RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 PM
from the maybe-they'll-go-back-to-a-real-business dept.
from the maybe-they'll-go-back-to-a-real-business dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's juggernaut against colleges, started in February of this year, seems to be having a bumpier and bumpier ride. The normal game is to call for a subpoena, to get the name and address of the students or staff who might have used a certain IP address. The normal game seems to be getting disrupted here and there. A Virginia judge threw the RIAA's motion out the window, saying that it was not entitled to such discovery, in a case against students at the College of William & Mary. A New Mexico judge denied the application on the ground that there was no reason for it to be so secretive, in a case involving University of New Mexico students. He ultimately required the RIAA to serve a full set of all of the underlying papers, for each 'John Doe' named, and to give the students 40 days in which to review the papers with counsel, and make a motion to quash if they chose to do so. In a stunning development, the Attorney General of the State of Oregon made a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena on behalf of the University of Oregon, on grounds which are fully applicable to every case the RIAA has brought to date: the lack of scientific validity to the RIAA's "identification" evidence. The motion is pending as of this writing. Students have themselves made motions to vacate the RIAA's ex parte orders and/or quash subpoenas in over half a dozen cases. Much combat remains, but the RIAA's campaign is no longer a hot knife cutting through butter on the nation's campuses."
Related Stories
[+]
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA 241 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The University of Oregon has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena for information on student identities in what is believed to be the first such motion made by a university with support from the state Attorney General. The motion (pdf) explains that it is impossible to identify the alleged infringers from the information the RIAA has presented: 'Five of the seventeen John Does accessed the content in question from double occupancy dorm rooms at the University. With regard to these Does, the University is able to identify only the room where the content was accessed and whether or not the computer used was a Macintosh or a PC ... The University cannot determine whether the content in question accessed by one occupant as opposed to another, or whether it was accessed instead by a visitor.' The AG's motion further argues (pdf) that "Plaintiffs' subpoena is unduly burdensome and overbroad. It seeks information that the University does not readily possess. In order to attempt to comply with the subpoena, the University would be forced to undertake an investigation to create discovery for Plaintiffs — an obligation not imposed by Rule 45. As the University is unable to identify the alleged infringers with any accuracy, it cannot comply with its federal obligation to notify students potentially affected by the subpoena. One commentator has likened the AG's argument to saying, in effect, that the RIAA's evidence is 'rubbish'."
[+]
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case 104 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'bumpy ride' in its 'ex parte' litigation campaign against college students just got a whole lot bumpier. After reading the motion to quash filed by a George Washington University student, the Judge took it upon herself to issue an order to show cause. The order now requires the plaintiffs to show cause, no later than November 29th, why the ex parte order she'd signed at the RIAA's request should not be vacated. She's also requested information showing why her ruling should not be applicable not only to John Doe #3, but to all the other John Does as well. p2pnet called this a 'potentially huge setback' for the recording companies."
[+]
Copyright Lobbies Threaten Federal College Funding 277 comments
plasmacutter writes "The EFF is raising the alarm regarding provisions injected into a bill to renew federal funding for universities. These new provisions call for institutions of higher learning to filter their internet connections and twist student's arms over 'approved' digital media distribution services. 'Under said provision: Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable — (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity. Similar provisions in last year's bill did not survive committee, it appears however that this bill is headed toward the full house for vote.' Responding to recriminations over this threat to university funding, an MPAA representative claims federal funds should be at risk when copyright infringement happens on campus networks." We've previously discussed this topic, as well as similar issues.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Excellent (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
If you looked at the cases, you'll notice a common thread is using ex parte motions to get things done, which I hope someone can fill me in more about cause the wiki page seems very light on details, but it seems the judges don't seem to think this is enough.
These cases aren't being tossed out, they're going back to the RIAA and saying 'do more legwork.'
Re:Excellent - Ex Parte described!!! (Score:5, Informative)
1: The RIAA claims that because they don't know who their Doe defendants are until after they have conducted discovery (meaning that they get the ISP under court order to reveal which subscriber was assigned a specified TCP/IP address at a given time), that they cannot serve them with papers and allow them to participate in the court proceedings.
2: The RIAA claims a need for Expedited Discovery (they get it right away, rather than waiting through hearings of whether they're actually entitiled to it, or not) on the claim that ISP server logs are only kept for limited periods of time, and if they don't get it immediately -- rather than waiting for a proper judicial process that protects both the Plaintiffs', and the Defendants', rights -- that it will be lost to them forever.
Both these claims are bogus garbage. Litigation documents sent to an ISP can be passed along to the subscriber of the service that the ISP intends to identify if forced by the courts. This can be done without telling the RIAA who this person is yet. And as for preserving evidence, once it becomes a matter of a lawsuit, ISP's can and do preserve the access logs forever, again not turning them over to the RIAA hounds until all proper procedures are followed.
However, when the only person the judge hears from are the RIAA lawyers, there is no one present to argue the opposite side. As such, the RIAA has been able so far to run roughshod over the rights of the Defendants, dismiss that case before their use of the evidence gathered in the method above can be challenged in that case, and then take what they illegally got away with there and use in individual cases where, to my knowledge (IANAL), how they got your subscriber information cannot be challenged.
So ex parte basically means in secret, or without the other party present, which is a lousy way to conduct justice!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
The beginning of the end (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate to make predictions anyone else can make, but it's starting to smell like the beginning of the end for the RIAA and their shady tactics. Sounds like they're consistently meeting an increasing resistance. I guess sooner or later they'll realize that their best choice is to adapt and evolve and move on to a new "business plan".
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, I think the RIAA is using even more shady methodology (although, in some cases, the RIAA might actually have a more point - if they'd just go about honestly rather than a group that wants to win and be "right" no matter what).
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, since the story is already tagged with "congresstotherescue", I think we're much more likely to see some lawmakers get some more money dropped into their pockets to convince them to pass a new law saying colleges aren't allowed to obstruct these suits.
I would like to see what you say come true, but part of their shady tactics is to get lawmakers to stack the deck in their favour.
Cheers
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not the beginning of the end.
This is the end of the beginning.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Insisting on DRM (which only hurts people who pay for music), insisting on charging more than people are willing to pay (hence a slump in CD sales), suing twelve year olds... etc etc.
Also, they don't really have a right to make money. If they can't figure out a way to make their music and make a profit, I guess they'll have to stop making music, won't they? Guess they'll have to get new fucking jobs and pay their way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I had a college roommate my freshman year who (I just learned in class notes) is a "lawyer for the entertainment industry." Based on my knowledge of him, I'd say that they are incapable of not being raging co
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn some basic economics. People respond to incentives and people are opportunistic. If they have an opportunity to get something for free (vs paying for it), they will do it. This has nothing to do with being self righteous, it's just the way human nature works.
This has nothing to do about being moral or immoral. The digital age simply increased (by several orders of magnitude) the possibility of being opportunistic with regards to IP. You can't set the clock back and you definitely can't change human nature.
I love when MPAA bitch that they won't make movies because of the risk of piracy. If you're so concerned about, bail out of the media business. Supply and Demand will determine what happens next...
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is more the methods of the RIAA, which can be just as dishonest as those of the pirates. I'm more a fan of "if it's worth having, it's worth paying for" myself, thus if they ask to much I just go without.
The RIAA should not have the right to restrict fair use (trying to prevent people from legitimately copying/playing their music on their MP3 players or computer), reselling used CDs (remember to destroy your own digital copies if you do this), have more than one person listen to product in a single playing, etc. Heh, all that and I still haven't gotten into their dubious legal tactics.
Likewise, a customer does not (and should not) have the right to pass off the copyrighted works without giving up their own right to use it.
Both sides are slighting the other in this case. The pirates because they have a gimme-gimme spoild-child attitude of wanting to get everything they want and bitching-and-moaning for it, and the RIAA for blatantly abusing their customers.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
What is a fair payment?
If I have $10 for entertainment and you are trying to sell me 3 songs, what's fair?
If I have $10 for entertainment and you are trying to sell me 300 songs, what's fair?
If I have $10 for entertainment and you are trying to sell me 3000 songs, many dvd movies, cable, dvd television series, video games, what's fair?
Especially in the case of 3000 songs, the people that produced those songs are mostly long dead.
There is no reason other than greed and highly artificial monopolies that you should not be able to buy "every hit from 1926 to 1957" for $20 on DVD. If we go by the original copyright laws, "all music up to 1979" would be copyright free and extremely cheap.
They used their money to pervert the law. They are using their money to try and sustain that perversion (to "forever less one day").
Copyright is a special privilege granted for a limited time to encourage people to produce product. With literally thousands of bands, hundreds of tv shows, thousands of movies, tens of thousands of books, I do not see why they need such encouragement. I certainly do not see how John Lennon is going to be encouraged to produce more music by extending the copyright after he was dead.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Intellectual Property really exists, and the current crop of media producers are stealing from everyone before them just because the "rightful owners" don't have the resources to protect themselves.
or
2) Intellectual Property is not real, and copyright has been abused and corrupted to deny citizens of their natural right to use and relay ideas to others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. correct. that's why the DMCA is (rightly or wrongly) law. they can't prosecute fair use, but they can go after it by prox
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Informative)
They've had multiple and free distribution streams with a copyable medium for a while now, so perhaps it's time they look at the industry as a whole and try to work with the market and technology rather than against it.
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
You did tell this to the blue collar assembly line workers of America, who get laid off in droves because of cheaper labor costs outside of the country, right? Closed factories and all that.
Why should white collar workers be coddled?
If corporate America gets to screw over the middle class without any repercussions, it's about time they got a taste of their own medicine! Vive la revolution!
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
As for work not being fairly compensated - are you kidding me? Can you point me to any other job where you can do work for a few hours, and then reap income for the rest of your life? Not only the rest of your life, but potentially the rest of the lives of your children? If anything, compensation for creative works is unfair, but in the opposite direction of what you're thinking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But here's the deal: everyone knows what an MP3 is and how to get them for free. It's ubiquitous. The cat's out of the bag. So the industry's real options are: 1) find a way to adapt to a new model, or 2) go bankrupt.
They're choosing 3) stomp their
By the same token (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We're not doing anything to prevent people from viewing any content they want on the Internet. We're not even shaping most traffic. Wha
The legal system making sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, did you just co
Re:The legal system making sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I do wonder, though, what process a human soul must go through to file lawsuits against single mom's and 80-yr old grandmothers (and the occasional dead person) and not even blink. RIAA lawyers must be getting paid a lot of money.
I think that's the point - in many of them, no human soul, brain, or eyes are doing so becuase they automate this stuff and don't do anything I'd call due diligence.
One thing I don't get - the whole 'single mom' thing gets a lot of play - but I don't see any reason why she'd get a pass where a 19-year-old kid wouldn't, *if* there's actually evidence she actually did what she was accused of. Probably still dumb to sue her though simply on PR grounds. I often wonder if their PR department hasn't been infiltrated by people whose goal is to bring down the organization from the inside. They're that bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If equal protection under the law were an even approximately achievable goal, I might agree. But it isn't, since most legal burdens are not shared equally simply because of the accidents of circumstance: CEOs don't get traffic tickets not because they don
Re:The legal system making sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Know anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All through college I never did register the wireless for my laptop, I just used a registered MAC address I captured.
I figured that way someone else would get sued.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I'd even hesitate to call it spoofing since that word usually implies some sort of...i don't know...technical skill? Next time you're bored look at the properties for your network card. One of the options...yep,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rejoice When the Legislation Fails (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal funding has the universities by the balls. And you know who has DC by the pocketbook [slashdot.org]. It's no secret that the youth are the minority in voting percentages. If the youth don't vote, there is nothing to counteract that money. Make your voice heard to these politicians and try turn this into an issue of awareness that is discussed.
This is hailed as some kind of "progress"? (Score:4, Insightful)
A change in copyright, that is a different (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that you are capable of understanding this, but copyright is NOT an absolute. The copyright as we know it now is a recent 'invention' and was introduced in response to technological changes (music recordings). Is it that strange to rethink copyright again now technologie has once again changed the world?
To give an example, before the printing press was invented, the only way to spread written texts was by copying them. Someone, monks in the west, sat down, and simply copied an existing work word for word. That was the only way to make more then one copy, unless the original author fancied writing all the copies himself.
There was no such thing as copyright, you had the original author and book, and people copied that work for distribution.
This changed with the inventing of the press, all of a sudden an original work could be turned out in any number desired (more or less). This changed the name of the game, as all of a sudden you had a new industry, that of the printing press (publishers if you like) who could take works and reprint them and sell them at volumes large enough to make a business. Before that books were simply to rare and expensive for all but the most powerfull to posses.
With music this mattered, before a composer who wrote a piece of music had one copy of it. If someone wanted another copy of it, they had to deal with the composer, distribution was limited. When printing of sheet music became possible all of sudden a piece of music was worth more then just the money you could get from performing it, you could write music and sell it without ever touching an instrument. The music industry had been born.
It is hard for us to imagine, but once people traded music sheets as eagerly as we trade MP3's.
Times changed again when music itself could be recorded, first by automatic instruments, later the music performance itself.
Over this time, the music industry (the people selling others people work) and the artists and the composers have been in a constant struggle as to who should receive what amount of money. The original sheet publishers offcourse preffered to simply take the music, or pay a mininal one time fee, and collect all the profits they could. The performers want to just pay a minimal fee at most and be damned how many times they perform it or how much they get paid for it, the composer wants to see money for each copy sold and each performance.
All this eventually, over many changes led to copyright as we know it now. The best you can say for it, is that it kept everyone quiet. Not exactly content, but quiet.
But things changed, tech moved on once again and deeply cut for the first time into the publishers, all of sudden you didn't need a huge press anymore, (either to print books OR press vinyl/CD's etc) but end customers could reproduce music easily on their own. In a way going back to the original situation where if you wanted a copy of something, you made it.
The industry seems to have responded by making copyright even stricter, seemingly wanting to expand the lifespan to infinite, this despite the fact that for instance Disney is famous for NOT paying for the copyrighted works of others who just happen to fall outside that new protection, Pinocio was famously released JUST after the copyright expired.
But the main question is this, why should we keep a law that has been recently introduced to deal with changing tech, now that tech has changed again? Copyright is NOT a natural thing, it is something invented by lawyers to product an industry, why should we as a society keep it if we no longer need it, want it.
Once there was a law that required a man with a red flag to walk in front of a motorised vehicle, that was introcued to protect the horse carriage industry. We changed it when it became clear that new tech of the automobile had made the horse obsolete. That industry was simply forced to adopt or die. Why should the music industry not do the same.
and if you cry out, but that would mean, no
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is hailed as some kind of "progress"? (Score:4, Interesting)
The RIAA has a right to legally defend their copyrights. They do not have a right to bypass the law or take shortcuts to do so. Also they must go after the right person. There have been many cases where they did not pursue the correct individual and did not care. They have said as much.
If one of my neighbors takes my morning paper every morning do I sue them all and drop the cases when I narrow it down to a suspect. Also do I have exparte communications with the judge to get all of their financial statements? And then I realize that the neighbor I did sue has been away visiting relatives for a month, should I not then drop the suit or continue with it? The RIAA has done the opposite of reason, fairness, and common sense in every case unless there was negative media on them.
Alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Their recent attempts to buy legislation include:
- Criminalization of unauthorized file sharing
- Transferring the costs and burdens of initiating lawsuits to the Justice Department
- Denying Federal Financial Aid to the universities and colleges that do not persecute file sharing themselves.
Whether or not these efforts will succeed remains to be seen, but what is clear is that they are getting desperate. Why they do not pursue alternative revenue-generating options and alter their business model to suit the times is a great mystery to me. At this point, it appears as if they are not meeting their corporate charter, which requires that they do what is in the interest of their stockholders.
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
I can even understand why bands like Metallica supported the RIAA crackdowns. The huge cut of the $$ that the RIAA gets from record sales could be interpreted as protection money paid to the Mob. If you were forced to play that game, you'd probably some protection.
Instead.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, now they're lobbying to make it mandatory for colleges to purchase each student a Napster or Rhapsody account or LOSE FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID.
Someone just needs to shoot every RIAA member in the head right now. If anyone will donate to my legal defense fund, I'll be more than happy to pull the trigger. My finger's been REALLY itchy as of late.
Stop enabling the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't bought a single music CD since 2002, except for direct purchases from local bands. I had been buying CDs quite regularly and in large quantity since I got my first CD player in late 1983 and so I suppose I was one of the best customers.
But no more. I don't upload music and I don't download it either; I won't give the RIAA any excuse for whining about copyright infringement. But I swear that I will never spend a single penny for RIAA music no matter what the format until the monopolistic miscreants are gone.
Hey, RIAA! I've gone five years without contributing to your war fund! And I'm sure I can keep going.
Everyone else: Take the pledge and watch the greedy bastards suffer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You, sir, are an Evil Content Pirate(tm). You are obviously a pirate, because if you weren't, you'd be buying our wonderful Britney Spears albums, even if you don't listen to them, or like her music -- and if you don't like her music, you
Re:Finally. (Score:4, Insightful)
For awhile the RIAA was sending out random letters to people, offering settlements. Probably many people did settle, for undisclosed sums in cases that were never made public.
But the RIAA decided to step it up a notch, and create a publicity campaign along the lines of "steal our stuff and you'll get caught" by suing tons of people simultaneously. However this seems to be backfiring: the publicity is making people realize that this is a widespread problem, and is making the weak points in the RIAA's accusations publicly known. So, people are more willing to fight when they: (1) realize there are many other people in the same situation as them, and (2) exchange information on "how to win."
Now this situation is far from over, and it may indeed turn out that many of these accused people will go to trial. Some of them may even lose, and have to pay egregious sums (e.g. $200,000 for sharing ~20 tracks). However the publicity with respect to these infringement cases is making it much easier for people to organize and fight. It is also making the RIAA (and associated labels/business sector) look evil and incompetent.
So, in a twisted sort of way, the publicity blitz to stop filesharing may actually make people more brazen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Mike