Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

RIAA Wants Agreements to Stay Secret

CowboyNeal posted about 7 years ago | from the don't-share-that-either dept.

The Courts 196

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. ...As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.'"

cancel ×

196 comments

Wow. (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#19699249)

Go Ms. Lindor!

Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699391)

Come ON you homosexual deviants in Cupertino. QUIT FUCKING AROUND and update your fucking software every so often. You mincing faggots are worse than Debian...

Re:Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699453)

Keep your pants on, dude, they're seeding the mirrors right now.

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were talking about MySQL 5.0.44...

Re:Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Offtopic)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | about 7 years ago | (#19699703)

Yeah, because yearly updates that cost money are needed by all. Ohwaitno. Nothing's wrong with iLife '06. Relax. Go play Madden 06, 07, and 08 while you wait.

Re:Where the FUCK is iLife '07??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700625)

Last time I was at Apple HQ I didn't see that much mincing. Prancing, flouncing and lisping, yes, but mincing, not so much.

Re:Wow. (3, Insightful)

deep_creek (1001191) | about 7 years ago | (#19699419)

Yes indeed, Go Ms. Lindor! Does anyone know if or how a fellow could donate to her cause?

Re:Wow. (1)

Checkmait (1062974) | about 7 years ago | (#19699687)

There should be a fund to help people sued by the RIAA fight back instead of paying extortion money.

Re:Wow. (2, Interesting)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 7 years ago | (#19701217)

There's the RIAA and the MPAA. What about the CLAA - Copyright Licensees Associate of America (open to suggestion for a better name). We would certainly be bigger than either of those two organizations combined. The best way to fight a bully is to find (or make) a bigger bully.

Layne

Re:Wow. (0, Flamebait)

billcopc (196330) | about 7 years ago | (#19700001)

Damn straight! A very kind letter of encouragement to Ms Lindor is in the mail. I invite everyone to show their appreciation, as the aftermath of these litigious times will affect more than just the music industry. The precedents set here will leave a lasting mark on the legal landscape in the U.S.

So, the tally is:

1 American I actually like
300 million to go

Re:Wow. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#19700255)

Well, that really doesn't sound like a very good ratio. I mean, 300,000,000 to 1 sounds just awful. Heck, I'm an American and honestly I don't know what you have against me, personally. Still, if you consider that a significant and still-growing percentage of that three hundred million are not Americans it's doesn't sound so terrible.

Re:Wow. (0, Flamebait)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 7 years ago | (#19700909)

1 American I actually like
300 million to go
Like most of my fellow Americans, I make more money than I know what to do with. Keep talking shit, and I would love to use some of it in flying over there on my personal Leer, simply so that I can swat you like a fly. (Note to mods: Tongue-in-cheek humor involved here. If you don't get it, don't take that out on my poor, innocent karma.)

Why did it take this long? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | about 7 years ago | (#19699275)

For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?

Re:Why did it take this long? (5, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | about 7 years ago | (#19699339)

For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?
It's more a matter of "legal wherewithal" than "balls". This is one time when the RIAA found itself in court with its trousers down. Previous instances were either a) not egregious enough, or b) the suits were dropped too early to countersue successfully.

Re:Why did it take this long? (4, Funny)

Deadstick (535032) | about 7 years ago | (#19699341)

Looks as if balls are not the necessary equipment.

rj

sometimes, it takes balls to be a woman (0, Offtopic)

boguslinks (1117203) | about 7 years ago | (#19699649)

how appropriate that this is happening while this song is hot, [youtube.com] , at least on the Sirius station I listen to.

Re:Why did it take this long? (4, Funny)

Mr. Shotgun (832121) | about 7 years ago | (#19701067)

Looks as if balls are not the necessary equipment.
Sure they are. And Ms. Lindor has the RIAA's in the palm of her hand. Now she's just waiting for the judge to give her the go ahead to rip 'em right off.

Re:Why did it take this long? (5, Insightful)

beadfulthings (975812) | about 7 years ago | (#19699351)

I think there are quite a few factors at work:
1) It takes either lots of money or a civic-minded attorney to put up a fight. Many good fights don't get fought because they're too expensive.
2) When taken at face value, a lot of what the RIAA says it stands for can look very acceptable to people who aren't thinking critically. That includes colleges and universities who deem it appropriate to give up their students; mainstream newspapers and other media in a lot of places; and anybody else who doesn't take the time to think clearly. I learned from a local news outlet [wjz.com] just yesterday that the RIAA is fighting against drug money, illegal gun money, and even "terrorism." So even the news outlets aren't taking the time to observe and evaluate.
3) People are just flat-out terrified when they find they're being sued by such a massive organization.

People who read Slashdot, and other people who've taken the time to think this through, are scandalized by what RIAA is getting away with. We've all seen and read about their abuse of elderly people, single mothers, recent orphans, and children, and that's had an obvious impact. It's going to take something truly spectacular that is widely reported out there in the mainstream before the general public wakes up.

Re:Why did it take this long? (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | about 7 years ago | (#19699447)

By spectacular I think you mean "The RIAA will have to start killing copyright violators indiscriminately". Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, we just had a Vice-president assert that his authority lies beyond the reach of law, logic, common sense, and the Constitution of the United States, and there was no call for impeachment from the masses, but rather only vaguely cranky inane ineffectual grumbling. If people aren't aroused to action by that sort of outrage, I don't think random little folk getting legally pummeled by the RIAA, for using software that most older people don't even comprehend much less use, is gonna get people rowdy.

But I could be wrong.

You just haven't grown up yet (1, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | about 7 years ago | (#19699681)

Those of us who are working stiffs with a wife and kids are too old and too occupied to give a shit about whatever Kos or Moveon or Rush says. We've been through all of the self indulgent political wars already and see it for what it is.

See, here's the thing. You think the average man should be outraged because of something you read from your political propaganda site. You read all this stuff, spoon fed to you designed so that you will at least give them your vote but more likely, just more money, and really, its no different from watching advertisements. Rush, Kos, Right, Left, all these guys are out there stoking whatever political fire they can invent so they can cash in on your civic mindedness. Protesting Carter, supporting Gary Hart, early horror and then staunch support for Reagan, the Culture Wars of the early 1990s, Clinton vs Gingrich, really, been there, done that, and every step along the way, there's been someone getting rich in the name of some cause, be it a liberal author or artist, or, a right wing radio host.

You just have to let it go and look at your life and assess how things are based on people around. I guarantee that 95% of your problems are yours, and not the governments, fault. Right now, taxes are pretty low, the economy is ok, and it really has been for the last 30 years, save for a few hiccups. Bottom line is that Reaganomics worked and socialism is largely discredited, and that's that. If you choose a life where you say you don't value money, don't come crying to your political masters 20 years down the road for not having any. IT's pretty cut and dry. You need to manage your life so that it is profitable, so that you can support the ones you love, including yourself. Even an issue like global warming really has no practical impact on most people. Even if the worst comes true, and sea levels rise 100 feet, most people will just move further inland and life will go on. Support politicians that support your causes, yes, but don't let it become your life! Instead of spending so much time worrying about what Dick Cheney or Hillary Clinton are doing, worry about your own life. Then, if you do run into a government law that genuinely has an immediate impact on you. If they raise taxes, or do something stupid and get the price of fuel up to $7 / gallon, then yes, riot. If interest rates hit 15-20%, then, yes, riot. If unemployment hits 20-40%, then yes, riot. But, the bottom line, is none of those things have happened. In the grand scheme of things, we're extremely fortunate to have what we have and the rest of the world only wishes they could have our petty troubles.

Enjoy your life, because you are lucky to be American.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (0, Offtopic)

Joe Snipe (224958) | about 7 years ago | (#19699789)

placeholder

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

brouski (827510) | about 7 years ago | (#19700115)

Because you can go back and edit your posts and all...

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699865)

Bottom line is that Reaganomics worked and socialism is largely discredited, and that's that.

Is that a troll or what? Clearly Reaganomics failed and socialism is largely validated, and that's that.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (4, Insightful)

Demona (7994) | about 7 years ago | (#19699913)

"Bottom line is that Reaganomics worked and socialism is largely discredited,"

Certainly, if by "worked" you mean "fooled everyone into thinking it was capitalism", and if by "largely discredited", you mean "widely adopted as the prevailing American 'wisdom of the day'".

But go ahead and be just like the Germans: "They thought they were free." [uchicago.edu]

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (3, Funny)

brouski (827510) | about 7 years ago | (#19700103)

Ma'am, there's a Mr. Godwin on Line 2...

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about 7 years ago | (#19700469)

I've actually read Mayer's book, unlike you (most likely), and I failed to find anything in it about Reaganomics. Page numbers, please?

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 7 years ago | (#19700145)

Those of us who are working stiffs with a wife and kids are too old and too occupied to give a shit about whatever Kos or Moveon or Rush says. We've been through all of the self indulgent political wars already and see it for what it is. ...

Support politicians that support your causes, yes, but don't let it become your life!


Translation: I'm to jaded to care about the government anymore. Just because they basically control all aspects of my life doesn't mean I should worry about what they do.

Oh yea, baaaaa!!

This is EXACTLY why we need to be politically motivated. The more apathetic the country gets, the more the government can do whatever they want in the name of whatever they want. It'll be a dark day for me when all I care about in the government is if they remember to raise the AMT...

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

tjstork (137384) | about 7 years ago | (#19700185)

How does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:

a) starting a business
b) selling a product
c) changing jobs
d) expressing myself however I want
e) buying anything I want
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want

The answer is really no. The problem is, you people don't really know what a loss of freedom really is. There are countries around the world that actively block people from any of the above. In socialist regimes, there are no jobs, and strict prohibitions against entrepreneurship, so, a-c are out. In places like China, d is out. In others, a-c, e and f are out, because there isno economic activity due to either corruption or chronic war. In some places, like North Korea, all of the items are out.

Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.

But its not that I'm "apathetic", its that, you are spoiled, and you have no idea what you really have. Talk to someone from Viet Nam whose opened up his own business in America.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

JoshHeitzman (1122379) | about 7 years ago | (#19700319)

a) Yes. You can not start a business on numerous pieces of land even if you own them due to zoning. You can not open bar without a liquor license. You can not open a gun shop with the proper federal license. Your business can not get a bank account (the lake of which would make it very difficult to actually do business) without a Taxpayer Identification Number. This is just a sampling. There are numerous regulations of business at all levels of government.
b) Yes. You can not sell numerous drugs without license. You can not sell some drugs even with a license. Also see above for other things you can not sell without a license.
c) They won't stop you from quitting, but there are jobs you can not do without the proper certifications or licenses, such as lawyer, doctor, beautician, electrician, plumber, etc.
d) Yes. I many places you can no longer protest anywhere near the people who you want to here your protest. Google for free speech zone.
e) Yes. See above.
f) Yes. You can not each regulated substances without a prescription and there are others that you can not eat at all.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (2, Insightful)

makomk (752139) | about 7 years ago | (#19700363)

a) starting a business
b) selling a product


That depends what product exactly you want to sell.

c) changing jobs
d) expressing myself however I want

The only reason the government isn't stopping you from expressing yourself however you want is because you're too damn apathetic to express yourself in any way the government could ever care about. Try protesting, in public, at a place and time where it will actually be noticed even if the protest *doesn't* turn in to a riot.

e) buying anything I want

Again, depends exactly what you're buying. Of course, being a good little consumer, I doubt you want to buy anything the government doesn't like anyway.

f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want

This is clearly a very important right(!)

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (1)

subl33t (739983) | about 7 years ago | (#19700719)

wish i had mod points for you dude...

government control (5, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#19700717)

How does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:

a) starting a business

It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota [antionline.com] the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell on eBay this could prevent them from doing so, as least doing it legally.

b) selling a product

Same as above.

d) expressing myself however I want

I guess you didn't try to attend any of Bush's campaign stops in 2006 wearing a tshirt that wasn't approved. Even Bush supporters were turned out when they appeared with tickets to events where Bush was. And it's not just Bush, both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to get law enforcement where they had their conventions to setup "free speach zones" away from the conventions.

e) buying anything I want

Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.

f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want

If you live in New York, or a number of other cities, yes. NYC has banned trans fats.

The answer is really no.

As listed above, the answer is YES! Just because it's not as bad in the US as it is in most other countries it doesn't mean there isn't any restrictions on liberty in the US as well.

Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.

Of course, Democrats supported the PATROIT Act as much as the Republicans did. Not only that but as President Clinton tried to get many of the same powers. Only two congressmen voted against the Act, one from Wisconson though I don't recall his name, and Rep Ron Paul (R) of Texas. And the thing is is none of them read the whole thing!

Falcon

Re:government control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19701449)

Senator Russ Feingold

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (3, Interesting)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#19700639)

Riot? In response to something happening that is perceived to threaten the lives of everyone in the US if not the planet? Are you kidding?

In 1970 there might have been a riot. By 1980 you start seeing people being rather self-indulgently restrained worried about how this would affect their future as a lawyer or CEO if it ever came out. That was pretty much the end of it. Were there massive protests against the Iraq war? Not really. Were the police called out in riot gear with people being beaten and arrested? No.

Nobody is going to do anything like "riot". They will sit at home just as they have been trained and keep reading dailykos and other stuff like it and let the world go on around them. Yes, they will be angry and write some really scathing posts for firedoglake but nothing else is going to happen.

Backbone? Commitment? Resolve? Naaa. What we have is a nation of sheep that are being directed by a few sheepdogs. Some of the sheepdogs want to control things through large businesses and some of the sheepdogs want to control things through government. Some confused sheepdogs seem to want to control people through both, even though they are diametrically opposing forces. The problem is that most people can't even identify a sheepdog when they are in their presence, much less knowing when they are being led by one.

Most people seem to want a government that is run by poking fingers in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing today. Take a poll before any decision. Let the "voice of the people" tell them what to have for breakfast. This doesn't look good because nothing is ever finally decided. If the morning poll says "Raise taxes" and the afternoon poll says "Spend less" government grinds to a halt. In some ways that is a good thing because a uniformly undirected government isn't going to accomplish anything at all, least of all something bad.

95% of my problems are people like you (4, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | about 7 years ago | (#19700677)

If you choose a life where you say you don't value money, don't come crying to your political masters 20 years down the road for not having any.

If you choose a life where you don't value your rights, don't come crying to me when 20 years down the road you don't have any.

When I look at my life I look beyond the end of my street, and I don't like what I see. An issue like global warming won't have a practical impact on you, but you grand children are going to be killed by it. The won't be able to "just move inland" because everyone else from all the most populous places on earth will all be doing the same. Once everyone gets there, the fresh water supplies will fail because the overcrowding on top of the lack of infrastructure. So now you have hundreds of millions of displaced people worldwide, a potable water shortage, and guess what pops up everytime you have widespread conditions like that? Disease. So no you personally might not be effected, but your grandchildren and great grand children will die most misreable deaths because you refuse to take resposibility for anything past the end of your driveway. Don't confuse money with respect, freedom, or responsibility. Some actions have effects beyond making or losing a dollar, maybe when you grow up you'll see that.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 years ago | (#19700845)

Enjoy your life, because you are lucky to be American...Even an issue like global warming really has no practical impact on most people.

tjstork, I bet you don't realize just how much of your little screed is actually the result of a message that is embedded in just about every bit of news and entertainment in the US Media. I've been hearing, more often of late, the so-called "smart people" in the media scoffing at problems like global warming, the US health care mess, the expanding divide between rich and the rest, and the growing environmental catastrophe, rolling their eyes at the silliness that any of these problems could actually cause a problem for any of us. These things, we are told, aren't really worth worrying about because they are either the natural order of things or completely fabricated by liberals who are somehow going to get rich by telling people the climate is changing. Just look at the way the everyone in the world is trying to get into the US. You don't see any Americans trying to leave do you?

Well, yes in fact. Of course people who are starving in Columbia or Rwanda or whose lives are being threatened in Iraq or Rwanda or who can't feed their families in Mexico or Rwanda are desperate to get into the US. But you'll find a lot more Americans trying to move to Canada, Sweden, Finland or other "semi-socialist" countries than you'll find people from those places trying to get here. Recently, when I had to renew my Italian passport (I'm born an American citizen, but I got my Italian passport back in the '70s when I learned that I was eligible because of my ancestry), I was talking to the guy in the Italian embassy here in Chicago and he told me that the Italian government has been trying to streamline the procedure because so many Americans are trying to get EU passports. He said that he hears all the time from Americans who want to emigrate because of the far better civil services over there. Even formerly Soviet bloc countries are seeing large numbers of US citizens moving there, and not just the rich retirees, but regular working people who are concerned about the erosion of their standard of living. They are working harder, longer and living on less, he's told. Sure, unemployment rates are low, but how many people who a few years ago were making really good wages and benefits are now making 20 percent over the minimum wage in the "service" industry with no benefits or job security? Why do you think the elite want to open our borders to Mexico, and do you think that's going to improve our standard of living or just improve their bottom lines?

How many people do you know who say they are working "just for the benefits"? How many would stand up for themselves to their boss or decide to make a bold change in their career except for the fact that they are held captive to the shrinking health care benefits that come when you have a decent job. Guess what? Those health care benefits are getting smaller and harder to get every year. Just a few minutes ago, I read an article at cnn.com about how they assigned a research team to test the assertions in Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko", and surprisingly (to anyone who listens to talk radio or watches Fox News), his facts were pretty much dead on right. But the media is extraordinarily effective at getting people to believe the way you do, tjstork, that we are "lucky to be American". Not "lucky to be living in a wealthy country" or "lucky to have a good job and good health", but "lucky to be American". I wonder if you realize just how much damage this kind of exceptionalism causes. There's this circular kind of reasoning that "The way we do things is the best because we're Americans and it's the way we do things".

I love this country dearly. I love the people here, the stunning diversity of population, topography and climate. I especially love the virtues and values that the exceptional group of men who lived at the birth of the United States held and shared. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson, et al. They had a view based on maximizing the importance of human beings and minimizing the importance of the commands of Popes and bishops. They created this Nation as a reaction to the ugliness in Europe that had been perpetrated by men who were a lot like George Bush, Jerry Falwell and Dick Cheney. But their vision has been shat upon by a long line of small men who now happen to be twisting this country into a shape that would horrify those founding fathers. I love this country enough to know that it's very, very sick.

Re:You just haven't grown up yet (2, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 7 years ago | (#19701391)

I'm at 15% before adding in gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, cell phone taxes. The total is more like 50% after everything they take comes out.

I have to work roughly six months each year to pay my slave dues.

I think three months should be low taxes. Right now federal income taxes are low.

I agree- taxes are low if you are making under $20,000 or over a half million a year.

Re:Why did it take this long? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 7 years ago | (#19699441)

I have the balls to stand up to the RIAA.

The hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal feels and representation? Not so much.

Look inside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699451)

Why did it take this long?
For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?


Do YOU have balls?

Why haven't YOU stood up to the RIAA? (and no, filesharing does not count as "standing up" in this context).

Whatever answer you give probably applies to everyone else who hasn't stood up to them.

Re:Why did it take this long? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#19700501)

For someone to get the balls to stand up to the RIAA?

I think you may be overlooking the fact that most people don't have the financial resources to fight the RIAA in a legal battle. The RIAA can spend millions of dollars without an eyeblink but most of those they go after can't afford an attorney. What should be done to correct this is for judges to award defendents their legal costs, then have people like the EFF to get it into the mass media. Attorneys may then be more willing to work with those the RIAA accuses.

Falcon

Fine. (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19699277)

On our side, we want the lawsuits to be secret. No one will ever know. How about that.
Kinda makes the effort worthless, doesn't it.

Doing PR by lawsuit. It'll remain in history, and our grandchildren will be reading about what the RIAA used to do in our days in attempt to keep Earth from spinning.

Tomorrow's Headline (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699305)

Tomorrow's headline will read:

RIAA Sues Satan for Contract Violation

More like: Satan Sues RIAA For Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699381)

Or maybe I should have said "Shoots", not "Sues".

Only in the US do you hire a lawyer for tying your shoelaces.

Re:More like: Satan Sues RIAA For Incompetence (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 7 years ago | (#19699449)

It's better than Ancient Rome, where they had slaves strap your sandals.

Re:More like: Satan Sues RIAA For Incompetence (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#19699535)

No, here in the U.S. you hire a lawyer because the person that you did hire to tie your shoelaces did it improperly, and then stole your shoes.

Re:More like: Satan Sues RIAA For Incompetence (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699601)

No, in the U.S., you're too fat to reach or even see your feet, you wouldn't notice the shoes.

Re:More like: Satan Sues RIAA For Incompetence (1)

Kierthos (225954) | about 7 years ago | (#19700397)

I'm not fat! I'm pleasantly plump.

Won't really work out (2, Funny)

vlad_petric (94134) | about 7 years ago | (#19699641)

In the States you can't really sue yourself.

Re:Tomorrow's Headline (1)

deblau (68023) | about 7 years ago | (#19701487)

Suing Satan, eh? It's been tried. No joke [agh-attorneys.com] .

Do they... (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | about 7 years ago | (#19699319)

loose their copyrights if they are found in abuse of them?

Re:Do they... (1)

SnowNinja (1051628) | about 7 years ago | (#19699465)

According to This [wikipedia.org]

Finding that a copyright owner has engaged in misuse prevents the owner from enforcing his copyright through the securing of an injunction until he has "purged" himself of the misuse -- i.e., ceased the restrictive practices.
So, no more suing for a while, at least until they figure some legal way out of it.

Re:Do they... (5, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | about 7 years ago | (#19699483)

In simple terms, maybe.

The Court could very well hand down an abrogation of the protections afforded to the works because
they misused their position in this way. If the Court hands that down as the punishment/remedy,
the decision and the penalty would have stand upon appeal- which you KNOW they would immediately
do if they got handed a decision like that. If it stands upon appeal, they may still be stupid
enough to try to get the Supreme Court of the US to listen to an appeal of the whole thing- IF
the SCOTUS decides to listen to the whole thing, they still have to convince the Justices that
it's a bad decision, RICO's Unconstitutional, etc. or they lose hard.

Even if it does happen, it'll take years for 'em to lose the rights protections.

Re:Do they... (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | about 7 years ago | (#19699543)

Yes, but nevertheless, that'd be all the copyrights gone, the 4 big music companies with all their music free, if that doesn't kill music companies I don't know what will.

Indeed... (2, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | about 7 years ago | (#19699627)

I'm cautiously smirking and waiting for that 16 Ton Weight (TM/Copyright, Monty Python) to drop on their
collective heads- I just won't state outright that they are going to lose the things. And, lose 'em they
will do if this gets going where it looks like it's going. They sued someone that was a DOJ case manager-
someone that understands precisely where she's going with this and is making no bones about it either.

Re:Indeed... (1)

JamesRose (1062530) | about 7 years ago | (#19699781)

I'm not so sure, anyone can figure out how much the RIAA would loose from that, and as a result, they would be jusitifed (in their view) to spend up to that much on lawyers to kill this, that's a lot of money....

Re:Indeed... (1)

Cliffy03 (663924) | about 7 years ago | (#19700385)

I was thinking they thought of Mrs. Lindor as a mint, wafer thin.

Re:Do they... (1)

brouski (827510) | about 7 years ago | (#19700131)

Hold up. I'd bet it's only the copyrights involved in this particular case, i.e., the songs Lindor was accused of distributing.

Re:Do they... (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | about 7 years ago | (#19699747)

They would "loose" nothing. The word you want it "lose." Please try and remember the difference between loose and lose. I'm not being a grammar nazi, I'm just trying to keep the line between man and ape clearly defined.

Re:Do they... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699977)

The word you want it "lose."

The word you want is "is."

Re:Do they... (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | about 7 years ago | (#19700067)

I blame Microsoft. I'm using an MS keyboard after all..

Re:Do they... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 7 years ago | (#19701415)

I'm sure moost peoople doon't see any prooblem sticking in a few extra oo's.

Hmm. Soounds kinda Scoottish when I read oout looud.

yuo Fail It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699375)

parts. The c0urent things in Product, BSD's

Big surprise... (4, Insightful)

vmxeo (173325) | about 7 years ago | (#19699409)

The RIAA's strength is spin control. The whole industry is one massive PR machine. In fact, it's the only thing it knows how to do anymore. It's no surprise they're taking the same approach to their legal strategy. Promote pro-RIAA messages and actions as much as possible, suppress anything that's negative. Rinse, repeat.


Something off topic, but worth mentioning: I appreciate the various members of the legal profession who take the time to breakdown and explain legal cases such as this, people such as Ray Beckermann, PJ from Groklaw, et al... Not only do I have a better understanding of what goes on in the legal world, but I have a little bit better respect for the people and procedures involved. Thanks..!

Re:Big surprise... (1)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | about 7 years ago | (#19699969)

wow that sounds just like sony to me!

Re:Big surprise... (4, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 7 years ago | (#19700249)

Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.

-

spin control (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#19700923)

Once upon a time, spin control in the music industry meant 33 1/3 or 45 rpm.

For the best quality that's what spin control should be, that and 78 rpm. I don't listen to music much anymore however I'd like to get a turntable, if I do then I'll listen to music more, and buying vinyl records. As amazing as it sounds, vinyl records are still being released. A five minute walk takes me to one store that sells new vinyl, and another store is 15 minutes walk. Next would be to find a reel-to-reel tape deck, I'll then do what I did years ago. As soon as I played a new record I'd record it on my reel-to-reel then put the record away for safekeeping and listen to the tape.

Falcon

A Cartel? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699421)

You mean that getting together for recreational abuse of the legal system is illegal now? But Ma, Everyone else is ganging up and extorting their customers!

Stupid left wingers. They spoil everything.

The RIAA has a problem (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699423)

The RIAA has to hope they can get the judge to ignore the Amurao case. Good luck.

The RIAA says discovery is over. The problem here is that counterclaims can arise as a result of discovery. In that case, it would be unfair to limit discovery to that of the original case. As an example, consider the SCO v. the rest of the world case. SCO was given extremely generous discovery in spite of the fact that they had produced zero evidence. It seems, on its face, that the record companies seem to be acting as a cartel. My wag is that the judge will decide that there is enough smoke to justify the conclusion that there may be fire.

Blah Blah Blah (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699443)

Anyone else sick of slashdot whining every 5 minutes about the RIAA? Why don't you rename the site 'piratebay' instead, for all the consideration you give to people who make content. Let's admit it, slashdot doesn't even generate any news content, it just rehashes it from sites that do get stories, so it's no surprise the people here don't care about copyright.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699691)

That was very loaded the way he stated that, but you have to consider that he does have a good point....

Doddman, posting AC to protect teh karma

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700085)

Doddman, posting AC to protect teh karma
Moderators, choose a posting by Doddman [slashdot.org] and mark it down.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (2)

JimboFBX (1097277) | about 7 years ago | (#19700197)

yes, lets censor people's free expression by showing who you disagree with and marking it as a troll or flamebait. I wouldn't have probably noticed this except I mark all troll and flamebait as +3. Over half of the time these are just people disagreeing with the poster and not following the group mentality. Karma also means +0 to me since obviously it only takes one easily angered mod to mark take your karma down for a long while. And this is proof that this is exactly what the system is creating - fear to say what you really think.

And unfortunately this reminds me a LOT of aljazeera.com, the phony baloney "al-jazeera magazine" where comments are heavily filtered before even allowing them to be posted, and people vote you as +5 (good) or -5 (ban) based on whether you hate america and believe in radical islamic law, censorship, and oppression or not.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700075)

Ummm, what? Do you actually understand how slashdot works?!

'Yeah, get those slashdot journalists working harder, what the fuck do they think they're doing? Slacked-assed bastards.'

See what I'm driving at?!

Re:Blah Blah Blah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700159)

he doesn't like lazy niggers?

Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (1, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | about 7 years ago | (#19699561)

Seriously, we could have any legally binding contract go into a public database on the internet, which could be viewed by anyone.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (4, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 7 years ago | (#19699981)

Seriously, we could have any legally binding contract go into a public database on the internet, which could be viewed by anyone.

Why? Aside from that being completely impractical and ultimately fruitless (when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts), what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs? If you have a good legal reason to know, then you'll get it through legal action. If not, just because you want to know other people's business doesn't mean you get to.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (0, Flamebait)

hachete (473378) | about 7 years ago | (#19700017)

All those contracts are legit and above board, right? what have you got to hide?

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700259)

All those contracts are legit and above board, right? what have you got to hide?


For starters how much you are paid.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (1)

ShinmaWa (449201) | about 7 years ago | (#19700927)

All those contracts are legit and above board, right? what have you got to hide?
Ah, the rally cry of the oppressor and the totalitarian -- the same verse sung by those who strip civil liberties and banish privacy. It is shocking to hear someone on Slashdot, of all places, use it. For a second I thought you might have been being sarcastic, but I don't think that's actually the case here.

Whether you are being sarcastic or not, there are many reasons why companies keep their contracts confidential. Corporate espionage is a big one. Simple privacy (our agreement with X is none of your damned business) is another. Where there is some public interest in the contents of a contract, such as those with the government paid for by tax dollars, there are volumes of laws, rules, and regulations already that dictate what must be disclosed, to whom, and when.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700105)

what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs

Because a free market requires total transparency in order to make decisions that provide the maximum benefit to the parties involved.\

Why do you hate the free market?!!

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (4, Interesting)

rhizome (115711) | about 7 years ago | (#19700175)

what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs?

Okay, let's narrow it down a bit. How's this: Government and corporate contracts go into the database. It's a matter of public policy.

(when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts)

Maybe, but it will be more easily apparent what behavior is not a matter of public knowledge. The government could reward publicizing contracts with tax breaks or whatever.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (4, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | about 7 years ago | (#19700543)

Scenario: your child has a problem for which requires a stay in a 24-hour care facility. The paperwork they have you sign is a contract and it is with a corporation. Therefore, by your rules this contract should be public so the world will know what your child is being treated for and thousands of other little facts you might want to keep private.

Still sounds like a good idea?

Oh, maybe you meant just contracts between two corporations? Well, obviously that loophole would be exploited to the hilt, rendering the entire idea pointless.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (1)

joe_plastic (704135) | about 7 years ago | (#19700695)

I once thought that maybe secret contracts should simply be limited to what kind of damages a court would award in a case. Cap it at about $1,000,000USD . That way things like deals between Microsoft and OEMs would most likely be public, or just in relative terms a gentlemens handshake. However the idea of distinguishing between corporations and natural persons does have good sound to it. Maybe $500,000USD limit for corporations, and $1,000,000USD for natural persons. Corporations are chartered for the public good and they offer protections to the people behind them, so discriminating against them in this small fashion could be justified.

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19701141)

your child has a problem for which requires a stay in a 24-hour care facility. The paperwork they have you sign is a contract and it is with a corporation. Therefore, by your rules this contract should be public so the world will know what your child is being treated for
Yes please, and then be sure to publish the outcome as well so that I and the rest of the world can make an informed decision as to where to take my child based on the performance of that hospital.

Everything is circumstance (1)

phorm (591458) | about 7 years ago | (#19701379)

But when it goes to court, then they should be viewable both by the judiciary and those researching the case. Chances are your contract with the care facility is going to be fine, unless somebody is sued for violation of said contract or some issue related to it.

Why? Are you ashamed of your child? (1)

crovira (10242) | about 7 years ago | (#19701447)

Are you ashamed of your child?

I feel real pity for your child.

As for YOU; you can fuck the hell right off the planet. Cock-biter...

I feel dirty even knowing you exist...

Re:Should Confidential Contracts be Banned? (1)

master0ne (655374) | about 7 years ago | (#19700937)

(when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts)
i think thats kind of the point, as last time i checked there arnt many "outlaws" that head fortune 500 companies etc... infact although they tend to be sleezy cheep bastards, they try to avoid "outlaw" status at all costs (as its usually pretty easy for the goverment to fuck them if they wanted to)

public corporation, public court system (2, Interesting)

r00t (33219) | about 7 years ago | (#19701381)

If you want to take advantage of either, and especially if you want to take advantage of both, then yes the contracts should be public.

How else are we to know it isn't fraud?

Have your secret contract if you like... but don't come crying to the courthouse when the other party doesn't follow the contract.

Unclean Hands (4, Funny)

MeanMF (631837) | about 7 years ago | (#19699563)

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Plaintiffs are guilty of unclean hands.

Apparently the RIAA downloads a lot of porn.

Re:Unclean Hands (4, Informative)

jobin (836958) | about 7 years ago | (#19699799)

It's another strange legal term. Wikipedia knows what it means [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Unclean Hands (2, Funny)

MLease (652529) | about 7 years ago | (#19700221)

Say, did something just go, "whoooooooosh"???

-Mike

Re:Unclean Hands (1)

808140 (808140) | about 7 years ago | (#19701053)

Those of us who are not lawyers appreciate the clarification.

Well At Least.... (0, Flamebait)

AnotherHiggins (925608) | about 7 years ago | (#19699757)

Dick Cheney will have somewhere to work when he's out of office.

Re:Well At Least.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700041)

You are an idiot...

Other possible counter measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19699777)

Other possible counter measure would be to create a global consumer protection organization, which would seek for non-profit, charity status, and would qualify for tax-deductible donation and would take the legal defense of all RIAA accused members.

This way tax-deferred, pool of money would finance all he legal costs (just as RIAA uses tax-differed money from member companies, who deduct their RIAA membership fees as operating cost).

This consumer protection organization would start heavy lobbying for legislative changes to end and prevent future unfair copyright laws and treaties around the globe.

It would create a matching partner for RIAA and their sponsoring corporation - both in funding, legal and political clout.

Maybe Slashdot or some OpenSource organization could initiate the creation of such multinational, truly global organization where membership would be open for billions of consumers around the world.

One dollar yearly membership fee could create funding in the billion dollar range, not to mention the huge political influence an organization with a billion plus members could have.

Just an other Random.Idea.

Re:Other possible counter measure (1)

westlake (615356) | about 7 years ago | (#19700333)

Other possible counter measure would be to create a global consumer protection organization, which would seek for non-profit, charity status, and would qualify for tax-deductible donation and would take the legal defense of all RIAA accused members. One dollar yearly membership fee could create funding in the billion dollar range, not to mention the huge political influence an organization with a billion plus members could have.

In 2004 there were 12.8 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants in the U.S, 24 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants in Korea. Broadband lag could hurt the U.S. [cnn.com]

For all practical purposes, no broadband service means no P2P exposure and no interest in your defense fund.

If you can believe in the "something for nothing" world of the file sharer, then you can believe that same world owes you a pro-bono defense when the RIAA takes you into court.

No need to spemd that dollar on anything else but another slice of pizza.

Re:Other possible counter measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700951)

The different level of broadband penetration...
I think you are missing the point, which is global... multinational... beyond the USA.

The file sharers world is not exactly "something for nothing"... They give quite a bit more than nothing: bandwidth, files and even the risk of being exposed to lawsuits by RIAA.

"No need to spend that dollar on anything else but another slice of pizza."
That's exactly what the RIAA wanted you to think...

Re:Other possible counter measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19701133)

There's already an EFFing organization like that.

No more mafiaa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19700607)

What happened to the mafiaa tag that used to be put on all these stories?

I have to assume people are still tagging. Censorship or what?

Re:No more mafiaa? (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 7 years ago | (#19701023)

Maybe the Mafia objected to be put in one bag with the RIAA and MPAA. :-)

...did you hear that? (2, Interesting)

Frequently_Asked_Ans (1063654) | about 7 years ago | (#19701235)

the sound of every single RIAA member crapping themselves,

RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.
call me crazy, if they have 90% of the record biz...isn't that a cartel?

The ultimate goal with all our anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and to give legal online services a chance to flourish.
yeah, but when your the majority of 'legitimate sound recordings' you have the market to yourselves...

That's why we educate. That's why record companies license music to legal services. And that's why, when necessary, we enforce our rights through the legal system.
.....notice the word 'our' rights....not, the rights of our member organizations....

With so many great legal music options available,
...okay, now your fooling no one..

there is really no excuse for music theft. Fans have a choice: pay a little now or a lot more later.
hopefully if this case turns out the right way, all that will be changed to 404
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...