A blow to someone's fantasy plans
Krus T. Olfard
universities do not have to reveal the identities of two students accused
of sharing copyrighted music on the Internet.
The music industry trade group, the Recording Industry Association of
America, filed subpoenas in November 2003 asking for help identifying a
North Carolina State University student who used the name "CadillacMan" and
a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student who used the name
"hulk." The students allegedly file-swapped songs using the universities'
computer systems.
Both schools initially were willing to cooperate, but later joined
attorneys for the students in opposing the request, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Russell A. Eliason wrote in his order, which was filed earlier this month.
An attorney representing "Jane Doe," the University of North Carolina
student, said he was not concerned about allegations of music piracy but
whether identifying her would violate privacy rights.
"We would never condone music piracy," attorney Michael Kornbluth said.
"What we're interested in is the rights of the individual - privacy rights
being protected."
University of North Carolina administrators were pleased with the order but
do not condone students' downloading copyrighted information, school
spokeswoman Lisa Katz said.
---------------------------------------------
Gosh!
What's he gonna do now?
--
KTO
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Ray Gordon
Key words.
Ray Gordon
> universities do not have to reveal the identities of two students accused
> of sharing copyrighted music on the Internet.
>
>
> What's he gonna do now?
How is this even relevant to my cases?
The RIAA files DMCA subpoenas, which don't require a case #. If they filed
a John Doe lawsuit, they could get the names.
In my refiling, I have the names and addresses of all initial Defendants,
save one, and in that case I have an address and a pseudonym.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
User3247
> The RIAA files DMCA subpoenas, which don't require a case #. If they
> filed a John Doe lawsuit, they could get the names.
The RIAA is represented by several top-end lawyers who graduated from the
finest law schools in the country. THEY know that they couldn't get the
names by filing a John Doe lawsuit, or they would have done so.
You, Ray, are NOT A LAWYER. Your attempt at finding people by filing John
Doe lawsuits have failed in the past. One of them even prompted a federal
judge to tell you that you are "ostensibly neither an attorney nor well-
versed in the law and procedure involved in the pursuit of his claim...".
Seriously, Ray. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you
spout insane comments like the one above?
Ray Gordon
>> filed a John Doe lawsuit, they could get the names.
>
> The RIAA is represented by several top-end lawyers who graduated from the
> finest law schools in the country. THEY know that they couldn't get the
> names by filing a John Doe lawsuit, or they would have done so.
Wrong. Doing so is more expensive, and as the RIAA has pointed out, the
odds of a settlement are much lower once they file. What will happen now is
that they will file John Doe lawsuits, and the pirates will realize that
instead of a settlement offer, the RIAA will be going after $150,000 in
statutory damages per song.
> You, Ray, are NOT A LAWYER. Your attempt at finding people by filing John
> Doe lawsuits have failed in the past. One of them even prompted a federal
> judge to tell you that you are "ostensibly neither an attorney nor well-
> versed in the law and procedure involved in the pursuit of his claim...".
>
> Seriously, Ray. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you
> spout insane comments like the one above?
Should anyone that I'm suring who is reading this put any credence in what
you write? Of course not.
User3247
> Should anyone that I'm suring who is reading this put any credence in
> what you write? Of course not.
First off, it's "suing" not "suring", Mr. Expert Typist. Secondly, you just
broke another irony meter. You've been "suring" people for years, and have
yet to actually SUCCESSFULLY get a settlement in your favor. With a track
record like yours, do you think anyone will put any credence in what YOU
write? Of course not.
Ray Gordon
>> what you write? Of course not.
>
> First off, it's "suing" not "suring", Mr. Expert Typist. Secondly, you
> just
> broke another irony meter. You've been "suring" people for years, and have
> yet to actually SUCCESSFULLY get a settlement in your favor.
Settlements usually carry confidentiality clauses, so you wouldn't know.
There are two cases I settled that have no such requirements. One was
against an employment agency two years ago, in fact.
>With a track
> record like yours, do you think anyone will put any credence in what YOU
> write? Of course not.
Each case is a separate entity, as anyone competent would tell you.
Aardvark
Ray Gordon wrote:
>>>Should anyone that I'm suring who is reading this put any credence in
>>>what you write? Of course not.
>>
>>First off, it's "suing" not "suring", Mr. Expert Typist. Secondly, you
>>just
>>broke another irony meter. You've been "suring" people for years, and have
>>yet to actually SUCCESSFULLY get a settlement in your favor.
>
>
> Settlements usually carry confidentiality clauses, so you wouldn't know.
>
> There are two cases I settled that have no such requirements. One was
> against an employment agency two years ago, in fact.
and as usual, everyone here is expected to just take your word that any
of this actually happened. why would anyone just take the word of one of
the biggest liars on usenet?
>>With a track
>>record like yours, do you think anyone will put any credence in what YOU
>>write? Of course not.
>
>
> Each case is a separate entity, as anyone competent would tell you.
if you were competent you might tell someone something. since you're not
fit to even comment on competency at all, ever, you'd be wise to clam
up about such things unless you adore being embarrassed on a daily basis.
go "sur" yourself, fathead. when you're done with that...
shut up, stupid.
aardvark
JJTj
>Each case is a separate entity, as anyone competent would tell you.
>>>>I already have a laywer who has won a big defamation case in MA willing to
>>>>take a free look at my file concerning you. Now I just have one more page
>>>>to fax him.
"..Tell us all again about this
'lawyer' in MASS you have ready
to sue me? Is there a reason WHY
you won't name 'him (her?)' BESIDES
the reason there ISN't any lawyer and
it's just you spewing another cowardly,
impotent threat..? Just WHAT is stopping U..?.."
I'm all ready to call him/her NOW..
Tell us again, coward, why you are too scared to
provide this person's name? You stated you have
spoken\fax'ed this person about me, yet you cannot
NAME this person. You have my contact INFO, I have
posted it here..tell the world, child molester...
Alex
r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 4/27/05 11:20 PM:
>> RALEIGH, N.C. - A federal magistrate has ruled that two North Carolina
>> universities do not have to reveal the identities of two students accused
>> of sharing copyrighted music on the Internet.
>>
>> Gosh!
>>
>> What's he gonna do now?
>
> How is this even relevant to my cases?
>
> The RIAA files DMCA subpoenas, which don't require a case #. If they filed
> a John Doe lawsuit, they could get the names.
>
> In my refiling, I have the names and addresses of all initial Defendants,
> save one, and in that case I have an address and a pseudonym.
>
So what's my name and address?
The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
> So what's my name and address?
>
That's easy : Akauf Mann!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Krus T. Olfard
On 28-Apr-2005, "Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> Settlements usually carry confidentiality clauses, so you wouldn't know.
Ah yes, the famous 'get away with lying about my success' clause that you
love to spout when challenged.
I don't believe you. Since I KNOW that you have posted grievous and
injurious lies about me I have no problem at all in believing that
everything you post without verifiable evidence provided is a lie.
--
Everything in this message is simply my opinion.
If you don't like my opinions then killfile me.
Yeah, that means YOU!
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access