RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics. The request came in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf)"

Cornered

[psued0ch]

The RIAA is a cornered beast that is under increasing scrutiny, of course it will react like this in response to a federal case. Not to mention it is a profit-hungry corporation just like all the rest.

Sur-replies?

[mbstone]

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?

Re:Cornered

[ScrewMaster]

I wouldn't say they're cornered, exactly, but there does appear to be a rising tide of awareness among the judiciary of the RIAA's tactics. Doesn't seem like they're getting rubberstamped as often as they use to be.

Re:Sur-replies?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?

Good question. No they do not.

However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.

The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).

I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com]. Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.

Read it, read it all

[cdrguru]

The question that I haven't seen anyone pose yet is if the claims by the RIAA attorneys are valid. Is it permitted under Oregon rules to raise the items that were raised in the University's reply? Are the seven different points all just meaningless drivel or is there something real there?

I don't know. It does not seem to be completely without merit and the University's reply seems to contain a bunch of material that is utterly irrelevalent. Certainly when arguing for the quashing of discovery bringing up opinions about what the plantiff's motivations may or may not be is not relevant to the issue at hand. Implying (or stating) that the plantiff is "spying" on the Does hardly seems to be on point in such a reply either.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

[Symbolis]

...and I just spent the last of my mod points earlier. :( Someone mod this one for me?

Re:Pfff

[jamstar7]

I'm getting tired of articles about the RIAA. But I also keep being amazed about how an organization can be that clueless and detached from the real world.

As long as they have the legal fees they'll be in business. They're in this for the quick buck and to build enough precedents to haul in front of their bought and paid for Congresscritters to show that 'there is a serious problem and something must be done'. Their solution of course is to buy legislation to loot anybody they can target, with the taxpayer footing the bill. After all, it's cheaper for them to have the government do their dirty work and just cash the checks.

And no, they're not clueless, they're actually looking down the road a couple years to perpetual copyright, elimination of fair use, and all kinds of other nasty things that'll assure them of income whether they have a product worth buying or not.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

[rts008]

Thanks for the thought, but I cannot seem to harm my Karma on /., so I don't really worry about mod points.

Thank /. for the 'preview' button! wow!

I don't know that I really expressed myself well above. The last part seemed too cavalier for what I intended.

I don't try too much to pay attention to the mod's to my replies, as it doesn't seem to make much difference to my Karma. Perhaps I inadvertently balance the good, the bad, and the fuggly in my replies after reaching the "Excellent Karma" rating I have. Sometimes I can be rather an asshat- especially when I've been drinking. (which is frequent- I like to relax with some good beer after getting off work at 2300 hrs.--if you doubt this, just enter my user name and "slashdot" in Google search!- and yes, I am most of my way through a sixpack of Guinness Extra Stout right this moment)

As far as Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawer) goes, I meant every word I typed. I have made him one of my (few) /. 'friends' for several reasons:
1. As a 'friend', his posts are "+" rated so that I can see them at my current settings. He always has something to say that is worth listening to whether you agree with him or not.
2. I admire and respect his work on our behalf. (not just the /. crowd, but media lovers everywhere) and envy his saeemingly superpower energy to juggle all the things he is doing! He even takes the time to keep us here up to date, and gives us his insider type insight without crossing the line of trying to lawyer or preach to us.
3. He backs his play in real life- 'puts his money where his mouth is'. Yes, I'm sure he is a successful attorney in the usual parameters, but he is one of the few who 'dare go where eagles fear to tread'(bad paraphrase).
4.?????
5. Profit!!! (Sorry, this IS /. after all!)

This post brought to you by an idiot powered by Guinness!!!

"Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"

"Huh? What? Damn, thought I was pissing on my own shrubs...sorry neighbor! I'll just go home now."

"Er, uh, could you point me towards my house? Most obliged!" *staggers off*

Re:Cornered

[ScrewMaster]

Not really, these are just lawyers hired to do a job ... win or lose, they get paid. The only thing that probably makes the RIAA's upper management nervous is when the studios (who, after all, are the outfits that fund the RIAA and sister organizations around the world to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year) finally start to see the RIAA as being irrelevant. Or worse, as a liability. That's already happening: one of the big boys already announced that it would cut its share of funding to the RIAA. Hopefully the rest will follow suit.

Re:So not a lawyer...

[Fnord666]

The party that asked the court to do something generally cannot add new arguments into the reply memorandum. That party may reaffirm its original arguments or try to shoot holes in the opposing party's arguments, but new arguments are generally not allowed. The reason for this is that the opposing party no longer has an opportunity to respond to arguments before the court makes a decision.

There is a way for the second party to file a reply to the new arguments. It is called a surreply and the RIAA has done so as well. This allows them to address the new arguments in case the judge choses to allow the first party's reply. Without that they give the first party an opportunity to enter something uncontested nto the record.
IANAL so I wonder whether it would be better tactics to request and file a surreply just in case, or to use the new arguments issue as a possible basis for appeal later?

Don't outsource, get it for free( was Re:Right...)

[sowth]

Why even pay anyone when there are plenty of musicians willing to do it for free. Just look around the internet. They are not hard to find. Yeah, a lot of it sounds amateurish and crappy, but that is because they have no budget and have crappy equipment.

If you want a "solution", why not create a site to help people find these musicians, and also a system to get them some decent equipment--maybe a donation system which sends new equipment to the most popular musicians. Maybe have free music studios available. ...then again I swear this sounds familiar...has this been done already?

At any rate, creating music is a social activity which the music "industry" has caused to degenerate into a passive activity. It used to be that common people would write / perform music to send a message or just to socialize with people. Why can't it be that way again?

Re:FAGGOTS

[ScrewMaster]

Ray, I've known a lot of attorneys over the years, worked for a few, hired a few, have lawyers in my family (you might even have heard of one of them), number them among my friends ... and the ones that have delved into this business to any degree are uniformly aghast at the RIAA's activities. I mean, regardless of whether they agree with what the RIAA is trying to do, the lack of professionalism and disrespect for the courts just leaves them shaking their heads.

I've read most of what you've written on your blog, and of course have spent too much time here on Slashdot, but as an engineer I know my understanding of what is going on here is shallow at best. I just don't have the background to fully grasp why, from a legal perspective, their tactics are so wrong. However, those I know who do have such knowledge of the law take a very dim view of these proceedings. Frankly, the RIAA's legal staff seems to have garnered about as much respect among real attorneys as the mob.

That tells me a lot.

Re:FAGGOTS

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray, I've known a lot of attorneys over the years, worked for a few, hired a few, have lawyers in my family (you might even have heard of one of them), number them among my friends ... and the ones that have delved into this business to any degree are uniformly aghast at the RIAA's activities. I mean, regardless of whether they agree with what the RIAA is trying to do, the lack of professionalism and disrespect for the courts just leaves them shaking their heads. I've read most of what you've written on your blog, and of course have spent too much time here on Slashdot, but as an engineer I know my understanding of what is going on here is shallow at best. I just don't have the background to fully grasp why, from a legal perspective, their tactics are so wrong. However, those I know who do have such knowledge of the law take a very dim view of these proceedings. Frankly, the RIAA's legal staff seems to have garnered about as much respect among real attorneys as the mob. That tells me a lot.

When these lawyers lose the RIAA as a client, they're going to have a hard time finding honest work. Every real lawyer I know has had the same reaction you're describing. They are a laughingstock in the profession of which they pretend to be members.