Comment: Those who cannot remember the past... (Score 4, Insightful) 759
...are condemned to repeat it.
Past tyrants are, I'm sure, cheering from the grave.
Comment: Funny how it's always corporations' fault (Score 3, Insightful) 92
The old jokes about $500 hammers notwithstanding, it's amusing to me how corporations are almost universally blamed when government contracts overrun. Nobody seems to notice that it's only government contracts that do this regularly -- normal companies that do this go out of business or into bankruptcy.
Back here in the real world, we call this piss-poor planning, usually traced back to marketing/sales causing constant feature creep or declaring ex post facto that a certain spec (that THEY WROTE!) doesn't meet customer/program demands.
I wonder, has anyone ever seen a post-mortem review of a government contract? Does government ever even attempt to figure out where the inefficiencies lie and correct them or at least plan for them next round?
Also, in before the NASA boogeyman shows up.
Amanda Palmer raises $1M from fans for her album-> 1
Submitted
by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The music industry will never be the same. Singer Amanda Palmer (@amandapalmer on Twitter), has just raised over $1,000,000 directly from her fans, through Twitter and other social media, to mix, promote, and distribute her new album. Armed only with a Kickstarter page, social media accounts, and a lot of friends, she has just liberated a lot of musicians from the tyranny of having to 'sign' with a big studio. I predict music business historians will be writing about this day for years to come. The "big 4" record companies just got a lot smaller."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Comment: Re:Transration to Engrish (Score 1) 126
You're just saying that because I get your sense of humor.
So your post is now at "0", up from "-1"?
I'm grad.
And may I say that I don't want you to be at the bottom of the ocean, either, at least until it's your time :)
So your post is now at "0", up from "-1"?
I'm grad.
And may I say that I don't want you to be at the bottom of the ocean, either, at least until it's your time
Comment: Re:So what you're saying here... (Score 1) 126
Right. Now it remains to be seen whether the Judge is going to call Verizon in on the carpet. If I were the Judge, I surely would be doing that, but I haven't seen any hint of that in the Court's orders.
So far.
So far.
Comment: Re:Deadline (Score 1) 126
None of the procedures you described are applicable in this court.
Comment: Re:Deadline (Score 1) 126
Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.
It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
Comment: Re:Time frame to comply (Score 1) 126
I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....
Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.
Comment: Re:huh? (Score 1) 126
If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?
It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.
Comment: Re:So what you're saying here... (Score 1) 126
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?
He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.
And why were they able to file a motion to quash?
Why not?
Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?
Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified by Verizon that it would be turned over on May 12th unless he filed a motion to quash.
Do we know if Verizon knew of the motion to quash?
I don't know for sure if Verizon knew, but it is hard to imagine any set of circumstances under which it did not know. If it did not know, then plaintiff's counsel acted in an extremely inappropriate manner. But it is much more likely that Verizon did know.
Do we know if Verizon knew that the pro se litigant even existed and had the right to file a motion to quash?
Yes it absolutely knew that. It sent him or her a letter telling him or her that it would reveal his or her identity in response to the subpoena on May 12th.