What is Digg?57 Comments
- ninjakin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+124no legal reason, its just that they are the spawn of Satan.
- vinoal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+78I think it's a clear case of the RIAA looking out for consumers best interests by not clouding the issues with messy things like facts.
- Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Is there a lawyer on here that has any idea why the RIAA is trying to do this? I know that most people on here think they are spawn of Satan and are trying to stifle freedom of speech, but is there any other possible legal reason they need a gag order?
- ntnwwnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54I used to with an attorney, and I've seen this a few times. Just as the actual legal documents say, the RIAA is just trying to keep their knowledge of all 20,000 cases to themselves. They want the advantage (regarding judge opinions, and rulings) of all the information themselves. If the defendants (people the RIAA is sueing) find out some of this information, they might actually be able to win their cases. The RIAA does not want that to happen, so they try to shut people up. Not mentioning that RIAA lawyers have access to all the 20,000 court cases' information.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+45Best guess (I have a very limited legal background) would be to prevent other defense attorneys access to the methods and tactics of their litigation.
- noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39odds are they're doing it to keep their tactics under wraps, since people are figuring out that each of their cases are pretty cookie-cutter.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39They were much happier when their legal games were taking place in the shadows, and no one knew what was going on. The more people talk about the cases, the more the RIAA looks evil and greedy.
Also people are showing how easy it is to win one of those cases. The RIAA doesn't want that information getting out. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32However they usually ask for gag orders because of specific reasons that serve the "public good" (ie: not wanting to reveal details that would spoil the case for a jury, not wanting to give out information on underage kids, etc). It's unusual in this case because there's no "public good" that would be served by imposing a gag order, it's strictly to help them win more cases and try and keep themselves out of the media spotlight (bad P.R.)
Hopefully the judge will throw this BS out and slap them down for being idiots. - MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Does anybody REALLY need the RIAA anymore? What benefit do they provide to anyone these days? Can't we just get rid of the whole organization?
- dmorel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30"I cant wait for the general public to take notice on this."
How long do you think that's gonna be? I've been waiting for most of my adult life (15+ years) for the general public to take notice of a whole bunch of things. Best I can tell, the "general public" is the most apathetic group of people ever. I'll keep waiting right along with you, but I fear we may be a too far 'round the bend before they notice. - StatiK69, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35From the RIAA... All Your Rights Are Belong To Us.
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Whoa! All anti-RIAA posts just got modded down, and all pro post modded up! An RIAA plant is in the house.
- one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21wow...just wow
I cant wait for the general public to take notice on this. The RIAA is intent on stripping more rights away from the general public than our current government. - bitslayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It is clear why the RIAA would want to file this motion, but why the hell would a judge want to grant it? If the RIAA has no reason other than it makes it harder for people to defend themselves, I can't see an unbought judge actually giving this to them.
- ghostmac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"...in order to save them from public scrutiny of their own words during deposition." Ha, They don't want the depositions made public.
They are o-so-tried of the public mocking their litigation against 13 year olds. - Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Perhaps they don't want any legal strategies they attempt to use in this case to be made public....since it seems that sueing appears to be made part of their business model...they don't want any effective strategies against them made public?
Let's hope there is no reasonable reason for the request...and it's denied. - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Above post wasn't the one I wanted to paste in, this is the one: (From: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=umg_lindor_060810RBtoMagisCorrected )
"...
The only reason the RIAA seeks confidentiality is to give itself yet another strategic
advantage against its mismatched victims. There are 20,000 or more litigations which are either going on, or have been concluded, in the RIAA’s wave of litigation, and of course an infinite number of new cases waiting to be commenced. Millions of people across the world are hungry for information on the RIAA cases, and lawyers and litigants across the country are intensely interested in learning what is going on in the other 19,999 cases in which they are not involved. The RIAA’s “national counsel” has at its command knowledge of the details of every single case; the defendants have none, but for the smattering of information which I have managed to assemble and which Pike & Fischer is hosting. Clearly the enhancement of the RIAA’s strategic tactical advantage against other litigants is not an appropriate basis for a protective order, although it is clearly the only reason for the RIAA’s recalcitrance.
..." - Braska, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah, Agreed. Bush destroyed unions; we the people should destroy power hungry money mongers like the RIAA, its the right thing to do. Legally, ethically, morally, and usefulness to society - they suck.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Fascism sucks...
Quote: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Is the RIAA coming after our freedom and liberty? We seriously need to consider boycotting companies that align themselves with the RIAA.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Do we find out the result?
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"plaintiffs are imposing an unacceptable precondition to their appearance: they are refusing to produce the witnesses unless defendant agrees to an advance blanket stipulation of confidentiality as to the entire contents of the deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs have refused to cite any legal authority for their omnibus protective order request other than the Seattle Times case, a completely distinguishable Supreme Court case which granted a limited protective order as to certain specified classes of documents, based on a traditional showing of "annoyance, embarrassment, [and] oppression" of the individuals whose information would be disclosed."
- Burgerman851, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If we boycotted, do you seriously think the RIAA would even consider the possibility that lost revenues were due to the boycott? I'd be surprised. Most likely, they'd pin the losses on the pirates.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well, it's easy enough to tell them to ***** off with your money, legally:
http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ - lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Well, it sounds like we will have to find a why to get to critical mass. It can happen. Just look at the http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ crew from Europe. The made it happen for their cause.
- FinishdLawSkool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8In most cases the general public is useless sheep. Look at the internet made of pipes thing along with the net neutrality. If the general public understood you think that they would be doing something about these issues. I think that the RIAA is in a similar situation where they strive off of general public ignorance.
- cybertron3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9When do we find out the result?
- johngault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9not a lawyer, but maybe because they (RIAA) cannot get witness to testify due to the controversial nature of this, Even some artists are against the RIAA methods, so the artists are reluctant to testify in court, knowing they will get some sort of backlash.SO the RIAA is seeking to gag the preceding so the artist wont suffer any backlash.
-opinion only- - grimw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So, even if a judge granted this, it's not like the defendants have to comply. Sure, they may be arrested or whatever until an appeal can be brought forth, but sometimes, when you know without a doubt that the removal of your rights is a greater crime, you shouldn't comply. That's what being free is, and it's supposed to be why we're America. Sometimes you have to fight when you are right... the rhyme wasn't actually intended.
- robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Don't US citizens have the right to remove something from public that they don't like?
Where is the democracy? - grimw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ohgr:
Having a mindset like that will only set you up for failure. If it means enough to you, you still have to try, and as someone else pointed out, it can work. - Sc5i, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I would guess that they want the gag order so that the defendants can't make everyone away to exactly 'how' the RIAA is collecting their data. I would think that is worth a gag order so the P2P networks, people, etc. start to figure ways around their methods - though I still like the IP address argument.
- robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They just get more and more greedy.
It only aids them to win more cases and score more money and leave us all powerless. - jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Its not the artists. None of the artists are starving, and most of the artists dont support this junk anyways. The point of these cases is for the RIAA to win money, and the record labels to cash in on more records, so that their executives can get big bonuses while their normal workers get paid their usual lousy salary.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To be fair to the "general public", it's often kind of hard to give a ***** about "the little things" like the RIAA acting like dicks in court, free speach, etc... For the average person, it takes every ounce of their energy, time, money and resources just to keep their finances afloat, food on the table, clothes on their children -- not to mention caring for their sick parents as they age or worrying about their children being sent over to fight for Exxon in the middle east.
I can't necessarily expect Joe or Suzy Sixpack to be out there rallying around the courthouse with signs when it doesn't help their bottom line whatsoever. And as long as we keep the lower and middle classes disjointed from the decision makers, they will continue to be too busy just staying alive and making ends meet to have time and energy to "waste" giving a ***** about things like this. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Witnesses?! Since when are there witnesses to "illegal online downloading of music"? What, like Hilary ***** Rosen was sitting in your kitchen looking over your shoulder as you downloaded the latest hip hop album and is going to testify that she saw you doing so?!
- fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Bush destroyed unions? That's a new one for me. Is that like Bush creating Hurricanes? I think most unions destroy themselves because they get too big and powerful and destroy their employer.
But yeah, the RIAA and MPAA both suck. I think a boycott could work. I think there is a slow powershift going away from Hollywood. I mean, sure only Hollywood can produce a $100 million mega special effects movie. But any good singer can record and sell his music over the Internet. (even on itunes I think).
I would say, hit them where it hurts. right in the pocketbook. After all, that is what they are trying to do. - heoko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe that is because our lazyness, waiting for someone else to yell it out, will seem a little insane? We are the general public, there are people who know about the RIAA and people that never did, the problem is that the people who know, are not educating the people who dont understand. Its like we ignore telling other people, because we are waiting for them to magically know everything we know... poof poof! We are the apathetic, and we have the power to change it... I bet we should just get fat and die instead!
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@I cant wait for the general public to take notice on this.
And do what? - McShaken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Boycotting will only further their cause since they'll just assume (or make a false claim) that the lost revenue is due to an increase of pirating. And they'll push these false numbers to congress in hopes that legislation will be passed that will further erode our freedoms and liberties.... all in the name of the bottom line. Big business will NEVER have enough money to be satisfied.... /rant
- opticwind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3At what point did the RIAA think it became God?
- ElGstr, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Albert Einstein said, “I am neither especially clever, nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.”
Who Is A Reporter, Given The Millions Of Bloggers?, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3684
News With A Point Of View, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4193
Our Right To Know, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4213
On Becoming An Activist, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4457
There's an old Sufi expression that goes "One who thinks the same way at 50 as they did at 20 has wasted 30 years of their life". However, J. Robert Oppenheimer said after witnessing the world’s first nuclear explosion he had been the director of, “I am become death, shatterer of worlds.” He was quoting from the Bhagavad Gita. That’s how regimes like communist controlled China perceive blogs, as shatters of their world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Boycotts DO NOT WORK in America.
The idea is that a boycott affects corporations by depriving them of money. But look at your average geek. They talk about boycotting Sony or Microsoft to get them where it hurts. But in the process, they realize that it also deprives THEM of things like the latest Ghost In The Shell special DVD release or the XBOX 360. And that hurts THEM even more. And they can't take it. So they give in and give their money to those corporations.
The same is true for most consumers. Consumers are brainwashed into a society oc such ravenous consumption and they have such weak wills that it hurts them more to go without "things" than it does for the companies to go without their $30. - stevenb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Seumas.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Right out of my mouth.
Kudos to you. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Boycotting works for me, as a good start. It's a nice form of civil disobedience. Also, we gotta just take our privacy back on the net. You might consider supporting eff.org
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SO when will the RIAA start to aquire WMD's?
THe US, UK (a rogue EU member state) and Middle East countries are direct threats to world security. I say impose sanctions on all of them :) - opticwind, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wouldn't it be FANTASTIC if the CEO of the RIAA was caught downloading off Limewire?
Would he have to sue himself? - fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Many Americans of italian descent still consider Mussolini a hero.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is