws against wal-mart is tossed out without a second thought.

Ahh.. have to love how congress completely skirts the issue of bribery by allowing the judges to take the suitcases full of money.

Souter ruling eat your heart out!

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (3, Informative)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195745)

That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.


Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!

(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195801)

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.

That should involve examining the evidence backing up a claim and rendering a judgment, not simply dismissing the claim because the judge thinks the defendant should be granted the priviledge of not having a trial.

if this rule applied to murder.. you'd have a judge saying

"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts"

That would be the whole point of the judiciary.. accusations are supposed to be adequately weighed and the defendant proven guilty/found not guilty following a fair trial.. not the defendant having a free ride because the plaintiff just seems a bit too shady to the judge's subjective view.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (5, Informative)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195919)

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.


Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.

P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196051)

whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law


Change this to "whether certain types of evidence is admissable or not in a court of law, notably evidence that could be possibly be excluded under heresay rules. There are separate admissability rules and heresay rules and exceptions are a kind of subset of them." I wish this had an editing function. I still don't have an evidence rulebook in front of me and I'm doing this from memory. Just didn't want to give you the wrong information. Have a good one.

Actually, that would be jury nullification... (3, Informative)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196069)

"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts" ...if a member of the jury decided to act thusly.

I was on a jury in a drug case.

Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound believable. A couple of years later, he was indicted for fraud.

Jury nullification works.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

stevesliva (648202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195527)

Yes, but, what's the harm in it? If it's frivilous beyond all doubt the judges will throw it out, but it doesn't hurt to try, right? IANAL and all that, but over-reaching on counterclaims can't possibly be all that harmful.

Re:For those lawyers out there (2, Informative)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195539)

It hurts to try because if you make a frivolous claim the attorney, law firm, or party may be subject to sanctions.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195613)

How can the suit be frivolous, when theose companies that form the RIAA have a record of criminal penalties against them for doing exactly what lime wire are claiming in the civil counter suit.

The counter suit could form a effective means by which lime wire can garner support from other new players, as well as independent musicians, in the fight against companies who can not adapt to the leaner and far more comptetitive content publishing and distribution system of the 21st century. Musicians will be producing and publishing their own works, in the main, to gain live audience numbers but also for low cost sales (absent of RIAA members 99% sales commisions).

there's nothing frivlous here (2, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195661)

LimeWire's lawyers are exactly right. Read the claim -- they cite an RIAA conspiracy "to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers." That's pretty much what happened and continues to happen; you can complain that nobody forced LimeWire to break the law, but that doesn't in any way get the RIAA off the hook for blatantly anti-competitive practices (and LimeWire's attorneys are right that unlicensed content sharing is the inevitable consequence of those practices).

Re:there's nothing frivlous here (2, Interesting)

whitestone (960256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195799)

"to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control" - they can prove, or at least look this very probable, by the continuous series of law suits by the RIAA against file sharing services not under their control. "force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms " - law suits end when they sign to cooperate with the RIAA. See Kazaa. "so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers" - the RIAA has never hidden their financial motives.

Re:there's nothing frivlous here (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195855)

The whole point of copyright is temporary exclusivity. To prove that the RIAA is going further than the law specifically allows, would essentially require proving that the RIAA is going after music services which are not actually involving music owned by the RIAA's members... or that the RIAA compelled LimeWire to use RIAA music. If LimeWire can't prove either point, their suit should probably be tossed out, since it's a case of copyright being used precisely as designed.

Re:there's nothing frivlous here (3, Insightful)

bit01 (644603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196049)

The whole point of copyright is temporary exclusivity.

There is a world of difference between temporary exclusivity on a single piece of music and ongoing long term exclusivity on a controlling percentage of the market.

If the law doesn't recognise that then the law is an ass.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot has many lying astroturfers [wikipedia.org] fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as third party opinion. FUD [wikipedia.org] too.

Re:there's nothing frivlous here (3, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196061)

"The whole point of copyright is temporary exclusivity"

It's temporary in the sense that Earth is temporary - we're gonna get swallowed by the sun or "Big Crush"ed or something, but the fact is that there's no real reason to believe, given current trends, that copyrights are gonna expire, just like there's no reason to believe the sun won't rise tomorrow. Copyrights have been extended so many times now that it's silly to believe that they'll end without massive changes in Congress.

Re:For those lawyers out there (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195691)

yeah so stop being such a stupid ignorant ass nigger

This is not true, please mod parent down. (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195827)

There's no such thing as a frivilous counterclaim once you've been sued. It's defensive.


Please mod parent down. This is absolutely, 100% just not true. Anything signed by an attorney in a court of law (motions, pleadings, etc.) must be based on existing law and have evidentiary support. That certainly includes counterclaims. Please read FRCP Rule 11(b) [cornell.edu] before you begin to dispense legal advice.

Re:This is not true, please mod parent down. (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195951)

And actually, please don't dispense any more legal advice even after you read it ;)

Despite my sympathy for anyone v. RIAA... (1)

LandruBek (792512) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195687)

...they can't use that argument if they are going to try to fight RIAA on antitrust.
The P2P services don't offer music, they offer files.

If they are not in the music business then RIAA is not trying to squash them as music competition. But if they are trying to establish a competing music business and RIAA is fighting dirty, they might have an antitrust claim -- but then they are not just a generic file-sharing service.
IANAL

And for those of us who aren't lawyers? (2, Informative)

hellfire (86129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195479)

How about a quick explanation?

Re:And for those of us who aren't lawyers? (5, Informative)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195503)

FRCP 12(b)(6) basically is grounds to dismiss one or more claims in a lawsuit because even if all the factual assertions made by the plaintiff are true, they have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IANAL. This isn't legal advice.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Flamebait)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195485)

Defining this for us non lawyers rather than passing it as some secret message would be nice..

and if it's what I think it is.. I think it's high time we instigated some real "class warfare".

When the heiristocracy tried this in france madame guillotine became quite well fed if i remember correctly.

all it takes is one person who will lose enough from a lawsuit to consider prison more comfortable than bankruptcy. (after all they do feed you right?.. just make sure to do it in a non death penalty state)

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195497)

So you are suggesting that someone go out and murder employees of the RIAA?

Re:For those lawyers out there (1, Offtopic)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195557)

So you are suggesting that someone go out and murder employees of the RIAA?

i'm not suggesting anything.

*waves hand*

this is not the dissident youre looking for. : )

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195599)

I hate to be a spoilsport, but here's some selections of your initial post.

I think it's high time we instigated some real "class warfare"...all it takes is one person who will lose enough from a lawsuit to consider prison more comfortable than bankruptcy.

If that isn't encouraging the murder of RIAA employees, then you have some serious backpedaling to do.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Flamebait)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195669)

your username is rather ironic if you can't recognize a joke that just walked up to you, slapped you on the face, and called you suzie..

geez, so many people have a huge rod up their rears.

Re:For those lawyers out there (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195679)

I see. Calling for the murder of a certain group of individuals is actually a joke. I'll have to remember that next time.

What a knee-slapper!

Re:For those lawyers out there (2, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195709)

Calling for the murder of a certain group of individuals is actually a joke.

Don't attempt to call these "individuals" a "group", and try to characterize them as if they are anything more than a malevolent cabal out to subvert the intent of our forefathers in founding the us and writing the US constitution.

We're not arguing about ethnic cleansing here, we're arguing about extreme sanction against what is nothing less than a group of domestic terrorists and racketeers with their talons in the government.. not all that dissimilar from hezbollah, just using different methods under color of law.

Vigilantism worked quite well in the old west. Granted it can get a little overboard, but I don't think anyone in the general public would weep the passing of these corrupt scumbags.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195729)

ROTFLMFAO!! LOLOL!

Dude, that was hilarious! Especially the part where you joked about the death of "these corrupt scumbags".

And that part where you call murder "extreme sanction" is absolutely priceless!

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195765)

Now I see why you default to score one..

aaaanyway. I'm not necessarily insisting they need to be killed.. if there are nonviolent or even fully legal ways to neutralize the threat they represent to the public then i'm all for it, but they must also be plausible and obtainable as goals.

It's not as if I myself am planning to do this--I have a wee bit too much to lose from the consequences-- but I predict this is the only way we will be able to recover from this slippery slope we speed down.

and the out of control spiral of copyright is only one of many symptoms this nation is exhibiting of the decay of what was a promising system.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195789)

I don't default to "score one".

So you are suggesting that since you are too dumb to think of a solution to the problem that others ought to kill these "corrupt scumbags".

That's even funnier than your original posts about murder.

Re:For those lawyers out there (-1, Offtopic)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195825)

So you are suggesting that since you are too dumb to think of...

ahh.. the ad hominem.. tool of trolls who have no rational argument to make, I believe this discussion --to term it politely-- between us is over.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195883)

It's hardly over. You haven't backed down from your initial comment that employees of the RIAA should be murdered. In fact, you have tried to pass it off as a joke, then you tried to back it up again, then you began with the ad hominem attacks against me, and now you continue to do so by calling me a troll.

if there are nonviolent or even fully legal ways to neutralize the threat they represent to the public then i'm all for it

If "dumb" was too strong a word for you, perhaps you'd like to offer alternative suggestions to "murdering RIAA employees" which you claimed may exist but were either too lazy to actually give such alternatives, or more likely, you are simply incapable of contemplating anything other than what your brutish mindset first presents.

I'm not asking you to back down from your murder comment. I am asking that you elaborate your position because it is so far out of whack with anything resembling a reasonable position that you are either severely developmentally stunted or are trolling. Which is it?

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Offtopic)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195947)

Wow.. hannitian argument tactics.. make a biiig long thread.. than try to exaggerate or invent things I supposedly said.

You haven't backed down from your initial comment that employees of the RIAA should be murdered.

I said nothing of the kind.. I specifically said that heiristocracy who tried this crap were beheaded, and implied that perhaps this will be the only final resolution to this conflict, considering how tightly they have gripped our legislators and judges, and the fact that the same corporate owners own the major media outlets.
That said.. if any implication was made, it was the neutralization of the people coordinating the attacks on our civil liberties, consumer and property rights at the top. I would put this at at most 7 people.. the employees of the RIAA are very much like the employees of munitions plants.. theyre cogs in the machine.. theyre not the ones pulling the levers at the top.

In fact, you have tried to pass it off as a joke,

No.. i tried to lighten your sour mood with a tounge and cheek denial spiced with a star wars reference.. and possibly point out to the readership that i'm not malevolently scheming to the end of assassination myself?.. subtlety is not your strong suit is it?

then you began with the ad hominem attacks against me,
Nope.. I simply said you couldnt spot a joke if it nailed you in the eyeball at 60 miles an hour.. that's different than calling you dumb.. I myself don't laugh at much...you need to calm down dude.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196027)

Watch this carefully, because I don't think you realize what you are doing.

I said nothing of the kind...if any implication was made, it was the neutralization of the people coordinating the attacks on our civil liberties...I would put this at at most 7 people

1) Are those 7 people "right at the top" employees of the RIAA? Yes.
2) Did you just say that "neutralization" of those employees was what you implied? Yes.

So where am I mistaken?

If you think that murder is a joke, then we are operating on two completely planes of reality.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Flamebait)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196035)

And if you are incapable of reading the rest of my post and insist upon simply dogmatically chanting your fallacious point over and over this "conversation" is over.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196095)

Let's sum up then.

You believe that the top brass at the RIAA needs to be killed. You believe this because you feel they are "terrorists and racketeers" that are "similar to hezbollah (sic)" who are out to "subvert the intent of our forefathers" and the Constitution of the United States. You further believe that the calling for these deaths is a joke and that I missed the humor in it.

I believe that murder, and especially vigilantism, is an uncalled for method of dealing with legal issues. I also believe that joking about murder, especially in the context of actually calling for the deaths of certain groups of people, is beyond the line of acceptability.

I am chanting nothing. I am simply interested in why you think that murder is the proper method of dealing with the issues that the RIAA poses. Though you claim to be receptive to alternative solutions, your initial call was for violence against these people. That says a lot about who you are and your lack of either experience or education.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

Crunchie Frog (791929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195987)

This is the best sub thread I've read in a long time, keep up the good work you two. Really, its a great read. i think BadAnalogyGuy is winning at this point but Id love to see it swing back again just for the drama.

Re:For those lawyers out there (2, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195931)

Wait. I'm sincerely curious. How do you get from Point A, "They're trying to stop me from downloading the latest Britney Spears single," to Point B -- and I quote:

Don't attempt to call these "individuals" a "group", and try to characterize them as if they are anything more than a malevolent cabal out to subvert the intent of our forefathers in founding the us and writing the US constitution.

The RIAA wants you to pay for that single, not download it for free. And while I agree that it may suck that you would have to go to Tower to indulge in your obsessive love for all things Britney, it's not as if the RIAA is trying to steal or throw out your vote, or kill your grandmother.

There are SO many things in the world that are way more likely to "subvert" our culture than this. Get some damn perspective.

Re:For those lawyers out there (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196101)

The RIAA wants you to pay for that single, not download it for free. And while I agree that it may suck that you would have to go to Tower to indulge in your obsessive love for all things Britney, it's not as if the RIAA is trying to steal or throw out your vote, or kill your grandmother.

Exactly.. they sell you something then insist you're not allowed to do as you please with it, which is direct impediment of the individual right to personal property in the civilized world. This itself is not the most damning manifestation of this attitude though.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors, it is a spit in the face to the democratic concept of self determination and the capitalistic concept of individual property. You essentially become a serf.. you're not allowed to own what you buy.. you have to pay taxes on it though!

In order to prop up this regime they make sure EVERY political candidate is under their thumb. They do this by a carrot(bribery) and stick(threats of bad press.. their holding companies own the main stream press) approach.

Then when they can't properly keep a lid on it.. and keep up with technology, consumer demand, and the times, they extort random people into bankruptcy via manipulated laws.. threatening to "sue".. but if they simply don't challenge it they'll "only" have to pay 4 to 10 grand.. isn't that nice of them..

They are also campaigning and engaging in "re-education" of the populace.. isn't a representative democracy supposed to reflect the will of the people? I thought "re-education" only occurred in orwellian dystopias and totalitarian regimes.

Re:For those lawyers out there (3, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195593)

Yeah man... the like revolution is like on its way man. You just wait dude, Americans of all types are going to put down their sushi, SUVs, and Bed Bath and Beyond discount cards like fight the man... man.

Please. If Americans (and I say this as an American) can't be bothered to go vote in numbers greater than 50%, I am pretty damn sure that the revolution over fucking music copyright infringement is probably not on its way. You can't even get Americans to vote yet you think that they are going to go into the streets or pick up weapons? Ahaha. Please.

The US already has a perfectly effective way of changing the rules that makes the notion of a revolution laughable. Just because Americans don't bother to use their democracy doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Hell if anyone can remember past 6 years ago, Ross Periot of all people came damn close to becoming president. The system works. We just don't use it. If there is anything wrong with the system is that it requires American citizens in order for it to run properly.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1, Troll)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195647)

The system works. We just don't use it. If there is anything wrong with the system is that it requires American citizens in order for it to run properly.

So this is why 2 american presidential candidates were arrested trying to gain entry to the 2004 debates?

oh please!.. the 2 reigning parties have essentially made it impossible for new parties to form.

ross perot had 2 billion dollars at his disposal. Unless everyone else has that kind of money no.. the system does not work, and how dare you try to pretend otherwise.

And this is why the majority of americans dont vote.. they know it's essentially communist china here with a little potpurri on the grungier and more totalitarian aspects.

after all.. as long as corporations do it instead of government the constitution doesnt apply.. at least according to the judiciary.

Re:For those lawyers out there (4, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195925)

So this is why 2 american presidential candidates were arrested trying to gain entry to the 2004 debates?

The green and Badnark got arrested for trespassing. You can get yourself arrested too without much trouble; that doesn't make this Soviet America. You can't even put the US and a solid half of the world nations on the same scale when it comes to political freedom. Suggesting that you can simply shows deep ignorance about the state of the rest of the world.

oh please!.. the 2 reigning parties have essentially made it impossible for new parties to form.

I don't disagree in the slightest. You miss the larger point though which we shall get to in just a moment.

ross perot had 2 billion dollars at his disposal. Unless everyone else has that kind of money no.. the system does not work, and how dare you try to pretend otherwise

Ahh, now we are getting closer to the "problem" with American politics...

And this is why the majority of americans dont vote.. they know it's essentially communist china here with a little potpurri on the grungier and more totalitarian aspects.

And this is where the point flies right over your head. The Americans could have made Ross Perot president if they wanted to. Nazi storm troopers didn't drag Perot off in handcuffs. No evil corporate death squads showed up to prevent people from voting. Americans just didn't vote for him. They could have and they didn't. End of story.

Ask yourself why Ross Perot did so well. To give you a little history, this man for a brief time actually was LEADING in the polls. He only started to get trounced after his somewhat defective personality was brought to light by his public appearances. Ross Perot almost won because of marketing. Don't get me wrong, he had a message too, but what made him different from the Greens and Libertarians that loose each year is that not only was his message centrist enough to appeal (lets face it, the Greens and the Libertarians are extremist), but he had enough money drive his message like a spike through every single American's head.

This is the heart and the root of the problem with American democracy. Americans are too fucking lazy to learn about politics. You need to practically beat the American public in voting. You need to blast the airwaves and the TVs. You need to shove your message down their throat and send out armies of volunteers. The problem isn't that the poor oppressed masses of Americans don't have an alternative. They do have an alternative; they just either don't know about it because they don't bother to look. Even when they do have the alternative (as was the case with Perot), they further fail to not just vote for the alternative, but the majority simply fail to vote. The Americans are not the poor oppressed people whose will have been broken as you make them out to be. They are just flat out lazy and/or stupid. America's lack of choice is American's fault. Pure and simple.

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power. If Americans spent 5 minutes on the Internet, found an alternative, then voted for the alternative, the democins and republicrats would be out within a week. The Gestapo isn't going to stop them from voting or rig the election. No one is going to be sent to the Gulag for failing to vote for one of the two established parties. If they simply voted differently, the established parties would vanish.

Any political failures in the American political system are not the fault of evil corporations and politicians. The blame lies completely and ONLY on the shoulders of the voting (and more importantly) non-voting public. The failures of our political system stem directly from a failure to exercise the political power that all Americans over the age of 18 have.

So can it with the inane talk of revolutions and evil corporations. If you think the system is so corrupt, do this one simple thing and you don't need to bother with the guns, the mass protests, and the riots to change the system. Simply get 25% of all the Americans who can vote to vote for one "alternative" candidate. They don't need to arm themselves. They don't need to quit work. They don't need to risk their life and liberty in a peaceful or violently struggle. They need to take just one fucking hour out of their day every 2 years and vote. You don't even need to achieve a majority. Since less then 50% of Americans vote, you actually only need 25% of the voting population to agree. In fact, you need even less if you can leech from people who currently vote democrat and republican.

If you can't accomplish the simple feat of getting a quarter of the population to vote differently, then the problem isn't in the corrupt political system. The problem is SQUARLY on the shoulders of the American people. We let this political system get built and we could sweep it out by simply spending 1 hour every 2 years voting.

So, excuse me while I laugh my ass off at the idea of an American revolution. If you can't even a quarter of the people to waste a messily hour voting for one alternative candidate, you are fucking delusional if you think you are going to get people to roll up their polo shirt sleeves and start a revolution.

The only thing wrong with the American democracy is that it relies on Americans to run it.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195993)

To correct some errors here.

he (Perot) had enough money to (sic) drive his message like a spike through every single American's head.

But he didn't use his money to do so, at least not to the extent that is common of other candidates. He relied primarily on the media to give him a free platform and especially Larry King's show on CNN to provide him with a forum to interact with people in a live setting.

He (Perot) only started to get trounced after his somewhat defective personality was brought to light by his public appearances.

A lot of this was actually related to his inability to trust his campaign advisors who saw the need for more money spent in certain areas (television commercials and image managers). He chose to spend money on frivolous things (from a campaign perspective) and skimped on those things that could have really helped him.

For some really good information, check out Ed Rollins' book "Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms" which tells the story from backstage.

Re:For those lawyers out there (3, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195997)

Or, as Thomas Jefferson wrote [virginia.edu] :

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

And . . .
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

Re:For those lawyers out there (4, Informative)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196015)

Ok.. I've boiled your reply to the most relevant phrase which sums up your point..

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power

You do realize that modern marketing campaigns are designed by behavioralists and psychologists.

While the popular media depiction of "brainwashing" is a bunch of hodoo-voodoo nonsense, there is a real technique of what is termed "Conversion tactics" in psychological circles. It is a real process by which a person who has properly learned about the techniques can, with cold calculation, manipulate people's opinions, propensities, preferences, outlook, and behavior.

It's been in use by revivalist preachers since the 1600's, and studied and formalized by pavlov among others.

The guns and troops method is not the only method of subjugating the will of a population.. from a competitive market comes much more efficient and subtle ways to do it.

The few who recognize what is going on are diluted by the converted masses, and the even fewer who are able to excercise the carisma and talent to reverse the effects are carefully identified and unobtrusively "removed" from society before they can rock the boat.

It's not well publicised, but king was not assassinated for advocating civil rights for african americans.. it was only after he began speaking out for the poor and against the domination and exploitation of lower classes by moneyed interests that he was put down.

My argument may have been presented in the grandparent with a little more than a "bit" of hyperbole, but still the root stands.

Your ideas intrigue me (1)

AHarrison (778175) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196087)

and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously though, I came to this same conclusion about a year ago. I could not have put it better myself.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16196109)

You're right that Americans are not generally using their democracy. You're right that one cannot conclude from that that it no longer exists. Unfortunately one also cannot conclude that it does.

In the last 2 Presidential elections there is very good reason to believe that the candidate who won as President was not the one that the majority of voters voted for. If you're unfamiliar with the story, then I'd suggest reading Armed Madhouse [amazon.com] to see the news as it was reported outside of the USA. (Specifically as it was reported by the BBC.)

You'll find all sorts of interesting information. Including a detailed analysis of how the Republican party has managed to set things up so that minority votes for Democratic candidates spoil at many times the rate of white votes for Republican candidates. With the end result being that the Democrats officially lost twice despite having a significant lead in votes actually cast. (Of course the Republicans used other tricks. For instance in Ohio, voting in Democratic districts was far harder than voting in Republican ones. Nobody knows how many people didn't vote because the long lines dissuaded them. This was, of course, far from accidental. For instance one factor was the chaos caused by Republican watchers with "challenge" lists, whose compilation was almost certainly illegal...)

Of course if there wasn't significant support for George Bush, these tricks wouldn't have tipped the balance. But as the Republicans keep getting away with ever more blatant manipulations of the vote, I'd not be surprised to see our facade of democracy disappear within my lifetime. Sadly I have to wonder how many of the sheeple will actually care. :-(

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

Nrbelex (917694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195523)

"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? I can think of some "relief"... the $476 million the RIAA is trying to part Limewire with.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195531)

Probably.

Pity, though, since Limewire does have a point.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

iriefrank (41550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195561)

You're probably right that the record industry engages in anticompetitive practices, perhaps in violation of U.S. law. This isn't the plaintiff (or counterclaimant) to win that case.

Re:For those lawyers out there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195543)

Huh?

Your saying that they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

I don't agree at all.

(for those that are not lawyers, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm [cornell.edu] is the relivant section of code. It is going to be a defence the lawyers put up, but so will just about every other defence the rule lists. It doesn't mean that the court will toss it as the OP thinks)

You're right (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195575)

The icing on the cake would then be Rule 11 sanctions against counsel, counsel's firm, or even against Limewire itself.

Re:For those lawyers out there (2, Interesting)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195581)

"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"? I'm fairly sure that the RIAA quitting its frivolous and overbroad lawsuits would be granting much-needed relief.

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195747)

Um... the dismissal is caused by failing to state a claim which constitutes grounds for providing the relief of a dismissal.

It doesn't mean that Limewire can't identify how it would relieve them (that's a no-brainer), it means that they have shaky (perhaps no) legal grounds for seeking that relief.

The landscape is changing quicker than the law (1)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195635)

You make a good point by citing 12(b)(6), however what exact relief is the RIAA looking for themselves?

Return to the status quo where all major distribution channels are in control of a few corporate conglomerates?... so they can in turn pay artists pennies for their work?...so they can dictate through there controlled channels of distribution the artistic media to be dispersed?

Sure they may want cash now, and they might get it, but 500 mil isn't going to stop the bleeding.

They could get limewire shut down, but there will be someone ready to take its place immediately.

The end result is inevitable. The people who control the distribution will not in 20 years.

So when I see lawsuits filed by the RIAA against p2p companies I find there request to turn back time just as much a

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

as Limewire's.

Re:The landscape is changing quicker than the law (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195837)

My guess is they simply hope to make it as painful & costly as possible to "take the place" of Limewire, thereby discouraging others from stepping up.

I do agree though -- they're ultimately fighting a losing battle. Instead of fighting new technology, they should be embracing it and figuring out how to make it work for them. Itunes, and other services of that nature, are a step in the right direction. Rather than spending millions of dollars suing Aunt Edna and Little Timmy down the block, they should be investing that money in R&D, and exploring new business models that incorporate digital distribution channels... but then, history is littered with the carcasses of failed enterprises.

(And, since this is slashdot, I should include an obligatory disclaimer: yes, I understand that there are some sublte shades of gray (or, on /., black & white only) raised by the DRM restrictions these services impose. And while I know this won't be a populare stance here, the Itunes restrictions really *aren't* that draconian for the *majority of the music-buying public.*)

Re:For those lawyers out there (0, Flamebait)

DuncanE (35734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195639)

While I can see you are a second year law student I have to ask this.... How much did the RIAA pay you to post that comment?

Re:For those lawyers out there (1)

Leviance (1001065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195863)

Thanks for pointing this out... I'm a 1L and we supposedly learned this already :) Good time to review... Oh yeah, and I agree with you.. I can't think of a way they could get relief, aside from the record industry laying off...

first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195429)

post

I have to side with the RIAA on this one (-1, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195435)

ENOUGH WITH THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!

I was still in High School, I had a big cock and was horny all the time, jerked off at least 3 times a day. My body is small and slim with very little hair, 5"4",125lbs. My fat cut 7" cock looked huge on me. I had been jerking off thinking about gay sex lately, I was very turned on by the fantasy of having sex with an older man, and having a cock in my ass.

I got a job working after school and weekends at a antique shop, it was ran by 2 older gay gentleman, very nice gentleman who were always flirting and teasing me. An older very distinguished looking handsome customer came in the store, he was a silver haired fox who looked like he had money.

The owners knew him well, he bought a small end table and asked the owners if I could help him unload it at his house, I thought this was kind of suspicous since it didn't weigh much but my horniness and curiousity made me jump at the chance. We rode in his SUV to a big house in a ritzy neighborhood and I carried the end table into his house. He gave me a tour, it was huge and very nice, there was an indoor hot tub and he asked me if I wanted to soak for a while, I told him I didn't have a swim suit and he laughed and told me I could go without, he always did.

I was getting turned on so I started to undress, my tank top came off first and my back was turned to him and I pulled down my cutoffs, no underwear and bent over to finish removing my cutoffs, it was a turn on to expose my ass to him, he watched me climb into the hot tub, my cock was rock hard. I watched him take off his shirt, he had a sexy chest covered with silver hair, he pulled down his pants and underwear in one motion exposing a beautiful 8" cut cock, very fat. We sat in the tub for five minutes talking, he asked me if I wanted a massage, I moved over close to him with my back to him and sort of sat on his lap, I could feel that big cock, I started moving my ass around until it was between my cheeks, I moved up and down, it felt so hot, made my asshole spasm. He was rubbing my shoulders and back, he reached around and started massaging my inner thighs making my cock twitch, finally he started stroking my cock, I was so turned on it was all I could do not to cum. He had me stand up and started tonguing my ass while stroking my cock, I was in pleasure overload and exploded cum after about two minutes of this.

We went into his bedroom, still naked and dried off, he put his hands on my shoulders and gently pushed me to my knees, grabbed the back of my head and guided me to his cock. I sucked on it hungrily feeling it get harder in my mouth, when he was rock hard he guided me to the bed and had me lay on my stomach. He ate my ass again this time harder, getting his tongue up inside me, this made my cock hard again, I relaxed and felt my boypussie open up. Next he slowly inserted one of his fingers , it kind of hurt at first but then I started to love the feeling. Two fingers was next with some lube, he two finger fucked me for along time, I loved how it felt, like I was getting stretched. I was moaning and moving my ass up and down.

He stopped and put his big cock back in my mouth, I sucked him for maybe a minute and he pulled out and rolled on a condom, had me get down doggie style got behind me and pushed that big cock head against my tight hole. He slowly pushed, I thought it was to big and would never fit, all of a sudden it popped in, the sensation took my breath away, it felt so huge and it hurt a little, but I was starting to relax and it was feeling better by the second.

He slowly pushed in until he was deep inside me and moved in and out very slowly to start with, it still burned but the thought of getting fucked, having a big cock inside me was such a turn on.

He fucked me for a long time, after I got used to it and fully relaxed the feeling was pure pleasure. My cock was rock hard.

The pace got faster and harder, finally I came again, without even touching my cock, such intense pleasure. He came and stayed inside me, I layed flat on my stomch with him still inside me, he slowly went limp, slipped out of me and rolled off me.

riaa sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195439)

Carnage Blender [carnageblender.com]

Limewire's claim has a point (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195453)

But it's a little like Fernando complaining that the INS is trying to force him and all his illegal alien friends out of the country and out of their great jobs mowing lawns of white-bread suburbians. "We fill a need, boss. If we didn't do this job that not even your disenfranchised citizens would do, people wouldn't have nicely manicured shrubbery, mang."

Re:Limewire's claim has a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195477)

I think I understood your simile until it got to the point where I couldn't tell if you were making a racist comment or not. Try again!

Re:Limewire's claim has a point (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195509)

Check his sig. I think he's doing his part.

Re:Limewire's claim has a point (1)

canyon289 (848746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195843)

I'm glad that the RIAA is being sued. True that Limewire is a place for illegal file sharing but you could say the same for street corners. Hookers and crack dealers congregrate there so should we just tear them all down? Thats what the RIAA says. Its trying to destroy p2p without making an attempt to fix it. They just seem to bulldoze anyone they don't like with a flurry of legal court cases. Hopefully with enough resistance the RIAA will actually benefit us common people rather than just terrorize us.

Re:Limewire's claim has a point (1)

mike nwdw. (877398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195551)

Truth. Leaches, all of them. I hate Fernando, LimeWire, their imaginary judicial claims and/or rights, and their fat madres.

Does anyone else want to say... (5, Insightful)

pjwalen (546460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195463)

stay off my side? I agree with that LimeWire is saying, and I like LimeWire, but their business model is based off illegally downloading music, for the most part. I don't feel like I want this business model fighting fo rour rights. It doesn't give legitimacy to our side.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195483)

Please define the "sides" in this "fight".

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

pjwalen (546460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195513)

Those of us who would like to see the monopoly dismantled, the price fixing stopped, and the strong arming against the world stopped. versus the people who are for the riaa. and the riaa themselves. Seems pretty clear cut to me?

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195533)

So you're saying that there are clearly cut two sides. However, in your original post you demand that LimeWire 'get off your side' indicating that they represent a side that is not yours. Since they are clearly not on the RIAA's side, and you don't want them on yours, they seem to make up a third side.

So please define the sides in this debate, because I want to know where I ought to fit and can't seem to figure out which side I should be on.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195549)

Oh, it is clear. Problem is, this is the US, where you can get all the justice money can buy. And in this case, the money is with RIAA. This suit will get tossed faster than a zipgun after a driveby.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195507)

Are you really so conditioned by your political leaders that you think there can only be two sides to every dispute?

How sad.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

in2mind (988476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195583)

But what Limewire accuses of RIAA is actually true. RIAA is literally destroying any music service they dont own. (and the courts dont seem to mind spending time on every one of the cases RIAA brings.)

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (2, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195587)

Not really. "the enemy of my enemy is my firend" aside, you have to remember that there aren't many cases being brought against RIAA; most people just fold up and pay up. Sure, we'd like to sue the bastards for being rapacious money grubbing assholes and using questionable legal tactics, but unfortunately, that's not an actionable offense - it describes most companies to one extent or another. The only way for the RIAA to lose is to actually get into a fight, so I'm all for anybody who wants to fight them.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195653)

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; nothing more, nothing less.

I hope I didn't screw it up. http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ [schlockmercenary.com]

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195811)

You can't fight in court until your rights have been infringed or you've infringed someone else's. The interesting thing, then, is that your rights have yet to be infringed to the point of lawsuit.

I'm not real hot on DRM and overgrown IP protection, but....it's interesting, ya know?

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195901)

You do understand that our forefathers were traitors by definition of english law, that civil rights protestors were breaking jim crow laws, union men during the time of rockafeller were breaking laws, and finally anyone who drank during prohibition was breaking the law.

When the law is wrong people will fight for their right to do what is criminal. that said.. what is criminal is not necessarily morally wrong.

Judge Says: "Don't waste my time criminal" (4, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195905)

Whatever they claim just doesn't sound right because, you know... That whole Napster thing... And, you know, those napster users were probably smoking teh pot too. Criminals. All of them.

The judge is thinking there's no way files can be legitimately shared... Who makes their own music? Why would they want to give it away? Smells like some kind of crazy thing my weird liberal parents might have done.

Let's not forget the judge has a windows desktop using totally proprietary software with antivirus and antispyware and anti-this and anti-that run by a system administrator who babysits the judge when the computer has a hic-up.

The judge experiences it all as working and working well, so where's the crime here?

End of LimeWire.

Re:Does anyone else want to say... (1)

moochfish (822730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195967)

Their legitimacy (or lack there of) doesn't make their counter claims any less legitimate.

FRCivP 12(6)(b) (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195499)

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

will somebody please think of the children?!?!?!?! (-1, Troll)

Fruity McGayGay (1005769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195519)

ENOUGH OF THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!


During my years as a councilor at a Boy Scout camp, I have had the chance
of many experiences. The chance to see naked boys in the community
showers and the sight of sexy bodies going for a dip in the lake but one
memory comes back clearer than ever.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Joshua, but friends call me
Josh for short, I am 17 years old and about 5 foot 11 with a really toned
body. I run 2 mile each morning right after I wake up to keep myself in
shape. I had always loved the outdoors and I have plans to be a teacher
when I got older so I thought teaching kids is going to be a great
experience for me and that's how I became involved in the scouting
program.

It was my second year at scout camp being a councilor and that comes with
some major seniority, and that was the ability to have the over 21 staff
buy me alcohol. One night after a stressful day of working with a bunch
of crying whiny little kids I decided its time to crack open my 1/5 of
jack. I sit back in my tent relaxed just slowly drinking the night away
when Caleb popped his head into my tent. He was 16 years old with a body
to die for, he was center for his High School football team and had a six
pack any guy would give his left nut for.
"Hey josh," Caleb muttered, I could tell he had been drinking, " come
over to my tent, I cant find my flash light."
So I stand to the best of my ability and stumble following him over to
his tent, and fall in, shining my light around till he finds his. Then I
take the last drink of my jack and lay the bottle down why I lay there
looking up into the dark tent ceiling.
All of a sudden my dick began to get rock hard as a thought of a plan. I
pulled my 8 inch dick out and started jacking off and said
"Caleb I am going to masturbate in your tent."
"Na you wouldn't dare do anything like that" he replied as
he shined his flashlight on my hand as I slowly pumped my cock.
He looked at my cock with wide eyes as I began to pump a
little faster. I saw him reach over and take off his boxers and began to
play with his 5-1/2 inch cock. I laughed at him and said
"Wow you really do have a small cock why don't you jack me
off and see how it is to hold a real cock on this boy hands."
He looked at me and shook his head no, I reach over and
forced his hand away from his cock and began to jack him off he followed
suit and began to do the same with me. It feel good because he was going
at a fairly fast pace and I began to moan softly.
Then he did something I didn't expect he move his mouth over
my dick and began to softly suck it. His bobbed his head up and down
making sure to please my dick equally with his tongue. He moved his dick
over my mouth and I began to suck it, taking it in inch by inch till I
hit his pubes then I began to take it in and out slowly. I took my mouth
off his dick and used my tongue to pleasure the left ball then the right,
then taking them both into my mouth being careful. As we continued to 69
it up, I thought I heard a noise outside so I moved slightly and
apparently he took this as a sigh to stop and got off, I was pissed so I
grabbed his hand and placed it back on my cock as he began to jerk me off
again he got up took off his boxers and said to me
Fuck me josh, Fuck me hard"
I couldn't resist this little hot stud so I placed him on
the floor and put my cock to his virgin hole and began to softly push
inward. I heard him grunt softly as in pain and I stopped; keeping my
cock still it was about half way in. Keep going I heard him mutter and I
began to put more pressure till my pubes touched his ass. I said here we
go as I began to slowly fuck this tight virgin man hole enjoying each
pleasure able in and out I took. I began to pump faster and faster
letting my balls made contact with his ass.
I am Cumming I muttered as I released 5 huge squirts of my
man juice inside his virgin hole. I quickly drew out and turned him over
and began to give him a blow job leaving nothing in question and within
30 seconds my mouth was filled full of this studs seed as I drank each
gulp that he so graciously gave me. I gave him a firm kiss on the lips
and said
Good night my Caleb as I walked back to my tent and fell
asleep at 2:09.

Re:will somebody please think of the children?!?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195559)

WTF...

Hurray! (1)

Abedneg0 (665739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195545)

Tagging it as "hurray". Why didn't I think of this first? It seems obvious now - sue RIAA for antitrust. Ingenious! No sarcasm.

Re:Hurray! (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195907)

Tagging it as "hurray". Why didn't I think of this first? It seems obvious now - sue RIAA for antitrust.

Tack on the DMCA countersuit for the RIAA hacking the encryptin employed by Limewire to harass their customers with threats and invade their privacy.

I can see a bunch of John Doe lawsuits being held up while awaiting a rulling on this.
You honor, "The RIAA tagged by illegal means by violating the DMCA"

Now the RIAA has no evidence that it can present in court!

yeahhhh, right there, oh oh ohhhh, joygasm (1)

Private.Tucker (843252) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195711)

Even if nothing happens, at least I got a good laugh with (at?) Limewire and the RIAA (yeah, definitely laughing AT them). It just adds a new paragraph to this already hilarious and ridiculous saga.

frist StoRp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16195785)

I'm behind Limewire on this (1)

diablo-d3 (175104) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195815)

Although on the Gnutella network (which Limewire does not own or control), you may find unsavoury or even illegal things to download, I support Limewire in their decision to fight back against the RIAA. How can Limeware possibly become legal if the RIAA just tries to ruin anyone who allows people to download music and also tries to ruin any artist who doesn't sign with the RIAA?

There is one hope here.... (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195829)

At least as I see things. That is the hope that in the 'exploitation' of this countersuit, the judge sees some evidence of wrong-doing by the RIAA, and that judge, in some way, agrees they are using anticompetative practices. If that is all that is firmly established in this court case, it is enough to let other lawyers build upon, or I hope that it is.

One thing is sure, as my grandpa used to say, there is no smoke without fire. The trouble is often seeing through the smoke to find the fire. I for one hope that Limewire and their lawyers at least make it more than slightly noticable to John Q. Public that the RIAA is anti-competative and anti-consumer. I hope they are able to blow aside the smoke so we all can see the smoldering fire of the RIAA's business model.

About time on the antitrust thing (2, Interesting)

RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) | more than 7 years ago | (#16195989)

As much as I wish someone other than a file sharing software maker was running the ball on this play, it's still a big deal for someone to be bringing up antitrust issues as a plaintiff against the RIAA - even if it's only as a "counter plaintiff".

For the time being, I say forget who LimeWire is and what the majority of their users do; get behind them in this. Whether LimeWire prevails in their defense pales in significance compared to the importance of these counterclaims.

IANAL of course.

Poor excuse for a counter-claim (5, Interesting)

bigskank (748551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16196001)

First, IANAL, but I am in law school and have at least a basic knowledge of counterclaims, the FRCP, etc...

I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Unfortunately....

This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):

"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"

"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."

Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>