Slashdot Log In
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:36 PM
from the tough-pill-to-swallow dept.
from the tough-pill-to-swallow dept.
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)"
Related Stories
[+]
News: Oregon AG Seeks to Investigate RIAA Tactics 114 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Turning the tables on the RIAA's attempt to subpoena information from the University of Oregon, that state's Attorney General has now filed additional papers to conduct immediate discovery into the RIAA's 'data mining' techniques. These techniques include the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, and the obtaining of personal information from computers. The AG pointed out (pdf) that 'Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits ... their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
That would end it once and for all.
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
-
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Emphasize the talent angle, I suppose.
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Right... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Cornered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cornered (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)
:)
Good one.
Parent
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Yeah, a little over the top, but this IS a pep talk!
Parent
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Discovery "nonevidence" confidential? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Read it, read it all (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
RIAA Counters its own arguments (Score:5, Informative)
Sur-replies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Sur-replies? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:So not a lawyer... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent