Programmer Challenges RIAA Investigators 238
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In court papers filed today in Manhattan federal court, programmer Zi Mei has slammed the investigation on which the 'ex parte' orders obtained in the RIAA's cases against consumers are based. Armed with Mei's affidavit, a midwesterner -- sued in Atlantic v. Does 1-25 in New York City as 'John Doe Number 8' -- has asked the judge to vacate the 'ex parte' order on the ground that the RIAA doesn't have the evidence it needs to get such an order. If Doe wins, the RIAA's subpoenas to the ISP, for its subscriber's identities, will be thrown out."
IMPRESSIVE (Score:4, Funny)
SILLY HU-MAN (Score:5, Funny)
ex parte (Score:5, Informative)
Re:ex parte (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ex parte (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ex parte (Score:5, Funny)
Re: ex parte (Score:4, Funny)
You can also find a lot of links about it on Slashdot.
Re:ex parte (Score:2)
Re:ex parte (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago, the US government bullied my country into making new law under the threat of a trade war.
This new legislation allows copyright holders to obtain an "ex parte" court order to enter and search private homes without informing the people living in these private homes if the copyright holder can show that it is "probable" that someone living there has infringed on a copyright. There is no requirement that the police be involved in such searches of private homes (first time this has been allowed in my country), and the law gives the copyright holder a right to be present at the search (never before have the other side in a civil case been allowed to be present during a search of a private home in my country).
This has regularly been abused. In very few cases the "evidence" found in such searches has ever been used in a court of law. Instead most cases have been settled before court by the people searched in fear of the copyright holders releasing information on what was found during the search (legal or not).
I used to have a hard time understanding why some people were thinking the US was imperialistic and why the US had to be opposed in any way possible, but no longer.
Tomorrow it may be my door that the US entertainment industry kicks down.
Does somebody want to take a guess if I still like the US?
Re:ex parte (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ex parte (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ex parte (Score:3, Insightful)
I like it here, but I like doing my thing as well. I'll do it somewhere else if I have
Re:ex parte (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent. The government cannot suppress the population by force without armed conflict. Armed conflict against their own homes causes dissent amongst the military, splitting it into rebellious factions and leading to greater conflicts, eventually overthrowing the government by it's own military since militia siding with the oppressive government face hostile evironments even without direct conflict whereas the populaces militia is supplied and reinforced at every turn. Because this is such a stupid position for a government to get itself into, it would never do so as long as the populace remains armed. So the point of ownership is not to fight the US military head to head, but to ensure you never have to.
Re:ex parte (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a *FOURTH* Ammendment?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sorry, but the number you have dialed:
"4th Ammendment"
has been suspended by the President due to wartime. Please hang up and try your call again in 3 years.
-Eric
Re:ex parte (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ex parte (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ex parte (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for looking out for our own interests. Oh, wait, Denmark and the EU does the same thing. And the threat of "trade war"? Is Europe really so arrogant it thinks it has some "God-given" right to trade with the US? We can trade with or without whomever we wish and cease at any time.
If you read even the description, you'd realize that the "ex parte" order is really "ex parte Doe", used to execute the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Ex Parte" is generally illegal in the US, and should be. This "ex parte Doe" means that the Doe, in this case the accused, believes that he or she is being held without legal cause. "Ex parte" basically means that one party is using an unfair advantage over another and thus justice is not being served.
I'm no fan of the entertainmaint industry. However, keep something in mind, friend: every state, be it municipal, regional, national, or supranational, has the right to look out for itself. The EU sure does. If you have beef with how the US executes trade, then do something about it. We aren't holding a gun to your head to force something upon you. You elected the leaders who passed your laws. We didn't set up some revolution in Copenhagen or Brussels to execute our will. Your government chose that trade with the US was more important. If you dislike what your government does, then elect new people. And if you dislike the entertainment industry, then don't buy their things. You didn't make any coherent argument against them. In the US, the RIAA oversteps its legal rights, and therefore legal injunctions must be placed on them. But they are a trade union, and they do have some legal rights. Your arguments place them in no violation of yours or anyone else's rights, nor the overstepping of their rights.
Now you make some very very incoherent arguments about the US "breaking down your door". I don't know how it works in Europe, but in the US, the police run all searches and seizures. And issuance of search and seizure warrants are Ex Parte, for good reason. Entertainment industry thugs don't just break and enter, searching for "copyright violations". That is strictly against the US Constitution.
Please, I'm tired of people blaming the US for this or that or the other thing, when the real problem lies in the peoples' own country. We have messed up lots of stuff, but to bitch at us just means that you're too lazy to do something about it.
Re:ex parte (Score:2)
Fact is that the US regularly forces countries around the world to "respect" US laws under threat of economic sanctions. Of course the US is free to choose with whomever it trades.
The problem is that many countries don't have the guts to do without US trade. Many are too small and/or poor to risk that.
For the EU however the case is different. I think it would harm the US just as much as the EU if trade between the two we
The Empire (Score:2)
While I don't quite share your ill-will towards the US (simply don't wish ill on anyone) I do forsee a day when the American influence is severely limited from what it is today.
No empire is forever (ask the Romans, the Brits, the Egyptians, , ,
Re:ex parte (Score:2)
The entertainment industry is one of the few export industries that the US still has. It doesn't take a huge leap in logic to argue that strict enforcement of copyright in foreign countries benefits the US economy. Forget about rights, there's too many dollars at stake here.
Re:ex parte (Score:4, Informative)
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
The entertainment industry would fall into that 15% for "consumer goods", which means that over 85% of the US exports have absolutely nothing to do with American entertainment. Don't forget, many countries think our music sucks about as much as we think theirs does. As a side note, by the 2004 numbers the US is the 2nd largest exporter of goods at $795 billion. Germany is the only single country who exports more. The EU exports $1,109 billion, but they are not a single country, but if you did count them that makes the US 3rd.
Despite what you might think the US still makes a good chunk of change on its exports and not so much of it would be the entertainment industry. I think what you mean is that the US imports more then it exports, which is quite true, but this is largely because we are a huge consumer. I think the only category listed above for which we are considered a "net exporter" is the Agriculture industry.
Re:ex parte (Score:2)
Ex Parte (Score:5, Informative)
If he can get this tossed it would be a pretty big blow to the RIAA's case.
Re:Ex Parte (Score:5, Insightful)
About bloody time someone found a way to cripple these borderline-illegal 'suits once and for all... That is, IF the judge sees it the right way.
Re:Ex Parte (Score:2)
Represent yourself? (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess: At some point, their ISP notified him, they retained a lawyer and the lawyer is making motions and appearing on his behalf.
This works, but only for people who can afford a laywer .
How are you supposed to represent yourself in a John Doe case?
Re:Represent yourself? (Score:2)
down with Media Sentry (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't recall hearing the results of any challenge to their data mining, but if they go with the closed source/proprietary code/industry secret response I hope it results in all their "evidence" being tossed.
unfortunately the pdf link is broken or has been slashdoted
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:5, Interesting)
I absolutely disagree. I'm the registered agent contact for a regional ISP and routinely receive RIAA communications regarding their allegations of offenses within our address space. Here's a few aspects of my ongoing experience with the RIAA and other intellectual property protection parties (mostly publishers in my experience outside of the RIAA):
The appropriate response is a legal one, and mind you, a legal one that has a letterhead of partner names that spans the top of the piece of paper (meaning not a small private practice, but a large firm that is enough to scare the RIAA into understanding your counsel has deep resources that can counterclaim and hurt them).
Another strong recommendation is for all smaller ISPs to provide their upstream with a letter on the lawfirm's letterhead just briefing them on your compliance with the registered agent provision, requesting evidence of their compliance, and a subtle reminder that if they ever fail to follow the law, they'll get to know your counsel really well as you recover damages from business interruption, damage to goodwill and all sorts of exciting, expensive claims.
This letter will probably cost you $300 to $500 depending on your firm, but it'll save your ass. It has done so for us at least two times when the RIAA completely ignored the law and sent its night-school, white-shoe attorneys after our upstream carrier.
Oh... and in my investigation of the John Does, I've usually found P2P running in a bit more than half the cases with parents unaware that Bearshare was loaded by their minor child, and in about a third the cases, no evidence in traffic flows of any P2P (nor any historical data from NIDS monitoring). Not that we'd ever keep such data (don't and have a policy of wiping it weekly).
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
Are ISP's covered by Gramm-Leach-Bliley?
Gramm Leach Bliley (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gramm Leach Bliley (Score:2, Informative)
Your online banking information magically appears on your computer, then? Funny... I thought it went over your ISP's wires.
Re:Gramm Leach Bliley (Score:2, Interesting)
Anonymous ISP here... good question! My understanding of GLB as explained by the law-speaking guys is that it doesn't usually apply, but we offer a package of enhanced services to community banks including managed VPNs and their auditors are pretty inclusive on who's doing what. It's like SAS-70 - I'd probably never initiate one myself but we have to do it since our customers (and their auditors) expect us to. You'd be surprised how many compani
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
If a customer of the ISP has the material on their own computer, not the ISP's computer, I don't understand why they would contact the registed agent. Maybe it's because that's the only name and address they can readily identify for a person at the ISP.
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if the RIAA uses multiple firms or if the incident team filters out the infringement notices, but I have never once received a notice without a timestamp. The notices I receive have the IP, timestamp, ports, p2p network, and infringing filename. We occasionally get the IP address that detected the infringement, too.
This tells me one of two things: 1) You're exaggerating or outright lying, because every notice I receive has the appropriate information.
or
2) The incident team returns notices which do not include the necessary information, in which case your ISP could do the exact same thing.
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
Or, alternatively, I'm looking for an ISP. After reading your post, I have significant respect for your opinion on the matter. Is there any particular ISP you would like to recommend?
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
They would have actual evidence that machine x was serving file y (and that file y IS actually something they hold the copyright to) at time z which would be presented to the ISP (who could take whatever action is appropriate, either handing over the information or telling the RIAA to get a court order which would be much easier if they have proof of the flie sharing)
As for the issue with kids loading p2p
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
So you are saying they should not be held accountable for the actions of their contractors? Gee, maybe they should just hire the mob to go around and break peoples legs then.
It doesn't work that way, the medium IS the message and if they allow bad people to work for them, then they are themselves bad.
wrong wrong wrong (Score:2)
at best, they can nly see that there are music files on a computer.
Who put them there? are they legal? How many people use that computer?
Re:wrong wrong wrong (Score:2)
The GP is talking about actual (as in known to deities) guilt. You are talking about RIAA's ability to prove it.
Yes, maybe 1 out of the 25 John Does wanted to share new Debian CD-images, but had her computer hijacked by the evil mp3-sharers. Chances are very good, however, every one of them was illegally sharing the protected works knowingly.
Objectively, RIAA is being wron
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2)
I even changed the prefs in ff1.5 to use acroread, version 7 on this linux box as opposed to the default of ggv. Acroread was a bit more imformative in that it said the file was not a supported filetype, or that it had been sent as an email attachment and not properly decoded, meaning the mimetype received wasn't matching.
In any event, I've sent the site managers a request that it be fixed.
--
Cheers, Gene.
Re:down with Media Sentry (Score:2, Funny)
can u demand all $$ goes to artits? (Score:2)
goes to RIAA or the lawyers, and that you want proof with zero cost.
Then I would tell the RIAA, "Well If I loose $3000, im never going to buy CDs ever again in my life time, neither my children, parents, friends,
we will find alternative music sources with zero trace, ie CDR swapping at home. So you may gain the $3000 today, but loose $30000 over 50 years."
Suck on that RIAA.
Real artists make money
Re:can u demand all $$ goes to artits? (Score:2)
Ever faced a judge? They don't take too kindly to the other people demanding things in their court.
documents (Score:2, Informative)
alternate link (Score:2, Informative)
Careful about the ex parte whooping (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Careful about the ex parte whooping (Score:5, Insightful)
But in some ways, it could be misused. Say someone walks past my front yard and throws a bag on my lawn. I didn't see them, but when I get the bag, there's a reciept in there with a date and time of where he bought something. If I wanted to sue the person should I be allowed to ex parte sue them as a John Doe on the first hand, so that I can then contact the store and force them to reveal who the person was?
The question is just how much justification need be shown to grant an ex parte order of this nature (they're arguing it's insufficient).
I'm sure they shred everything, (Score:2)
Is this so unreasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, let's be clear. I think a lot of behaviour by the RIAA and its ilk is disgusting.
Now that I've got that little disclaimer out of the way, let me ask: is this use of ex parte tactics really so unreasonable? From the RIAA's point of view, the law has been broken. They just can't find out who did it to take legal action against them directly, because the ISPs and such (quite rightly) won't disclose confidential information to the RIAA on demand.
So, the RIAA do what any sound legal system should require them to do if they want to proceed: they must go to a court, and make a case that there is a reasonable need for them to have that information, and ask the court to give them the authority to get it. The court can consider their argument -- which, if they've got information that someone was swapping songs, almost certainly illegally, is a fairly solid one -- and grant the permission if it finds it appropriate.
At that point, no individual has yet been brought to court to face any claim, so no individual has been harmed. The RIAA just has a name, and it's up to them to demonstrate, in a separate court action with the defendant given due process, that the named person committed some illegal act and should be required to pay compensation or whatever.
Now, personally I think the US "everyone pays their own fees" system sucks, because it's wide open to abuse by large and well-funded organisations in this sort of context, but that's a separate problem. With US law as it is right now, what would be a more reasonable way for one party that has genuine evidence that they may have been damaged by some other, unknown party to seek fair compensation than by asking the courts to agree with them based on their evidence to date, and to enable them to find the person likely to be responsible so that they can be properly taken to court?
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem with the state of civil litigation is that corporations are allow to act as a "person". It's a matter of an inequity of resources. A corporation typically has enormous financial, and legal resources compared to an individual.
The real solution is to treat corporations as the commercial organizational entities that they truly are, rather than as persons. For that matter governmental organizational entities also ought to be treated as such.
There needs to be a change to the civil standard between individuals from *proof by a preponderance of evidence* to a more rigorous standard. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too strong a standard a civil standard between individuals, or between organizational entities. In a civil case between an organizational entity, and an individual where the organizational entity is the plaintiff, then the *reasonable doubt* standard ought to hold.
Part of the reason for the *proof beyond a reasonable doubt* standard in criminal cases is to prevent malicious prosecution. A high standard for burden of proof in criminal cases reduces the potential for false witness to be used as a means to 'get even with', harass, or intimidate individuals. The high standard lessens the potential impact of 'frame ups'.
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
You just gave me my million dollar idea. I wonder what would happen if someone started a law firm that operated like an insurance company? People buy legal protection much the same they would car insurance...regular monthly payments and perhaps a deductable should the
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
Oh, just in case your really didn't notice, I was being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Nothing unreasonable about that, is there? The moral of the story: the RIAA, or any private organisation or individual for that matter, does not and should not wield any police power. Period.
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
It's not that easy. Some private companies actually do have private police forces. Railroads, for example, with their huge land and long rail lines; they carry valuable cargo that is naturally the target of many theft attempts (for examples, all automobiles carried by train carry their own legal papers and are unlocked. If you can get hold of one, it is virtually im
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
You could have told them Large Marge is coming to get you.
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, what sucks is the complex legal system that requires expensive representation. It's a de-facto standard and nothing more, by lawyers for lawyers. Everyone pays their own fees is the epitomy of fairness; it is simply an unfortunate and unavoidable byproduct of the ability of groups to leverage their power over individuals combined with o
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
And just to correct the AC, I never said there was. We're not talking about bringing a case for copyright infringement, we're talking about whether there is sufficient grounds to justify further investigation.
Sure, it might not. But th
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's very common on P2P to get files whose contents and titles have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Much of that is put there by the RIAA, so they cannot deny the reasonable doubt that exists there.
Re:Is this so unreasonable? (Score:2)
An attorney who didn't think there was much chance of winning would be less inclined to continue the case just to get paid by their client.
Is there anything to stop people having anon conns (Score:3, Interesting)
As in the ISP activates a particular access key to a wireless network in an area of town assuming that X much money is deposited in Y postbox in a brown envelope.
That way the ISP ceases to have the names/addresses of it's subscribers however much they get subpeonaed for them.
Or is that illegal (since they won't have a proper paper trail for where the money is coming from).
Could they handle billing offshore so the data wouldn't be in the US?
Re:Is there anything to stop people having anon co (Score:2)
Re:Is there anything to stop people having anon co (Score:3, Interesting)
It would really set the cat among the pigeons to agitate for a constitutional amendment that clearly spells out that individuals have a right to anonymity that can only be breached when very strong evidence of crime is presented. I'm thinking a standard like "probable cause." If you can't convince a magistrate it's a criminal matter, you don't get to snoop.
I
Not get picky...but... (Score:3, Informative)
No.... actually, progammer Zi Mei's LAYWER has slammed the investigation. Unless he's a lawyer and a programmer of course, in which case it should say "programmer and lawyer..." But I digress.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm no fan of laywers, but let's give them a little credit here and say that they've come up with a good way to defend this Mei guy. If anything Mei can afford a good lawyer, yay!
Also..EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have been nice to mention the Electronic Frontier Foundation and how much they deserve YOUR support (as well as mine... and everyone elses.) For it is through the EFF that we have even the slightest hope of regaining some sanity in the digital world.
Re:Not get picky...but... (Score:3, Informative)
No, actually, Zi Mei is a programmer hired by lawyers for John Doe #8, party to Atlantic vs John Does #1-25, to investigate and give expert opinion upon the RIAA's evidence gathering. Mei hasn't been accused of anything.
Read before you pick.
Re:Not get picky...but... (Score:2)
Anyone able to get at those PDFs? (Score:2, Informative)
I really want to read what was filed for this
Re:Anyone able to get at those PDFs? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone able to get at those PDFs? (Score:2)
Perhaps linked to
Albert Einstein (Score:2, Interesting)
- Albert Einstein
What language was that in? (Score:2, Funny)
What is "slammed the investigation" supposed to mean?
Is Mei the midwesterner? Who's this "Atlantic" character? Is he the big boss?
Is there someone codenamed "Does 1-25"? Maybe that person is playing "John Doe Number 8" in the off-Broadway version of this article submission?
Also, I think that last sentence about about the RIAA's subpoenas could've used some parentheses in there somewhere.
Don't get too excited (Score:4, Insightful)
The motion to sever the defendants may well succeed. In that case the RIAA will be forced to file separate lawsuits against each John Doe, costing them additional filing fees. This may slow them down for a few nanoseconds, but it won't stop them. They'll refile.
The motion to quash the subpoena is more interesting. Can the RIAA document the alleged copyright infringement with greater specificity? If not, the subpoena could be quashed, and this John Doe will skate. That won't stop the RIAA from suing other John Doe's using similarly flawed evidence. It will still be up to each John Doe to fight back, using their own time and money.
Remember, it's the legal system, not the justice system.
This always happens.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am quite a law buff and I was arguing that the "ex parte" orders were illegal and if someone were to challenge them they would win. The counter that "well the person is breaking the law", you would have to remember that even though you have proof of a crime you can not arrest nor charge another.
Lets say your neighbour is making drugs next door. You see crackheads walking in and out of the house. There is weird chemical smells, and empty bottles of chemicals around. Hell lets even say he tried to sell you some and have it on video tape. Can you go across the street, knock down his door, arrest and charge him with a crime?
No, of course not. You call whatever Backwoods Nazi Law Enforcement Agency you have, they will conduct their own investagation, and then if they have enough evedence they knock down his door, arrest and charge him.
Now if the RIAA would want to follow the laws put into place in the United States they would report the person to the FBI's Copyright Infringement division and let them do their own investigation and charge the person with a crime. Most likely the FBI would take a look at the 13 year old with 300 mp3's on their drive and file it away far, far away.
The person that said that the RIAA should be charged under the RICO Act is indeed onto something. It is a form of racketeering. Also the RIAA should have to be forced to show the actual loss in revenue from each song, and where do they come up with the numbers they sue people for.
Re:This always happens.... (Score:2, Informative)
This Harvard Business School/UNC-Chapel Hill study tackles this question of whether the RIAA's bellyaching is warranted, and is quite interesting.
To sum it up, it found that file-sharing actually increased the sales of albums which contained the most popularly downloaded tracks, contrary to the findings of an earlier study.
From the Oberholzer/Strump
This sounds great! (Score:2)
They need a better expert (Score:2)
Re:They need a better expert (Score:2)
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, young Padawan learner, you have discovered a truth. Now put down your light saber, it is time to teach law, so that in time you to will be paid $200 an hour to write word salad.
Word Salad? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Interesting)
From the impression that I gett, I think RIAA is trying rigerously to get a finding against these individuals for copyright infringement, and then get their identity. More likely, they're using these ex parte appearances (where the defendent isn't present) to get the judge to authorize them to be able to obtain the names required in order to bring a proper suit against these people.
I'd say this is pretty similar to a situation where someone breaks into your house, and leaves a very weak trail, and the cops peeter out. So, you sue the person as a John Doe, then try and use that to find out who John Doe is.
Basically, it's like putting the cart before the horse to me. They're suing people before they even know who they're suing. For all they know, they could be suing someone on their legal team, or even the judge!
Re:what the fuck (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what the fuck (Score:3, Informative)
Courts deal with "persons", which are actually legal entities. It just so happens that in the vast majority of cases, legal entities are confined in squishy tissue boundaries.
But there are a number of "persons" who can appear before court that aren't confined in squishy tissue boundaries. (btw, that's a real legal term... squishy tissue boundary...)
sorry, I just got totally sidetracked there...
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
To get these court orders, RIAA/MPAA/etc. usually have to file lawsuits. The *AAs know the ISPs have the customers' info but until they get the court orders, all they have to work with are activity logs showing people from certain IPs accessing illegal content at specific times. Once they have the order, the ISPs are legally required to tell them who owned those IPs at those specific times and amend the lawsuits with the actual names.
Which do you prefer? ISPs readily disclosing customer info to *AA leading the *AA to extort people directly or ISPs refusing to disclose info until forced by the courts during the normal discovery process? Following due process at least prevents the *AA from picking specific targets and also forces them to more thoroughly investigate each case they plan to file. Having to file formal lawsuits also prevents them from pretending it never happened when cases turn out to be dead-ends or backfire.
The *AAs fought long and hard to circumvent due process but they failed, now they're forced to sue Jon Doe by following due process... everybody should be happy that the *AAs are finally using the legal system the way they are supposed to instead of trying to work around it.
Re:what the fuck (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither. I want the ISPs to have the ability to refuse to disclose customer information to the RIAA unless they have been issued a court order. Note, this isn't EXACTLY what you said in the second part, because it allows that the ISP can choose to disclose the information, if upon their own evaluation the information is warranted.
If the ISP releases the information and it wasn't warranted or permitted, then you have the recourse of acting against them. Also note, this is the way it is now.
Following due process at least prevents the *AA from picking specific targets and also forces them to more thoroughly investigate each case they plan to file.
That's exactly the point. Who knows it's due process, until the court examines it. John Doe #8 is asserting that the RIAA has not sufficiently followed due process in their actions against him and the other 25 John Does.
It's all a legal battle. In court, everyone says their going to do something, and they try and make their case, and the court either agrees or disagrees, then they move on to the next matter.
The *AAs fought long and hard to circumvent due process but they failed, now they're forced to sue Jon Doe by following due process... everybody should be happy that the *AAs are finally using the legal system the way they are supposed to instead of trying to work around it.
Crap, wait... were you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Either way, I agree with this statement...
If you were agreeing with me, then it's all good, but if not... um... I don't know what to argue about since we both agree that it's a good thing that the RIAA is being forced to operate under due process.
RIAA & Due Process? (Score:3, Insightful)
The news is only reporting the number of John Does being sued.
I think it would be naive to assume that there aren't a fairly large number of people who got turned in by their ISP & settled instead of being sued first.
Re:what the fuck (Score:2)
That is not correct.
First of all, the first step is a subpoena, not a court order. A subpoena and a court order are two entirely different things.
If the ISP does not have that information, then they can't tell them. There is, to my knowledge, no law in the U.S. requiring ISPs to collect and store that information.
Once subpoenad, most ISPs, especi
Re:what the fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs have to hold relevant records when they receive subpoenas but they may choose not to disclose anything to the requesters and there is nothing that the requesters can do about it in this case - this is privacy protection... I can imagine customers sueing their ISPs for breach of
Re:what the fuck (Score:2)
Re:what the fuck (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm waiting for them to sue someone awkward, like a celeb or someone in the gov't. I mean, with all the people pirating, it's almost a gaurantee that they'll get someone important sooner or later.
Re:what the fuck (Score:2)
like good olde Senator Hatch?
Re:what the fuck (Score:2)
Problem: These are Senators we're talking about. You think the people who pass these sorts of ridiculous laws actually know how to turn a computer on? I mean, if they tried to fileshare, it'd be beyond their abilities to google "BitTorrent".
Re:Yea that will work (Score:4, Informative)
ahem (Score:5, Funny)
Who's Pat, and why do the police have him? Why would you want someone who's so heavy?
Re:ahem (Score:2)
To have someone who can throw his weight around?
Re:ahem (Score:2)
Re:Atlantic vs DOES 1-25 (Score:5, Insightful)
John Doe #8 has also moved [blogspot.com] to dismiss this aspect of the suit.
You are right, it is an inside out class action, formed under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doe #8's lawyers essentially argue that any link between the 25 co-defendants is fortuitous and insufficient to grant the jointure. The rule is designed to collect partners or other's who jointly benefit from the transaction or actions at issue.