arstechnica.com — Recording industry lawyers dodged a bullet today after the judge in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset retrial threatened to throw out the complete testimony of an important expert witness. Not disclosing new information to opposing counsel makes federal judges very, very grumpy.
Jun 16, 2009 View in Crawl 4
okayokayokayJun 17, 2009
Why would a skunk, an eight-inch tall skunk, want to live in Minneapolis, with a bunch of 5-foot tall humans? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer representing a major record company, and I'm talkin' about skunks! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If the skunk lives in Minneapolis, you must convict! The prosecution rests.
lyonsbanJun 17, 2009
Stingwolf - I have a feeling that the movie and music industry is alienating an entire generation against them. Every year the riaa&mpaa gets more draconian in their pursuit of people who are less and less interested in buying their products. These pirate kids (even wealthy kids don't have unlimited money for music & movies) are the next generation of artists and customers.I've heard the best way to make a terrorist is not to make him angry, but to humiliate his parents, which is exactly what is happening in court rooms around the world. Not that I expect Iran type protests or -anything- of the sort, but I do expect those kids to actively refuse to support the business model the riaa and mpaa is.
thinkloopJun 17, 2009
I feel the same way about your comments
elementopJun 17, 2009
Is it just me, or does the summary sound like a great big can of "so what?"From the summary: "the judge...***threatened*** to throw out the complete testimony of an important expert witness. Not disclosing new information to opposing counsel makes federal judges very, very grumpy." [emphasis mine]So the judge was grumpy. Boohoo. He wasn't grumpy enough, because he still let the RIAA's witness's evidence remain (except for the evidence that wasn't previously released to the defendent's lawyers). OTOH, the jury already heard the evidence, and regardless of the fact that the evidence was "stricken from the record" you can bet that it WILL influence the jury. Sounds like a win for the RIAA.
iliveincotoJun 17, 2009
"You are not entitled to the free usage of another's labor"It's funny that you say that, because the the people who 'labor' to create this music are the artists who only make a few cents per album sold. The ironic part is that many of those artists support file-sharing because it's an easy way of exposing people to their music.File-sharing just took over distribution for the major labels, and rather than acknowledging their failing business model, they attack the consumers who buy their product. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
jblogger09Jun 23, 2009
What would happen if we started a movement to stop buying music for couple of months and stop requesting music on radio for couple of months? The only thing they will listen to is money - or lack of it!