Slashdot Log In
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:29 AM
from the and-all-the-other-little-cases-as-well dept.
from the and-all-the-other-little-cases-as-well dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride 270 comments
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."
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.
Simplify this legal language (Score:4, Interesting)
I have trouble understanding legal lingua. I therefore ask somebody to explain the above quote. That is to say: What is it to "show cause?" Thanks.
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:5, Informative)
What's highly unusual is the judge issuing an order to show cause on her own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, that, to me, is a sham (ex parte discovery). The RIAA doesn't know who specifically is infringing on their IP. Hence the John Doe lawsuits and the motions for ex parte discovery. But then
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:4, Insightful)
I must say that from reading your submissions I'm less cynical about the judicial system.
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Simplify this legal language (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an extraordinarily naive view of the situation.
The members of the "popular" culture are increasingly receiving their media via the internet. All the manufacturers of traditional popular entertainment media need to do in order to continue to hawk
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The catch is, if you're ask
The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it's easier to take an example outside of the music industry. For example, say that I write a creative text, and publish it online as a PDF file that I sell, and that I do not grant the right to redistribute my work. If I later discover that someone who legally obtained my work is now hosting it online for others to obtain, and even have evidence that an actual unauthorized redistribution has taken place (i.e. someone linking to it with a comment suggesting they've downloaded it), do I not have a right to protect my intellectual property? Even if all I have is a time and IP address, shouldn't I be able to seek appropriate civil action against the infringing party?
There are lots of cases of genuine copyright infringement occurring, and while I understand and support your campaign to make sure the RIAA plays by the rules and isn't overly broad in their accusations, I also don't think it's right to let infringers go unpunished. I think too many people see the endgame as one where the RIAA "folds" and can't protect its interests, and where IP holders have no recourse against digital infringement. But when I read into your work, I think the endgame is really one where the RIAA just has to work a bit harder to present its case in the right way, and infringers are punished.
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Now, if you had me on camera downloading music and heard me listening to said tracks
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are assuming that someone is committing a crime, you have to also consider that they may be falsely laying the blame on someone else. Cracking the password on their router, spoofing packets, botting their machine, hacking their wireless, or even physically splicing a wire. After all, people have been physically splicing into other networks for decades (cable and telephone). Why assume that the relationship is a pristine one-to-one for IP addresses?
If you are going to burden someone with thousands of dollars in legal fees, you should have to have more than an IP address. Most people will simply fold under the weight of a lawsuit; that doesn't imply guilt, just poverty in the face of huge legal fees.
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm sure the sound of all those settlements rolling in is music to their ears. They probably copyrighted it too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Practically speaking, suing one person does nothing to prevent another form doing the same or downloading it.
So it doesn't protect your intellectual property.
I even have a problem with the idea that it is yours to begin with: a copyright is all well and good, but I have a problem with the idea that you own something that I have already bought.
I'm not leasing the pdf, I own it.
It's mine, and I'll do what I want with it. Copyright isn't going to change it.
It's a piece of paper somewhere that I may or may not agree with. And in any case there's nothing you can do about it except try to sue me, which won't prevent anyone else from doing the same, and is certainly not going to encourage me to cooperate with you.
Besides, I own the pdf. I have direct control over the file and can do whatever I like to it. Copy it, Modify it, send it to Tajikistan, whatever.
Litigation doesn't prevent it and then,after the fact, doesn't even discourage it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, part of it is the approach. With a book the author's rights to control what you do with it are limited to copying and distributing to others. You can make copies of pages, or favorite passages, to tack up on your wall. That's not infringement. You ca
Rich girl, poor boy (Score:2)
Diamonds on the soles of her shoes.
He was a poor boy, empty as a pocket.
Empty as a pocket, with nothing to lose
Sing tananaaa... tananana.
Downloads were the source of her blues.
Downloads were the source o
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, your argument is that because you (a) paid money, (b) are physically capable, and (c) are not dismayed by penalties imposed on other people, you have a moral and ethical right to proceed as you will. But this is clearly broken re
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, even before I went into the legal profession, I was raised to believe in fairness and decency and courtesy and humaneness.
I have never once suggested to anyone that the laws regarding protection of intellectual property rights should not be followed. I have been working in the copyright field for 34 years, and I have never once said anything like the bogus points you are trying to attribute to me.
Yes the RIAA has to work a "little bit harder".... small details like
(A) identifying the right people, who
(B) actually did infringe their copyrights, and then
(C) handling the matter in a lawyerlike manner instead of an extortionate gangsterlike manner.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Update", in this context, being synonymous with "repeal", I'd say. I suppose that as a software developer with (ahem) "intellectual property" to protect I should be m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They do, and that's why I tell people like the original poster in this thread that nobody at that organization is about defending their copyrights from pirates ^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeer to peer users. So
Re: (Score:2)
I am also not a lawyer, but you should consider the way the feds do things before you make decisions like this. The federal government is engaged in an operation to fleece the citizenry of their money. You can see this exemplified in copyright law, drug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--
E [nerdkits.com]
Contact Information (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's all this poor lady needs is millions of e-mails from /.ers. I wouldn't be surprised if it did more damage than good. heh.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you that it would.
Everyone who is qualified to make an intelligent comment to her probably already knows who she is and how to reach her. Hint: Most of them aren't [primarily*] slashdotters.
--
* that is, in terms of webforum usage
Commerical Copies (Score:5, Insightful)
The two most strong points for me are:
a) they can't lump all the Does together; that wouldn't hinder the RIAA much but still having to file 25 or 100 or 1000 or 50000 cases, each one with filing fees, would have some effect but as Doe #3 claims, it would also serve and advance the interest of justice for each of the Does to be treated on a case by case basis, with their own juries, lawyers, etc. [A Doe who actually illegally sold copies of music wouldn't get lumped in with someone who had their ID stolen or their IP address spoofed].
b) that for someone to violate the copyright law, one of the major tests is you have to do it for a) commerical gain and b) merely offering to sell a copy isn't a violation (you have to actually sell it). It's clear that the P2P system is anything but a commerical sales system; everyone admits the copies are free; it's also fairly clear, to anyone who wants to really research the matter, the only party that gets commerical gain out of the P2P sharing of media is the copyright holders.
PS.
Many decades of radio station play of records as well as song "play" on MTV, VH1, etc. has shown that when people are exposed to new sounds/songs, etc. they buy them; this was the novelity of MTV, kids started buying songs that didn't get played on the local radio.
So even if there wasn't any evidence that P2P directly boosts sales of songs, CDs, etc, 50+ years of radio play has proven that point; listening to a song boosts its sales.
It has proven it to the point that many members of the RIAA have illegally (in the past and in the present) used a system called Payola, which pays radio stations to play songs by a particular artist repeatedly more than other artists for commerical gain; they do this because they believe the more their songs are played the more $$ they will make.
Copyright holders spend 100's of thousands to mulitple millions of dollars to produce "music videos", engage in Payola, advertise to DJs and radio station programmers, etc. all for the purpose of allowing the music to be played on the air or on TV/Cable all in the hope that people will buy the music. Clearly they could save those $$, let P2P do it's work, and accrue the savings in production, Payola, etc. to any lost of royalities.
In fairness not deserved by the RIAA, their is a difference between listening to a song on the radio and making a copy of it via P2P but in fairness to the public, owning a physical copy of a song is not the same as having a 3rd rate digital copy, that may or may not be 100% as the artist intended.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Artists are starting to realize they can have all the profits, that the studios just really aren't all that relevant anymore. For that matter, they're starting to realize the sale of their music can actually have profits, if they just don't contract out to a major studio. Radiohead's recent efforts in this regard have certainly pointed the way to self-publishing on the Web as a way to make serious money.
Re:"Potentially huge setback" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Will this set a precedent that will affect any other districts or cases?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Potentially huge setback" (Score:5, Informative)
2. If the Judge grants the Does' motion, and does so with sound reasoning, the decision will reverberate throughout the country, and may lead to the end of the RIAA's John Doe litigations, which is where it all starts [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is that NewYorkCountryLawyer (Ray Beckerman) is a publicity whore. This story is just more of his anti-IP FUD that will, in the end, mean nothing.
I didn't know Gene Simmons read slashdot.