What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
148 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+225 Like bullies on the playground, stand up to them and they will turn tail and run.
- Jemulov, on 10/12/2007, -11/+158Or proceed to fight with you, in the case of the RIAA they'll probably throw sand in your eyes and trip you and strangle you while you are on the ground. The thing to remember is to make sure that when you confront the RIAA, make sure you do it when the teacher is around to see it happen. Then they get in trouble and get laughed at by the rest of the kids.
I'll let my analogy steep for a while and see what people say. - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+109From the Letter:
Your clients apparently argue that Mr. Merchant's failure to respond to "settlement" demands justifies their lawsuit without other basis on which a finding of probable cause to sue could be claimed. You devoted the bulk of your letter advocating that position. As you know, however, that posture is repugnant to both Rule 408, Fed.Rul.Evid. and California Evidence Code 1152 and 1154.
The Evidence Code sections are quite clear: settlement negotiations of all kinds may not be used to prove the validity of any claim or defense. Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople. If your client (and your law firm?) are seeking probable cause shelter in a settlement negotiations house of straw (as suggested by your March 23 letter), all of you should consider the prevailing winds of the Evidence Code before making yourselves too comfortable. Straw will burn.
Your client (sic) take the position that my middle-aged, conservative clients should speculate regarding the identity of persons your clients' claim used their AOL account to download pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks as predicate to possible case resolution. In an age of Wintel-virus created bot-farms, spoofs, and easily cracked WEP encrypted wireless home networks (among other easy hacks), the only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding." The extensive press that has been generated over computer security (and the insecurity of Windows XP and its predecessors) underscores the complete absence of facts on which probable cause to sue my clients could be established and your clients' willingness (even insistence) that others be implicated in Big Music's speculative, "driftnet" litigation tactics. Sorry: Mr. Merchant cannot and will not expose himself to still more litigation by speculating.
This lawyer ripped the ***** out of the RIAA. props to him. - blacklotus135, on 10/12/2007, -1/+86Harassing grandmothers, 11 year olds, and dead people is not trying to stop copyright infringement. This is a campaign of extortion.
- WaveRunningNakd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+80***** THE RIAA
(you knew that was coming) - joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+60They'll turn thier tail and run, and hopefully Mr. Merchant will be taking the bullies money:
'Mr. Merchant has and had no more duty to respond to attempts to "sell" him one of your clients' boilerplate, non-negotiable $3750 settlements than he has to return cold calls from pushy life insurance salespeople.'
this is followed later by:
'My clients are willing to accept dismissal of the litigation in exchange for
1. Payment of Mr. Merchant's reasonable fees and costs including retainer of $6,880.25. The payment represents good value considering what your own firm's billings will have been to date and use of those billing records as the loadstar rate for Mr. Merchant's award. See Capitol Record v. Foster, Western Dist. Okla No. 5:04-cv-1569-W, Docment 182 filed 3-15-07).' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+59lol, this is the best part:
"2. Apology on your firm's letterhead by your supervising partner for inappropriately filing and maintaining an action against Mr. Merchant without probable cause and for the emotional hardship that such litigation caused"
Say sorry, biatch! - DeskFlyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58I am so hiring this dude.
- Matri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+56Man oh man oh man. The RIAA got schooled by the very lawyer-speak they've been using on their customers!
This is a good day. Hell yeah! - Matri, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56That's why this case MUST be set as a precedent. The next time they pull this *****, just bring up this case and their argument falls apart faster than a house of cards in a tornado.
- fluxion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42more like:
RIAA: 1000 People: 7
but we'll take what we can get - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -2/+41Damn, that was a fine letter. I'd like to shake the lawyer's hand on that one!
N. - disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39@Marti,
Unfortunately, a case that's voluntarily withdrawn cannot be used for precedent.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, Digg esquires?) - ronin688, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39I live in Canada and that letter made me want to move to California and get caught sharing music just so I could hire that lawyer!
- Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Wow, that was really good, more people should stand up to them like this, too many people think it's impossible to win against them.
- JustADude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32Let's hope this and the Santangelo case are harbingers of resistance to come. ***** the RIAA, and do so thoroughly.
- drewskyjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30Pardon me bud, but have you paid to use those lyrics? I'm guessing not. I am willing to settle this infringement claim for $3,750 now, allowing you to avoid a more expensive settlement later.
Regards,
RIAA Troll - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29Jesus Christ, would you stop spamming that gigatribe trash in every RIAA related story? You know what, nevermind. You're blocked.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27@jemulov
Or better yet, have someone capture a video of the event and then post it on youtube. Then use the video as evidence when the teachers come into the picture.
Seriously though, getting the RIAA to back down while good, isn't really going to stop them from doing it to someone else. The RIAA needs to be brought down not only legally but very very publicly. Make it so that every time they send out a harassment letter, they then have to prove guilt or *will* be both legally and financially penalized. - Stormen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Here's the URL to the lawfirm:
http://ledfordlaw.net/
Be sure to send him a "thumbs up" at:
ledfordlaw [a] ledfordlaw.net
From Merl Ledford III's bio:
"Attorney MERL LEDFORD III received his AB Degree in 1974 from University of California Santa Barbara with majors in English and economics. He earned his JD degree in 1978 from University of California, Hastings College of the Law where he participated on law review and served as Program Coordinator of Hastings' Center for Trial and Appellate Advocacy. Mr. LEDFORD is admitted to practice before all California Courts and before the United States Tax Court. He appears in other jurisdictions in association with AV-rated counsel licensed to practice in the forum state." - clickmyface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22**"Your client take the position that my middle-aged, conservative clients should speculate regarding the identity of persons your clients' claim used their AOL account to download pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks as predicate to possible case resolution. In an age of Wintel-virus created bot-farms, spoofs, and easily cracked WEP encrypted wireless home networks (among other easy hacks), the only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding." The extensive press that has been generated over computer security (and the insecurity of Windows XP and its predecessors) underscores the complete absence of facts on which probable cause to sue my clients could be established and your clients' willingness (even insistence) that others be implicated in Big Music's speculative, "driftnet" litigation tactics. Sorry: Mr. Merchant cannot and will not expose himself to still more litigation by speculating."**
Agreed. Best paragraph ever! - adinb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21::eyes get all misty::
Beautiful!!! - mp3dog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I like this line:
"Procedurally, we need to address how best to move the case to the Fresno Branch so you can enjoy our new Courthouse and avoid Judge Levi's wrath for filing in the wrong court." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19quick! everyone write down this law firms info...
- Csma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Simply amazing, now we just need more of these victories to make the RIAA realize their failed model of business. I'm not for copyright infringement, but the RIAA is asking for it by treating US the consumers like *****! Support Indie bands!
- Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16IMO the best part is where lawyer for defendant offers the lawyer for plaintiffs that HE will send HIS airplane over so that plaintiffs experts can create the HDD image faster. He even offers different airports for plaintiffs to choose from!
THIS is best paragraph ever IMO!!
"We should also discuss how quickly you can get your tech people here to do their hard drive inspection. Again, I would be happy to send the airplane to either Butler at SFO or Kaiser at Oakland for roundtrip convenience of you and your clients' tech people. (Oakland is usually faster for me from Civic Center; Kaiser has a shuttle from Bart that beats SFO by about 20 minutes each way most of the time.)" - Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18The best part is, not only did he give them a verbal kick in the teeth, he is 100% accurate in what he's saying. I mean I'm not a lawyer, but as far as computer security and everything goes, anyone with a little computer knowledge can crack most WEP wireless networks. It takes at the most 20 minutes?? I mean it was only a matter of time before someone in law decided to up and take that one leg that the RIAA is standing on and pull it out from under them. Baseless bully tactics and extortion are no longer working to the efficiency that it once was. You thought the public was naive, well I tell you this. Everyone knows at least once tech weenie. And we sir, rule the world. Word is spreading fast, time to change your plan or get the ***** off the field. You'll never win.
- MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@bubbaboy
"Could someone please tell me what would stop the accused from taking out their old hard-drive and replacing it with a 'clean' hard-drive?? From what I understand the only evidence that the RIAA has is the IP address? I am lacking on any knowledge of law..."
a) Fraud
b) Perjury - curtvdh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It should come as no surprise that the RIAA will back down when threatened. They cannot afford to go to trial - it's as simple as that. A single loss in an actual court case, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Voluntary dismissal = no precedent. Unfavorable verdict in a jury trial = precedent. They are banking on the fact that most people will rather pay the extortion money than go to trial. Whenever it becomes clear that one of their victims intends to fight, they have no choice but to drop the charges. As already stated - a single loss in a jury trial will spell the end of the RIAA.
- sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Please don't bring that crap in here. E-mail bombing a lawyer isn't going to help anyone.
- DannyJGA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Hats off to the lawyer. Sadly, 99 percent of lawyers would have sent of a quick letter of denail of the evidence, and then waited for a court date. Saving their efforts for trial. This lawyer actually works proactively to prevent a trial. How many lawyers, do you know, that presented with a winning hand in court do not go to court to maximize their fees? This guy could have gone to court against the RIAA and then won, and be awarded legal fees of, likely, some staggering amount.
This guy deserves a true pat on the back for truly being an advocate for his client. - _skin_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I love this paragraph!!!
Your client take the position that my middle-aged, conservative clients should speculate regarding the identity of persons your clients' claim used their AOL account to download pornographic-lyric gangsta rap tracks as predicate to possible case resolution. In an age of Wintel-virus created bot-farms, spoofs, and easily cracked WEP encrypted wireless home networks (among other easy hacks), the only tech-savvy response to such a request is, "You've got to be kidding." The extensive press that has been generated over computer security (and the insecurity of Windows XP and its predecessors) underscores the complete absence of facts on which probable cause to sue my clients could be established and your clients' willingness (even insistence) that others be implicated in Big Music's speculative, "driftnet" litigation tactics. Sorry: Mr. Merchant cannot and will not expose himself to still more litigation by speculating. - codesuidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"I'm pretty sure the 5th amendment extends to not having to provide passwords that would incriminate yourself "
This is absolutely not true. In the USA if you have encrypted files the court can compel you to produce the password, just the same as they can compel you to produce the combination or key to a safe. This is because the password is not incriminating, it is the evidence that it unlocks that is.
A possible way around this is if the key itself is incriminating, such as if the password is "I murdered bob and hid the body in the desert at these coordinates x.xxx y.yyy". In this case revealing the password would itself be incrimination.
http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v2i1/sergienko.html#h2
A better way is to use a deniable encryption system, where you have multiple passwords to the same block of encrypted data. Each password produces data and there is no way to determine if all data has been produced. You can then produce the passwords to data you choose to reveal. The clever criminal would encrypt files that (falsely) support his innocence.
Way back when there was a linux project called Rubberhose that wanted to be a strong deniable encryption system, but I don't know if it ever worked. - lowerlogic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
(RIAA Radar Warning) - Bubbaboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Could someone please tell me what would stop the accused from taking out their old hard-drive and replacing it with a 'clean' hard-drive?? From what I understand the only evidence that the RIAA has is the IP address? I am lacking on any knowledge of law...
- IceIX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8he's saying that the piece of computing gear is worth mid six-to low seven figures worth of damages for his client when he proves the RIAA wrong.
- mikelieman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@pifco,
An apology from a law firm?
Ouch. - meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is how lawyers work. They use scare tactics. Cops work in a similar fashion by assuming you're guilty. They're hoping they hit the right nail on the head and you'll think "oh crap, they know I did it" and confess.
One day I get home and I'm told there's a scary looking envelope waiting for me. Sure enough, it's from a lawyer representing a large company, demanding I discontinue using a form of their name. Long story short, I freaked and immediately closed the company (it was just for tax collection purposes). Later I realized this company had no connection with what I actually did for a living. I could have nailed them for covering my costs but the fear of the scary envelope made me just want these peope to go away now.
The RIAA/MPAA does the same thing. Stand up to them and they'll likely back down if you present a rational argument like this story. Had I stood up to these people I could have gotten a few grand out of them. Live and learn. - Germanopinion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8who cares if they are even able to rethink their strategy in keeping their marketshare?
Once the first few cases get really bad for SONY BMG, Warner, Universal and Co. the ripple effect will end all those cases against inocent people.
It took ~3 years, but now the first few cases that was fought against them are beginning to come to a conclusion.
And those conclusions do not look well for obsolete business dinosaurs.
- cbags, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Interesting how early in the comments there appear to be thought out, well written comments. These then fall apart, and evolve into "***** the RIAA,. and PWNED, ***** references..."
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The RIAA has turned the justice system into its own personal traffic court. The litigation is purely to generate money from one defendant after another. Traffic court works the same way. It's a conveyor belt. If someone stands up to the system and threatens to slow the conveyor belt, they drop the case. It isn't worth their time when there are thousands more to exploit.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'd like to point out this page:
https://www.p2plawsuits.com/P2P_01_Instructions.aspx
Yep, that's right; the RIAA has turned litigation into an online business. Now that's what I call rule of law!
/sarcasm - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@disillusioned
What he means is use the same arguments and RIAA should back down again. - MrWh33l3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Was it just me or did anyone else notice that the letter of dismissal was dated March 26,2007 and voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT predjudice while Mr. Ledford's letter asking for a dismissal WITH predjudice sent on March 27, 2007? One word but huge difference.
- magus_melchior, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If I ever move back to the Bay Area, this lawyer is going to be my first choice either for advice, representation, or referral to other legal pros.
- gaiden2k5, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Summary: RIAA 0 People 1
- jimmiem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This isn't really the good news you might think it is. Every lawyer in America sends a similar letter in response to any lawsuit brought against their clients. I guarantee that this was not the only such letter the RIAA has received - they've gotten one from each and every defendant who has lawyered up.
Why they backed down in this case we'll never truly know. Perhaps we will see a pattern of them backing down from cases where the defendant lawyers up because they don't want a precedent set that is not in their favor, but one case does not point to that outcome. - KF6BBL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's because the stoners finally woke up
- snotrokit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6that would be a big fat zero. I would guess that it goes to fund more BS litigation.
- gen2ux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Get out of the bathroom, I have to take an RIAA.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is