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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Okay [sounds like a decent result] (Score 3, Informative) 267

Christoph, well done overall and I'm certainly on your side with respect to the copyright issue, but your position on the lawyers doesn't hold up as well.

Attempting to quash a subpoena is almost standard procedure. Under precisely what law is that "willful ignorance"?

Your response mixes together what the other party knew and did and what his lawyers knew and did. It also mixes together the court's findings-of-fact with what the lawyers knew, should have known, were told, and were required to do. Moreover, you are simply wrong about what the lawyers' responsibility was. Lawyers need not have "personal knowledge" of the facts claimed to be true. They need only believe the facts claimed to be true based on information from the client. We could certainly argue about whether that's good public policy, but that's the way it is. And finding out midway that the client's story may be false does not necessarily equate to malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

Comment Re:Okay [sounds like a decent result] (Score 5, Interesting) 267

Looks like the OP settled with the non-lawyers early on the MP claims. What result there?

As for the lawyers, the sole piece of evidence the OP seems to have presented that the lawyers knew their clients were lying is a late-October 2007 note. This note was written well after the trial commenced. It doesn't indicate that the lawyers knew or had reason to know from jump-street that the clients were lying. It indicates only (if anything) that perhaps they were not aggressive enough in doing fact investigation or in terminating the litigation already underway.

Am I missing something? If not, the courts' decisions appear to be decent.
The Almighty Buck

Digital Fundraising Booms For Haiti Relief 124

It seems that a recent digital fundraising drive for Haiti relief has stunned organizers at the Red Cross and White House. As of the last tally on Friday the campaign was at well over $8 million. "Earlier Thursday, when the Red Cross topped $3 million in text and social media donations — it hit nearly $40 million from all sources by late Thursday — spokesman Jonathan Aiken described it as 'a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before. People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop,' Aiken said. 'You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, "I can spare $10 for this." And that's remarkable.' As of late Thursday, more than half of all donations to the Red Cross's Haiti relief effort had been received online, according to a news release.
The Courts

In UK, Oink Admin Cleared of Fraud 156

krou writes "The BBC is reporting that Alan Ellis, who ran music file sharing site Oink from his flat in the UK, has been found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Between 2004 and 2007, the site 'facilitated the download of 21 million music files' by allowing its some 200,000 'members to find other people on the web who were prepared to share files.' Ellis was making £18,000 a month ($34,600) from donations from users, and claimed that he had no intention of defrauding copyright holders, and said 'All I do is really like Google, to really provide a connection between people. None of the music is on my website.'" Reader Andorin recommends Torrentfreak's coverage, which includes summaries of the closing arguments.

Tower Switch-Off Embarrasses Electrosensitives 292

Sockatume writes "Residents in Craigavon, South Africa complained of '[h]eadaches, nausea, tinnitus, dry burning itchy skins, gastric imbalances and totally disrupted sleep patterns' after an iBurst communications tower was put up in a local park. Symptoms subsided when the residents left the area, often to stay with family and thus evade their suffering. At a public meeting with the afflicted locals, the tower's owners pledged to switch off the mast immediately to assess whether it was responsible for their ailments. One problem: the mast had already been switched off for six weeks. Lawyers representing the locals say their case against iBurst will continue on other grounds."
The Courts

Antitrust Case Against RIAA Reinstated 163

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment was dismissed at the District Court level, the antitrust class action against the RIAA has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF), the Appeals court held the following allegations sufficiently allege antitrust violations: 'First, defendants agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs. Second, none of the defendants dramatically reduced their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music. Third, when defendants began to sell Internet Music through entities they did not own or control, they maintained the same unreasonably high prices and DRMs as MusicNet itself. Fourth, defendants used MFNs [most favored nation clauses] in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the MFN received terms no less favorable than terms offered to other licensors. For example, both EMI and UMG used MFN clauses in their licensing agreements with MusicNet. Fifth, defendants used the MFNs to enforce a wholesale price floor of about 70 cents per song. Sixth, all defendants refuse to do business with eMusic, the #2 Internet Music retailer. Seventh, in or about May 2005, all defendants raised wholesale prices from about $0.65 per song to $0.70 per song. This price increase was enforced by MFNs.'"

Comment A new workforce surveillance device? (Score 1) 300

I guess "Thinking Different" means using child- and forced-labor sweatshops to produce hot gear? Excellent! I can't wait to rush out and buy several pairs, so eager to line Phil Knight's pockets! Better still, Nike can soon use the Nike+ wireless transmitters to monitor the motion of the 5-year-olds manufacturing the shoes, and get the bosses over to the slackers for a flogging that much faster. This will mean increased productivity -- no price drop, but Nike's profits will increase! Yay!

Slashdot Top Deals

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!