Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan 488

Posted by CmdrTaco from the billion-dollar-organization-vs-kid dept.
digime writes "In a recent Slashdot article it was reported that 19-year-old college student Jesse Jordan gave up his life savings to the RIAA for running a campus search engine. He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up. "The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan More

RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)

    by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#6266866) Homepage
    Stick it to the man!

    ...so you can lose all your money again.

  • No new CDs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nafmo ( 147094 ) * <sector3@gmail.com> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#6266867)
    Well, I've given up buying new CDs because of the bully tactics from the recording industries.

    • Re:No new CDs (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AntiOrganic ( 650691 )
      Hey now, the RIAA is just the Recording Industry Association of America. There are plenty of foreign labels like Century Media, Spinefarm, and Nuclear Blast that have plenty of artists to offer.

      • Re:No new CDs (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nafmo ( 147094 ) *
        I know, but in the age of the USian megacoprs owning almost every recording company on the planet, it's hard to figure out which ones are the good guys.

        If there are any. I'm not sure, it seems like most recording companies are getting buyer-hostile these days.

      • Re:No new CDs (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Arker ( 91948 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:05AM (#6267090) Homepage

        The European companies are just as bad. Indies might be ok, but most of them are pretty deep in bed with the biggies just to survive too. I only buy from bands directly. There are actually some really good musicians out there selling CDs pressed on their own computer. Go to gigs. If you like em, buy their CD.

        • Re:No new CDs (Score:5, Informative)

          by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:55AM (#6267363)
          Just a note, a CD produced on a personal computer is a burned disc, not a pressed one. Mass produced discs are called pressed because that accurately describes their process of creation. The pits are literally stamped into the reflective layer, then the plastic coating is added. With CD-Rs you have a disc with the plastic and reflective layer already setup. However there is an additonal element, a dye added. A laser is then used to burn the dye to the reflective layer, causing it it become less reflective in the burned spots, giving the same effect to the reader laser as a pit on a pressed disc.

          So, if you are speaking of mass producd silver discs, they are pressed. Individually produced discs off a burner are burned. The distinction can be an important one when you are talking about selling CDs since pressed CDs are much cheaper per unit, but have a higher minimum production run.

          • Re:No new CDs (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            <pedantic>

            The pits are molded into the substrate (the polycarbonate) and not into the reflective layer. Likewise, the pits that are "burned" into a CD-R are melted into the polycarbonate; not the reflective layer.

            In most cases, the reflective layer is aluminum. Some early CD-R's used gold because it was more reflective (necessary because the process of applying a precision coating of dye was relatively new and difficult).

            CD-RW's use a completely different technology. The disc is "sputtered" (vap

  • Dentist... how appropriate (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#6266875)
    I think it is time for someone to pull the RIAA's teeth

  • It is time for a major BOYCOTT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#6266879)
    And a clearly-spoken public campaign to discredit these scum at the RIAA. The "dentist" can go fuck himself. The threat by this "top" RIAA attorney is assault and he needs to be criminally prosecuted.

    • From Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wind_Walker ( 83965 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:38AM (#6266947) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, right. Just like we're boycotting Blizzard because of their bnet.d hassles... oh wait, we ran a story on the release and expansion of Warcraft III.

      Well, the MPAA is horrible and is taking away rights! But hell, here comes X-2, The Hulk, Lord of the Rings, etc.

      The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except when it makes life inconvenient for them. Then they'll pony up to the bar faster than... something that ponies up to the bar really quick.

      • Re:From Slashdot? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by jwilcox154 ( 469038 )
        Except, this has nothing to do with the MPAA, this is the RIAA we're talking about. Oh, about Boycotts, I have not bought any cds in the past 2 Years "Except, perhaps, blank CDs", I get my music in Analog form now "I.E. 8-Track, Vinyl Albums, Cassette", and not a single penny goes to the RIAA.

        The problems are 1. The Teens and Pree-Teens cant "or at leat think they can't" do without the cookie cutter boy and girl bands

        2. Even if everyone were to stop pirating their music, the RIAA would still blame the
      • For what it's worth, back when WC3 was released, me and about a half dozen of my gaming buddies were discussing what next game to all invest in. We had narrowed it down to Warcraft 3 or Neverwinter Nights. After explaining to everyone what was going on and how Blizzard were being pricks over the whole bnetd project, we settled on NWN.

        Six sales Blizzard lost. Certainly not even a scratch in their sales. But, the point is, some people do take boycotts seriously.

        Hey, I would love to play WC3. But, I am stron
      • The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except when it makes life inconvenient for them. Then they'll pony up to the bar faster than... something that ponies up to the bar really quick.

        Just like nearly everyone. You don't think all those rednecks pouring wine in the gutter actually drank French Wine, do you? Know how many anti-smoking people I know who eat Oreos? How many anti-SUV people would actually refuse a ride in one when a friend pulled up in the pouring rain?

      • Re:From Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:31AM (#6267239) Homepage
        > The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except
        > when it makes life inconvenient for them.

        Speak for yourself. No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years, nor have I made unauthorized copies of anything of theirs.

      • Re:From Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) *
        and would it matter to them if we did end up boycotting them? I highly doubt it. They are not interested in the small, insignificant groups that complain about them.

        99% of the population has NO idea what the RIAA/MPAA is until they get busted for downloading Spiderman Divx.

      • Re:From Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @12:59PM (#6267948) Journal
        I'll tell you what, I haven't seen X2. Or the second Lord of the Rings movie, or the new Matrix movie, or anything else in a while. Not even the second harry potter movie. Thats "haven't seen it at all" not "downloaded some camcorder rip from the net".

        Sure, I think I'm missing out on something, but thats ok with me.

        Related reading "The Ones who Walk Away From Omelas", Ursula LeGuin short story. Think about that when you talk about boycotting something. Some people feel that the benefits are worth any atrocity, and will just not care about the boycott.

    • Re:It is time for a major BOYCOTT (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jeffasselin ( 566598 ) <cormacolinde@gma i l . com> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:30AM (#6267231) Journal
      Yes, a boycott. That way, RIAA sales will go even further down, and they'll continue to blame piracy

      "See it's rampant, and increasing, our sales are even lower than they were! We must have the right to destroy those evil pirates' computers"

      Which will not help at all until EVERYONE gets in, and that won't happen very soon. And we still need to enjoy music, and some mainstream music is good, it's just that most of it is so identical to the last one out.

      The real problem is the power of corporate america, how they can bully through legal system, how they can bully politicians and buy laws in their favor, how it takes a superhuman effort from the populace to defeat such lawsuits or stop such laws from being passed. Congressmen do not really bother listening to their own constituents (as they understand their re-election is more dependent on the cash they get from corporations than on the votes of the people they're supposed to represent), and it takes a LOT of noise to make them do so.

      So you either need changes in the legal and electoral system, or you need changes in the rights of corporations. Take your pick. I'd go for some of all three. One, it's forbidden for one party to spend more on defense than the other party can afford, unless you agree to pay for both defenses upfront and cannot get it back later. THAT would deter frivolous lawsuits. Two, No more soft money and contributions are limited in proportion to the number of people living in the area, and donations from a single person is also severely limited. A corporation cannot give more than a single individual could. Three, corporations cannot bring lawsuits against individuals with whom they do not have a business relationship without prior approval from a judge.

  • ...Teach him! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis&gmail,com> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:29AM (#6266880) Homepage
    That'll teach him that democracy and freedom runs rampant in the good ol' US of A.

    What I have to question, do *AA laywers live for bad-press by the nerds of the world? Sure, people are still buying their tripe but the non-nerd part of the world will figure it out eventually. Weird....

    Tom
    • Um, this has nothing to due with flaws in the American system. If his comments to CNN violate the terms of the settlement, then the RIAA is fully in its rights to rescind all benefits from that dismissal.

      Now, I am not sure - glancing at the interviews and the dismissal agreement - whether or not he's violated it or not. Frankly, thats for someone with a more precise legal background to handle than me. But thats the key issue: we simply cannot rant against the RIAA unless we first confirm that they're

  • thr0d ps1t (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:30AM (#6266885)
    One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves. As the defendant pointed out, a lawsuit against AltaVista would have just as much justification behind it (little to none) but they didn't go after them because AltaVista can afford to defend themselves.
    • The problem of rich or super-motivated plaintiffs bringing defendents to their knees via lawsuits is the essence of the motivation behind the tort reform movement. Unfortunately, the trial lawyers who make a mint off the current system have united to become the largest funder (bigger than unions or minorities) of the Democrat party. Good luck getting tort reform passed until there's 60 Republicans in the Senate (or close to it).

    • Re:thr0d ps1t (Score:2, Interesting)

      by deranged unix nut ( 20524 )
      (I am Not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is even possible, however...)

      What if every (or a large number of) upset music listeners each filed an individual small claims court lawsuit against RIAA? Would 10,000 simultanious small claims court cases slow them down?

      Hey, I have only purchased 50 or so CDs, so I'd be happy with $140 dollars back out of the $700 or so I have spent. :)

    • Re:thr0d ps1t (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:26AM (#6267205) Homepage


      One of the big problems with our legal system is that it is easy to bully someone with a frivolous lawsuit when they can't afford the time or money to defend themselves.

      Exactly, some countries have 'justice system', USA has 'legal system' ...

  • The search engine is NOT back up (Score:5, Informative)

    by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:30AM (#6266891)
    The article says: "He has recovered over 83% of his savings lost to the RIAA, and his search engine is back up."

    Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website [chewplastic.com] (also linked in the article):
    The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation.
    He does, however, say "I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech.", so maybe he intends to bring the search engine back up for real ...

    • Re:The search engine is NOT back up (Score:5, Funny)

      by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:37AM (#6266945)

      The search engine that's up right now looks to be him thumbing his nose at the RIAA. Try doing a search for "Metallica" or "Linkin" (or other popular band names) and take a look at the results. Searching for "linux" also produces amusing output.

      I approve. Very nice way to show that he's not intimidated by their legal protection racket.

      • And isn't this the entire point of the exercise? The RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) aren't looking for legal remedies for a particular instance of lawbreaking, they're looking to create a mass of cowed serfs who take their hats off and bow when their lords and masters pass by them.

        Using the legal process as an intimidation tool is just how the lawyers like it. We need tort reform now!
    • 9:34 MT, Chewplastic search engine

      System load levels indicate a network update is in progress, try back in 30 minutes.

      load levels, heheheh.

      SB

  • Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) * on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#6266893) Journal
    Dismissal [fissionwear.com]

    I don't think Jessee will mind a mirror of the settlement PDF.

    • Re:Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) * on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:50AM (#6267016) Journal
      The site is getting slashdotted, here's the post from his blog too:

      I have posted my Order of Dismissal (settlement) to the lawsuit filed against me by the RIAA. As stated in the settlement, I settled solely to avoid the costs of litigation. There is a very long story behind my settlement.

      I am truly appalled by the RIAA's unprofessional conduct in dealing with my case. A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a "dentist" that I would not want to "have another visit with". I will not be intimidated by the RIAA - they're just going to have to put up with me.

      The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN. Despite the $12,000 figure in my settlement, the other terms of the settlement were carefully negotiated over the course of several weeks.

      "My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement).

      It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech. On the surface, the RIAA claims to support the right to free speech - but only when it benefits their bottom line. When their victim speaks out against them, they step up the intimidation.

      They were so desperate to undo my dismissal that they were resorting to blatant lies. I have even been accused of tricking the RIAA into signing my dismissal.

      Unfortunately for the RIAA, their basis for undoing the dismissal was so ridiculous that the judge didn't even take up my offer to mediate with the RIAA over their issues with the dismissal - he decided to enter the agreement.

      A number of documents surrounding this issue will soon be published. For now, read my order of dismissal.

      • Re:Mirror (Score:5, Funny)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:51AM (#6267343) Journal
        The site is getting slashdotted...

        Right. The RIAA doesn't intend to sue him again, or really attempt to rescind the settlement. They're just going to keep doing things that result in /. stories, and kill the kid with bandwidth costs.

        How does it feel to be a puppet of the regime, everyone? ;)

  • I love America (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TripleA ( 232889 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#6266894) Homepage
    Keep in mind that it is companies like this, aggressive, immoral capitalists, that run the USA through their lobbying organisations. No wonder daddy's boy has also started his way to bullying the world into WW3.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:I love America (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dbrutus ( 71639 )
        Oh, no, N. Korea's an entirely different situation. Who are the Iraqi version of the S. Koreans? you know, the guys with more population, a hugely bigger economy, and right on the border with this lunatic nation of their co-ethnics?

        S. Korea, Japan, and the PRC could take apart N. Korea by themselves if they wanted to. But who was able to do it in Iraq's neighborhood and clean up the local bully? Iran? Please. They sacrificed a generation of their children to Iraqi gas and minefields. Saudia Arabia? ROFL! K

  • Jesse's Business Model (Score:4, Funny)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#6266899)
    1) Get sued for $12k
    2) People donate money
    3) Get sued again for $90b
    4) People donate hella money
    .
    .
    5) Profit?

  • Oooh scary. (Score:5, Funny)

    by paroneayea ( 642895 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:31AM (#6266901) Homepage
    A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'
    So wait a minute... dentists are supposed to be the ones working for you. So, it seems to me that he's saying he's not the kind of guy you'd want to hire twice. Nevertheless, his comment sounds a lot like this:
    Booga booga booga!

  • Search engine might be "back online," but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:32AM (#6266906) Homepage
    "06/19/03: The ChewPlastic Campus Search Engine is currently available to the public as a demonstration of the site as it was. NOTE: The files listed through the results on this site are fictitious - they DO NOT EXIST. This means that you cannot download them because they are fake computers on a fake network. While there is a small assortment of files listed in the search engine, they are not meant to represent the actual assortment of files available during the Search Engine's operation."

    Oh, how useful.

    • Re:Search engine might be "back online," but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @04:55PM (#6269239) Homepage
      Oh, how useful.

      Have you read the terms of use?

      Terms of Use: As of January 15, by using Phynd, you agree to have your shared (non-password protected) data indexed. Do not worry, if you do not wish to have your files indexed in Phynd, just add a password to your shares. Alternatively, if you would like to be removed from the database, please use the Feedback form and I will remove you within 24 hours.

      Bringing Phynd back up in "dummy mode" is a means of collecting permission to index people's files. His original case was severely prejudiced by the fact that he himself was sharing files. His case was weak because he did not get authorization to index people's files. And he did not provide a removal mechanism.

      I am going to seriously oversimplify the settment here and say that it pretty much says that he can't do anything illegal and that he can't knowingly facillitate illegal downloads. If the service goes live again I assume his will honor copyright holder requests for the removal of specific links to infringing files.

      This kid's got a huge set of balls flaunting his system in the RIAA's face. It all boils down to whether he got good legal advice or not. There is good reason to think the premise of the Phynd system is perfectly legal. With these minor changes he may be perfectly entitled to bring his system back up. If the RIAA tries anything he may in fact win a suit against the RIAA. Worst case the RIAA wins a hundred billion dollar suit against him and he files for bankruptcy. Not only does he have virtually nothing to lose, it would wipe out the three year $7000 debt he still owes to the RIAA. By suing and winning the RIAA could conceivably wind up getting LESS money from him than if they do nothing.

      -

  • A Dentist? (Score:3, Funny)

    by agentZ ( 210674 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:33AM (#6266915)
    A dentist? Like in Cryptonomicon? Uh oh...

  • The RIAA are legal terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:34AM (#6266918) Homepage
    These are the folks who ashcroft should be worrying about.

  • Where's teh EFF ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:36AM (#6266932)
    This seems right up their alley... this kid was running a general purpose search engine. It indexes everything it finds. It returns results. He made no money off of it. He was intimidated into settling, pure and simple.

    Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are google and alta vista immune from similar suits? Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the crap out of the RIAA.

    It's a travesty of justice. I wish one of the multi-letter organizations would help this guy.

    • Re:Where's teh EFF ? (Score:3, Informative)

      by yack0 ( 2832 )
      >Can I run a search engine now? Exactly HOW are
      >google and alta vista immune from similar suits?
      >Simple -- they can pay lawyers who could kick the
      >crap out of the RIAA.

      How? They can afford lawyers. College students can't. It's really quite as simple as that. Set the precedent in the court with someone unable to defend themselves and then you can start getting the bigger fish. The same thing happened with Divine, Inc. [divineintervention.us] . Thing is, Divine went Chap 11. So whoever buys their property will do it al
    • I'm not sure if the EFF and this guy have talked, but I can think of a few reasons why the two might avoid involvement: First, any time you go through litigation, there is a chance you'll lose, which could mean bankruptcy as well as loss of life savings. Second, the court already shot Napster down so it is kind of a touchy area.

      The question that would be raised at trial would be "What are most of the files being searched for?" In Google's case, it's probably sex or Britney Spears. In this guy's case it

  • hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:36AM (#6266934)
    If I read your dismissal action correctly, you are prohibited from trading/transmitting/etc/etc/ad nauseum any sort of copyrighted works via your phynd service.

    It also states that the "defendant shall not engage in or sell" software that encourages copying, trading, blah, blah, blah.

    How are you keeping your Phynd service up again(or are you just offering it for download)? Is it your contention that your software is intended to do nothing of the sort (ie. just a tool to be used for good OR evil)? That's the only loophole I can see in that document... anyone better with legalese than myself find something different?

    I'm a little confused here.
    • ...you are prohibited from trading/transmitting/etc/etc/ad nauseum any sort of copyrighted works via your phynd service...

      He isn't. [chewplastic.com]

    • Re:hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:31AM (#6267240)
      I think your pdf viewer automatically detects and removes the word "Plaintiff's". Because what you said is true if you insert "Plaintiff's".

      He is prohibited from trading/transmitting Plaintiff's copyrighted works.

      The defendant shall not engage in or sell software that encourages copying of Plaintiff's copyrighted works.

      He is obligated to implement measures which attempt to prevent the illegal copying of RIAA's (well their member company's) copyrighted materials. And if RIAA ever implements a system to prevent finding of this copyrighted material, he must implement it in his phynd service.

  • RIAA behaving like criminals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bani ( 467531 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:38AM (#6266948)
    ...well, the RIAA was caught price fixing, and settled rather than face conviction, so I guess it's only expected that they should behave like criminals :)

  • What an idiot (Score:5, Funny)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:39AM (#6266951) Journal
    It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal.

    Ha! Looks like you fools who donated could have saved yourself the trouble and made your donations straight to the RIAA.

  • the law sucks.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SystematicPsycho ( 456042 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:39AM (#6266952)
    What sucks about the legal system is that anyone can make something up and file a law suit against you, and if you don't have the funds to deal with and defend the allegation then you're screwed in court.

    The RIAA was probably looking to make an example out of this person(making examples out of people is what they love) and probably got unlucky with this guy. The best weapon that these guys _think they have against activity they don't like is a detterant (making examples out of people for fun and profit). They'll do it again at a time of their choosing, they've got the dough and the legal beagles to screw with you.

    Lawyers are like legal hitmen, give them enough money and they'll do anything you want - desperados, got to feed the family.

  • move the site (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:42AM (#6266966) Homepage
    Would not moving the site and the contents outside the US help avoid this or would the person still be responsbile?

    Rus

  • RIAA wants search engine down? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jakub_sad ( 530314 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:42AM (#6266968)
    The RIAA has nothing to worry about, Slashdot has taken care of it FREE OF CHARGE!

  • Just wait.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lysol ( 11150 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:43AM (#6266969)
    until Mary Bono - wife to the late Sonny Bono, who was the father of the blessed Copyright Extension Act - get's into office. Out with Hillary and in with Mary who called the RIAA her 'ideal job'.

    Jesus, what a family legacy..

    • "The artists" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:40AM (#6267289) Homepage
      What the have in common, also, is something that really pisses me off - they always invoke "the artist" and the artists rights when they pull this crap. The Sonny Bono act was touted as a victory for, exampled, Harold Lloyd, the silent film star whose films were going to go into public domain. He's been dead for years, but it was being treated as his victory because his grand-daughter would be able to restrict distribution of his old films, and make a profit on them.

      The idea that "the artist" - which is really a misnomer, since the term should be "whoever happens to own the rights to a work" - has some God-given right to perpetual profit from and control of their work - is untenenble. I certainly don't: I do my work for hire, and if I want more money, I have to do more work. But the Bonos and the RIAA and MPAA seem to think that an "artist's" granddaughter not having to work for a living is more important than an open society and a free discourse about the cultural works in it.

  • RIAA makes example of him... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... he makes example of RIAA, RIAA makes another example of him, blah blah blah. Why don't they just get it over with and have one of their labels sign him to a 3 album deal - that way they can fuck him whenever they want!

  • Pro Bono? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wbren ( 682133 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:44AM (#6266980) Homepage
    Isn't there any top lawyer who would take this case on for free? It seems like he could fight them if someone would step up and help him with legal needs. It also seems like a great publicity opportunity...

  • Community insurance ?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by teorem ( 256725 )
    So, he recovered 83% of his lost savings through donation.
    Good for him, nice of the donators !
    But I don't think we ("the community") will be able to support a lot of people in its situation.
    Does it mean that we (all of us) should find in our usual insurance contracts if they cover our responsibility wrt to our programming activities ?

  • Looks like Orrin Hatch blew up his box. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mordant ( 138460 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:49AM (#6267007)
    'Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88'

  • Page Generation: 95.88 Seconds (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:49AM (#6267011)


    Legal Issues: Order of Dismissal
    Saturday, June 21 @ 01:46:07 EDT by chew (96 reads)
    I have posted my Order of Dismissal (settlement) to the lawsuit filed against me by the RIAA. As stated in the settlement, I settled solely to avoid the costs of litigation. There is a very long story behind my settlement.

    I am truly appalled by the RIAA's unprofessional conduct in dealing with my case. A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a "dentist" that I would not want to "have another visit with". I will not be intimidated by the RIAA - they're just going to have to put up with me.

    The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN. Despite the $12,000 figure in my settlement, the other terms of the settlement were carefully negotiated over the course of several weeks.

    "My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement).

    It is time to call the RIAA to task on their clear hypocrisy on many issues. I am legally allowed to run my search engine - it is not forbidden by my dismissal. I have a first amendment right to free speech. On the surface, the RIAA claims to support the right to free speech - but only when it benefits their bottom line. When their victim speaks out against them, they step up the intimidation.

    They were so desperate to undo my dismissal that they were resorting to blatant lies. I have even been accused of tricking the RIAA into signing my dismissal.

    Unfortunately for the RIAA, their basis for undoing the dismissal was so ridiculous that the judge didn't even take up my offer to mediate with the RIAA over their issues with the dismissal - he decided to enter the agreement.

    A number of documents surrounding this issue will soon be published. For now, read my order of dismissal.

    http://jessej.chewplastic.com/dismissal.pdf

  • But no music (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Notice that the search engine makes you choose a file type, where mp3 is not one of them.

    Looks like he is obeying the settlement.

  • Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine (Score:5, Informative)

    by mrtaco01 ( 683619 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @09:59AM (#6267064)
    I am a reporter for the Washington Times and I interviewed Jesse Jordan on Friday night and he said, "I dont think they want me to run the site anymore, but we shall see about that.It's still a question I haven't really answered, I do plan to follow the agreement."

    He also explained the reason the Phynd search engine is "up" right now is so people can see how it worked and let people decided for themselves if he broke the law and so media members, like myself, can see how it worked and have a better idea of how to describe it in articles.

    • Re:Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine (Score:4, Funny)

      by ProfMoriarty ( 518631 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:15AM (#6267140) Journal
      You're right ... Jordan hasn't decided ...

      We have ...

      Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • So, at what point... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:14AM (#6267135) Homepage Journal

    Do our protests against the RIAA involve torches and pitchforks?

    I suppose I should be somewhat pleased that they've given up all pretense of rational public discourse. No one would consider their points valid in the context of a dentist comparison.

  • Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88

  • ??AA Needs nose thumped (Score:4, Insightful)

    by buss_error ( 142273 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:21AM (#6267173) Homepage Journal
    "The RIAA started yelling and tried to rescind my order of dismissal after they signed it because of comments that I made on CNN.", Jordan says on his site. "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'" It's obvious that RIAA is upset because now the object lesson of their terror campaign isn't projected the properly meek and submissive attitude to the world.

    Sounds like another SLAPP suit on the way.

    To those that are still buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, how does it feel to be part of the problem, jerk?
    To those that are not buying RIAA music or MPAA movies, feels good being a small part of the solution, doesn't it?

  • Donations (Score:5, Informative)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42@DALIosu.edu minus painter> on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:24AM (#6267190)
    It seems Jesse has recovered much of his life savings through donations. He has a paypal link on his site (unfortunately I can't give the link to you--it uses post). If you want to donate, go here [paypal.com], sign in/register, and send money to jordaj@rpi.edu

    One of the other college students sued by the RIAA, Daniel Peng, also has a paypal donation page [arbornet.org].

  • There's a whole lot of media I just do without.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dentar ( 6540 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @10:35AM (#6267264) Homepage Journal
    I don't even bother anymore. There's nothing on CD that I even WANT. I'm an old fart now, and don't much care for their content anymore.

    I also don't much care for CNN / MSNBC / Faux News, so I don't watch them anymore either. I've also quit watching clear channel stations.

    The news, and musical artists, are both manufactured now, nothing's real anymore.

    • > I don't even bother anymore. There's nothing on CD that I even WANT. I'm an old fart now, and don't much care for their content anymore.

      Exactly.

      "Everybody knows Rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact!"
      - Homer Jay Simpson

      Don't get yourself so worked up, grandpa. :)

  • Legal Ethics violation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bear_phillips ( 165929 ) * on Sunday June 22, 2003 @12:23PM (#6267770) Homepage
    "A very well-known top lawyer at the RIAA, while making threats of further legal actions, referred to himself as a 'dentist' that I would not want to 'have another visit with'"

    Could this be an ethics violation? Each state bar association has its own ethics rules. It could be possible that making threats like this, threating to rescind a lawsuit etc.., could be an ethics violation. Especially if it was done without any legal basis and only as a threat. It might be good to file an ethics complaint with that states bar. It might not get him punished, but it would probably be a thorn in his side.


    A law professor of mine was a US attorney. He said that when they had a case against a mafia figure, the mob attornyes would ALWAYS file an ethics complaint against the prosecutors. The complaints always proved false, but they would show that the mob was willing to fight hard and would sometimes shake up the government attorney. Having an ongoing ethics investigation could prevent an attorney from getting a new job, promotion etc.



    IANAL

  • What he said on CNN... (Score:5, Informative)

    by PetoskeyGuy ( 648788 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @01:08PM (#6267981)
    Click here for the Transcript [cnn.com]

  • This is proof of how sleazy the RIAA is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Sunday June 22, 2003 @02:52PM (#6268507)
    "My fundamental view is that people should not be able to walk away from a deal they've made.", says RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen in response to California issues over artist contracts. It would seem to follow that the RIAA should understand the concept of a legally binding agreement. If an artist signs a contract and then later decides that they don't like the terms of that contract, the labels should understand now because that is exactly what they did with my dismissal (my dismissal is a legally binding agreement)".

    This quote from his webpage says it all... The RIAA obeys the laws when it benefits them...and flouts them when it benefits THEM!. It's only too bad that they have such deep pockets with which to bribe Congress. Their arrogance will prove to be their undoing in the long run though. Only freaks like Orrin Hatch will be left once that happens..and frankly I think Hatch is so far out on the lunatic fringe that he's more a liability then an asset for them these days

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close