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


Forgot your password?

Comment Can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion (Score 2) 49

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?

Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please :)

Comment Re:That's a new one... (Score 1) 49

Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.

It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.

Submission + - YouTube wins again 3

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: Once again YouTube has defeated Viacom and other members of the content cartel; once again the Court has held that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act actually does mean what it says. YouTube had won the case earlier, at the district court level, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, although ruling in YouTube's favor on all of the general principles at stake, felt that there were several factual issues involving some of the videos and remanded to the lower court for a cleanup of those loose ends. Now, the lower court — Judge Louis L. Stanton to be exact — has resolved all of the remaining issues in YouTube's favor, in a 24-page opinion. Among other things Judge Stanton concluded that YouTube had not had knowledge or awareness of any specific infringement, been 'willfully blind' to any specific infringement, induced its users to commit copyright infringement, interacted with its users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their infringements, or manually selected or delivered videos to its syndication partners. Nevertheless, 5 will get you 10 that the content maximalists will appeal once again.

Submission + - Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal (

sarysa writes: The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: "Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000."

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 229

But does it really take that much work? Why do you even need such a huge number of lawyers for what appears to be a pretty simple case?

As I said, the judiciary has a number of rules, and engages in many practices, which make the cost of lawyering more expensive than it needs to be. I could write a book on the subject.

No it doesn't need as many hours of legal work as most big firms put into a case, which is why a good small firm like mine is wildly more efficient than the big firms, and can beat much bigger firms day in and day out. But under the rules and practices in place, it's still an unnecessarily expensive undertaking to litigate.

I don't make the rules; but I have to live with them in my daily life.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 229

I just honestly don't understand where all the money goes.

The money goes to pay lawyers. With expensive cases, these days it's usually large teams of clones run by large, usually multistate, often multinational, law firms. The judiciary has a number of rules and engage in a number of practices which are based on the assumption that the parties have endless means with which to pay lawyers, and which benefit the large law firms and the wealthier clients who can afford them. So the real fault is with the judiciary.

Woe betide the client with limited means, and woe betide the small law firms that get caught up in these affairs if their clients don't have that kind of dough. My small law firm can kick the butt of any large law firm, but only if we have a client that can afford to pay the bills.

Comment Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means (Score 1) 229

Ideals like, it's ok to make treaties with other nations and then break them. It's ok to invade and steal someone else's land. It's ok to have colonies and empire, so long as you don't call them that. It's ok for big business to hire thugs to shoot workers who just want a fair deal. Yeah, the USA is exceptional alright.

Hey have you been reading about our actual history? Don't you know that's not permitted.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees