Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Courts

Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging 160

Posted by kdawson from the out-of-the-kitchen-with-you dept.
xander_zone_xxx writes with news that Ray Beckerman, known around here as NewYorkCountryLawyer, was not a "vexatious" litigant, as the RIAA claimed. In the same ruling the judge dismissed Beckerman's counter-claims against the RIAA. (We discussed the claims and counters a year back.) "An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn't cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions. Attorney Ray Beckerman was 'less than forthcoming at times' in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging More

Judge Won't Punish Lawyer For Anti-RIAA Blogging

Comments Filter:

  • vexatious litigant? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @01:59PM (#29734471)

    I guess the RIAA were thinking it takes one to know one.

  • I am shocked! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @02:01PM (#29734497)
    the music industry's concerns were 'largely overstated,' What?!? RIAA lawyers exagerating? That is certainly a first!

  • Wow, freedom of expression? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @02:05PM (#29734577)

    I must have missed this one. The RIAA really requested monetary sanctions for a piracy defense lawyer who blogged about disliking the RIAA?

    Holy shit, recording industry, this is getting out of control. You're supposed to be evil but it's supposed to be Disney evil or James Bond villain evil. This is closer to frothing tyrannical dictator evil.

  • Layman's terminology? (Score:5, Funny)

    by NoYob ( 1630681 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @02:10PM (#29734645)
    FTFA:

    “I’m gratified that the motion was denied. It was based on gross misstatements of fact. I would have preferred for the judge’s language to be stronger. But the result is the same,” Beckerman said during a brief telephone interview.

    I see. So in layman's terms, "gross misstatements of fact" means - "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

  • Re:vexatious litigant? (Score:4, Funny)

    by DarthVain ( 724186 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @02:55PM (#29735159)

    lol!

    Ya, way to cheapen extortion! Whenever I hear about this stuff, I always think about these guys as mafia, selling "protection"...

    "Hey momma mia, myself and my two esteemed compatriots here are part of the firm "Knuckles, Icepick, and Hammer", capiche?"

    "Youse gotta pay us 5g's now, or we be coming back, and den we might not be so reasonable... mabbe den we take all you money..."

    "So do the smart thing and just give us the money, OK?"

    Demeans the integirty of judicial proceedings? What a joke.

  • Re:vexatious litigant? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @07:51PM (#29739203)

    Or have I?

Slashdot Top Deals

It's great to be smart 'cause then you know stuff.

Close