Slashdot Log In
RIAA Not Done With Jesse Jordan
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jun 22, 2003 09:24 AM
from the billion-dollar-organization-vs-kid dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 488 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.madtasty.com/)
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Fair is fair (Score:5, Funny)
(http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/tororg.html)
Great, organized crime on both sides of the fight, that would be interesting.
No new CDs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No new CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://antiwar.com/)
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)
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.
Dentist... how appropriate (Score:5, Funny)
Mafia (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and strategically placed "campaign contributions".
If that bit about "visiting the dentist" is accurate, I hope he gets his teeth knocked out in some unfortunate freak accident with a ballpeen hammer.
Re:Mafia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mafia (Score:5, Funny)
(http://redhog.org/)
Re:Dentist... how appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zserf.com/)
Dentist? More like Proctologist! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday August 28, @07:41PM)
It is time for a major BOYCOTT (Score:4, Insightful)
From Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 20 2002, @01:58PM)
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:4, Interesting)
> 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:5, Interesting)
(http://theunresolvingurl.com/)
Ever bought a CD-R?
Re:From Slashdot? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 15 2003, @05:16PM)
"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)
(http://libtom.org/)
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
thr0d ps1t (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:thr0d ps1t (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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)
Apparently, that is not correct, as it says the following on the search engine's website [chewplastic.com] (also linked in the article):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)
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.
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday June 30, @01:22AM)
I don't think Jessee will mind a mirror of the settlement PDF.
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday June 30, @01:22AM)
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)
(Last Journal: Sunday June 08 2003, @10:05PM)
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)
(http://bigpage.netfirms.com/)
Jesse's Business Model (Score:4, Funny)
2) People donate money
3) Get sued again for $90b
4) People donate hella money
.
.
5) Profit?
Oooh scary. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.lingocomic.com/)
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)
(http://www.madtasty.com/)
Oh, how useful.
Re:Search engine might be "back online," but... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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)
The RIAA are legal terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://anti-dmca.org/)
Re:The RIAA are legal terrorists (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/)
Where's teh EFF ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday June 30, @01:22AM)
If you want to set a precedent, you have to sue someone who can afford to appeal it up to a pretty high level, since precedent is mostly set with appellate court opinions.
Re:Where's teh EFF ? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it can definitely see the size of your wallet. The problem it has is seeing what counts as justice.
Just because it's only a search engine doesn't exempt it from the fact its primary use was to find and distribute copyrighted materials. The reason google and alta vista are immune is they're searches are not primarily used for illegal purposes.
Bullshit. The law doesn't distinguish what something is 'primarily' used for. If something has a legitimate use, then it's perfectly legal. The primary use of cigarette papers is probably to roll joints these days, but because they can be used to make hand-rolled cigarettes, they aren't illegal. Similarly, look at the recent Californian decision over Kazaa. Kazaa is unquestionably primarily used to download warez, mpegs and mp3's, but because it can have other legitimate uses, their defence against the RIAA prevailed.
As I recall, most states require a permit to own a lockpick.
If so, it's because they've passed a law requiring such. Point us to an equivalent law outlawing the use of search engines...
hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
What an idiot (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 26 2002, @05:46PM)
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)
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.
RTFA and the previous one, and the.... (Score:5, Informative)
The guy was not violating any copyrights....
He's running a search engin, remember?He is NOT, repeat, NOT, hosting the files. Talking about search engins, there's one you should know about.... it's here [google.com].... Oh wait.... If you search for ANYKNOWNARTIST.mp3... there's a 25% chance that the robot has indexed a page with a link to the file... Well, damn those criminals, lets sue them....
As stated in a post above, the RIAA have exactly the same legal right to go after Altavista, Google or whatever.
move the site (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.a2b2.com/)
Rus
RIAA wants search engine down? (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait.. (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus, what a family legacy..
"The artists" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://localhost/)
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.
Pro Bono? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://unugunu.blogspot.com/)
Looks like Orrin Hatch blew up his box. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.hegemonist.com/)
Page Generation: 95.88 Seconds (Score:3, Informative)
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
Jordan hasn't decided fate of search engine (Score:5, Informative)
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)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 11 2002, @01:20AM)
We have ...
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: message_die() in /opt/chewplastic/htdocs/db/db.php on line 88
So, at what point... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 05 2006, @10:36PM)
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.
??AA Needs nose thumped (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.apnic.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 13 2002, @11:02AM)
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)
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)
(http://www.dentar.com | Last Journal: Tuesday February 11 2003, @11:00PM)
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.
Re:RIAA.org (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.loosewire.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 19 2003, @05:23PM)
- thats how it would be if i had a news channel
Legal Ethics violation (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.windmeadow.com/)
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)
This is proof of how sleazy the RIAA is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Double Jeopardy (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:double offences (Score:3, Informative)
More to the point, double jeopardy does not apply to civil cases between litigants. It only applies to criminal cases.
Money can be argued over forever.
KFG