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)"

Right...

Nevermind our tactics, just give us the convictions (oh, and the penalty money too) we seek!

Re:Right...

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

That would end it once and for all.

Re:Right...

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

Dood, share what you're smoking over there. Yeah, it's a great idea, but it's as likely as me becoming Miss America. For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Re:Right...

When some vegetable can become president of a nation, why shouldn't a bearded guy in his 50s become Miss America?

Re:Right...

no one said s/he was a guy...

Re:Right...

Of course we have a vegetable for president, half the population were specifically voting against the fruits.

-

Re:Right...

Stallman?! Is that you?

Re:Right...

it's as likely as me becoming Miss America. For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Emphasize the talent angle, I suppose.

Re:Right...

For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Mom?!

Re:

Yeah, it's a great idea, but it's as likely as me becoming Miss America.

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GOURD?

Dood, share what you're smoking over there...For one thing, I'm in my 50's, and for another, I think they'd freak at the beard...

Ahh...you are. Nevermind...but this

"As punishment, all titles the the RIAA represent are now in the public domain. Next case."

...from the previous poster is absurd. It's not a good idea. The fact is a lot of artists would lose a lot of money, and we're not talking income here necessarily. Many of them may not

Re:Right...

we don't need 'artists'. its an expensive idea that we have a new solution for.

outsource.

some guy (or girl) in india is willing to play that song or sing it for 1/3 to 1/100 of the US cost.

as a software guy who watches his field erode to outsourcing, I say (sincerely) - outsource the 'arts' too!

no one has a 'right' to make enormous amounts of money. and today, no one has a 'right' to even earn a living. I'm sure many slashdotters would agree if they've ever had to train their replacement..

I'm half serious. the entertainment industry thinks they have a 'right' to continue the same old ways. I don't get that right as an engineer. why should 'artists', then?

I don't feel any more sorry for artists or ceo's whose business model is not valid anymore - since there is no one in society to worry about US!

the arts won't die. only the money-grubbing parasites will die or be forced to find another 'business'. and good riddance, too.

the built-in protection is not fair across the board for all working people. I see no reason to give 'artists' a free pass when the rest of us are suffering in a failing economy.

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

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

Re:

No, the correct punishment is to lock them in a mirror and send it hurtling through space.

Re:Right...

Did you actually read the RAs? Oh, of course not, this is /.

Had you read them, you would have seen that the issue is that the University has raised new issues at a point in the process where new issues are not permitted, because it wouldn't give the RIAA proper opportunity to reply to them. What the RIAA is asking is that either the new issues are struck down without consideration or they be given the right of reply.

The RIAA seems to do some pretty dreadful things, but this one looks perfectly reasonable to me.

Cornered

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.

Re:Cornered

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:

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 aro

Damn Lawyers.

Not only are the record companies opposing the request, they're asking the Judge not to even read it.

Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?

Re:Damn Lawyers.

I object to this motion on the grounds that it may allow the defense to finally prove that I'm a heinous bitch.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

I object to this motion on the grounds that it may allow the defense to finally prove that I'm a heinous bitch.

I know I full well deserve to be modded down for this but...

:)

Good one.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

Ray, instead of being modded down for that reply, we should mod you up both for your work in this area and for submitting the article.

BTW, I may have mentioned this before, but thanks for your efforts here, and for causing me to rethink my view on lawyers. (the subject line of this thread says it all-'re:Damn Lawyers') You are a gem.
It's easy to lose sight of some of the good trees in the dark, creepy forest of our legal system nowadays.

As a side note, I have decided to contribute my tax return $$'s to EFF and several similar ongoing efforts we all benefit from.
I call on all /.'ers to make a small, similar effort. If we have the numbers and power to reduce servers to a molten ruin (the /. effect!), then there are enough of us to throw $5-10 bucks at the grunts on the front line- come on y'all, let's show the world the mighty power that is /.!!!
Yeah, a little over the top, but this IS a pep talk!

Re:Damn Lawyers.

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:

Dude, you're not exactly hurting for karma.

Re:

Lawyer: "I expect the court to stop proceedings."
Judge: "Heck, why?"
Lawyer: "Because else I'd lose the case, duh."

Re:Damn Lawyers.

No, at least not with smart lawyers. Judges tend to get annoyed with it and shoot your objections down by default after a while, even when they're legit.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

It's the 'motion to strike'. The motion to strike the reply memo means 'please do not read it in connection with the motion'.

So not a lawyer...

But wouldn't the judge not reading the request be grounds for appeal?

Re:So not a lawyer...

Striking something is not quite the same as not even reading it. What Arista records seems to be saying is that the University of Oregon added new arguments in a reply memorandum and that these new arguments should not be considered by the court.

When a party in a case wants the court to do something, that party often provides a memorandum in support of the requested action. This support brief provides the arguments as to why the court should take action. The opposing party then has an opportunity to counter these arguments by providing arguments as to why the court should not take action. This is the response brief. At this point, the party that asked the court to do something can counter the arguments made by the opposing party. This is the reply brief. Then the court makes a decision.

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.

If the party that asked the court to do something were allowed to make new arguments, then it would make sense to withhold the best arguments until the reply brief is filed. This would tilt the outcome to the party making the request, which would lead to parties making a lot of requests (it is bad enough now, but it could be a lot worse).

The reality is that procedural matters are an important part of our legal system. A judge could be required to retry a case if an argument was improperly considered or improperly dismissed. Some scrutiny has to be applied, especially when the issue of whether to consider an argument is raised.

The judge would probably read the University of Oregon's reply carefully to determine whether new arguments were raised or not. If new arguments were raised, then the judge might very well strike the new arguments or even the entire reply, thus basing the decision on just the support and response briefs. If the arguments in the reply are not new (or simply shoot holes in Arista's response), then the judge would not strike the reply and make a decision based on all three briefs.

Of course, some research into the specific procedures of the District Court for the District of Oregon is necessary to fully understand the situation, but that seems to be the gist of what is going on.

Re:

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

Discovery "nonevidence" confidential?

This brings up the rather good point that civil discovery is a startlingly invasive process conducted by people who are hostile. While some discovery leads to evidence which is admitted and becomes public, the vast bulk does not.

Some sorts of safeguards are required for this material. Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases. Perhaps some sort of "fruit of the poisoned vine" is required for civil evidence.

What?!

Where's the mafiaa tag???

Read it, read it all

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:Read it, read it all

The description in the summary about asking the judge not to read it is grossly misleading. The linked filing is nothing but a run-of-the-mill procedural issue.

What normally happens in court is a petitioner files a Motion, the respondent files a Response, and finally the petitioner files a Reply. Then the judge decides the issue. These are the procedural rules of litigation. The petitioner isn't allowed to make new arguments in the Reply. All their arguments must be made in the initial Motion so that the respondent has a chance to address them in the Response. The Reply gives the petitioner a final chance to address the respondent's Response arguments.

Here's what happened: University filed a motion to quash. RIAA filed their Reply. University filed a Response, which (according to the RIAA) contains new arguments. The second linked filing by the RIAA says hey that's unfair. Either ignore the new arguments that we didn't get to address, or give us a chance to address them (the Surreply in the first link). It's a perfectly legitimate request. If the University included new arguments, they broke the rules here. Either way, it's no big deal. The judge will most likely just consider the RIAA's Surreply in deciding the motion to quash. No harm, no foul. It happens all the time in civil litigation.

Pfff

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. Anyway, wake me when they're being dismantled and cease to exist, OK?

Re:

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

RIAA Counters its own arguments

Next, the University attempts to call into question Plaintiffs' pre-litigation discovery efforts to discover copyright infringement over peer-to-peer ("P2P") networks in an effort to convince theCourt to reconsider its grant of Plaintiffs' discovery motion. The Court should reject the University's attempts for two reasons. One, the University has no evidence whatsoever that Plaintiffs acted at all improperly during the course of this litigation. The University's arguments concerning Plaintiffs' discovery and litigation practices are based entirely on allegations and deposition testimony from different cases and amount to nothing more than pure conjecture. Two, the University's attempted challenge to Plaintiffs' discovery and litigation practices is irrelevant to any issues presently before this Court. The evidence submitted regarding what mayhave happened in different cases involving different parties, different facts, different allegations, and different circumstances has no bearing on this case.

Likewise, the University's continued insistence that the subpoena is unduly burdensome and overly broad, despite the fact that Plaintiffs have clarified the scope of information they are seeking, is unavailing. Plaintiffs are seeking only information sufficient to identify the individual(s) associated with the IP addresses listed in the subpoena, information that the University admits it already has. The University's argument that this information is overbroad and that producing this information would be unduly burdensome is specious. Over one hundred different universities around the country have responded to identical subpoenas without raising objections based on burden.

I love how the RIAA argues that what has happened and evidence that has been introduced in other cases similar to this one has no bearing because they are different cases with what may be different circumstances, then turns right around in the next paragraph and cites what has happened in other cases where universities have caved ^b^b^b^b^b responded to their requests without objection as a basis for their arguments.

Re:

It really does feel like the RIAA is nearing its end.

From your mouth to God's ear.

Sur-replies?

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

Re:

No, but sur-real replies are apparently acceptable.

Re:Sur-replies?

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.

Re:

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 Professiona

Re:

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.

So it's true, they live in their own little world without a connection to reality?

It sure seems that way sometimes.

Sorry..

Your post made me think of a certain Orang-outang Librarian.

Ook

Re:

Libraries in parallel universe....librarians that are monkeys (sorry, Apes),
its starting to sound like the RIAA are alumni of Unseen University.

I wonder if they have been helping themselves to the Bursars pills?

Re:

You my friend are mistaken, the RIAA employees Wolfram & Hart [wikipedia.org], Attorneys at Law as their legal consul and as such, Wolfram & Hart has access to many different volumes of text the ordinary mortal attorney cannot fathom that exist. And unfortunately

Re:

the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library

Basically contradicting themselves within one page seems to be a part of it, too.
Or, maybe, nly they are allowed to reference other cases.
Page 3:

Two, the University's attempted challenge to Pla

Re:

I think, that the discovery will find several illegal tatics being used by the RIAA. Should cause quite a ruckus. After the dust settles, all will be good again. :-D

Re:

No one here (except Ray of course) seems to be getting the Oregon AG's point. The plaintiffs were allowed to issue a subpoena to the University that said essentially "for each of these IP addresses we want you to identify the infringer ". That is, the University must decide who is responsible for the alleged deeds, not just provide a linkage between IP address and a user. They reply essentially "we can't prove the plaintiffs case for them, so the subpoena should be quashed". Now the plaintiffs -- the arrogant bastards that they are -- can't admit they are wrong. They could simply reissue the subpoena to say essentially "what user (provide a name) was assigned this IP address at this time and date". But instead, they throw irrelevant tantrums about procedure. I expect the judge will simply narrow the scope of the subpoena, but I hope he plays along and lets the AG have her discovery. Regards, Art

The way I see it, Art:

1. The RIAA just wants the name and address of the person to whom the internet access account is addressed, who is "John Doe".

2. The RIAA assumes, without benefit of any evidence for the assumption, that that person committed a co

Re:FAGGOTS

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

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.