RIAA Secretly Tries to Get ISP Subscriber Info 127
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an attempt to change the rules of the game, the RIAA secretly went to a federal district court in Denver with an ex parte application. The goal was to get the judge to rule that the federal Cable Communications Policy Act does not apply to the RIAA's attempts to get subscriber information (pdf) from cable companies. Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else — neither the ISP nor the subscribers — were given notice that this was going on. They were, in effect, asking the Court to rule that the RIAA does not need to get a court order to be able to force an ISP to disclose confidential subscriber information. The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."
Monkey see monkey do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There has indeed been a severe decline in ethical and moral behavior in at the highest executive levels of government, which has been a signal to the businesses that helped them get there that there are 'new rules' for the 'good old boys'.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
(Score:1, Insightful)
Most, not all
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I agree. It's old and tired and not really applicable here.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
"They're just following the example set by our leader"
If you would have put the plural, then they might not have taken it as a direct jab at Bush.
(Just my thoughts, I didn't have any issue with the original comment, but could see how they could take it as yet another Bush joke/jab.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for the courts shutting them (the RIAA and the current administration) down. But I'm afraid the example has been made and now we are going to see more attempts upon our rights in the future. The courts might not be able to hold off the assaults forever. Particularly if they can be stacked by the administration to provide it with favor
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
None needed. I appreciate the thought that you responded in the first place. Most everybody will ignore it and wish I would quit "standing in front of the TV".
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know why, but this makes me more sick than anything else i've heard the riaa do.
Re:Monkey see monkey do (Score:5, Interesting)
I made the controversial decision in 1994 to never buy another RIAA represented product.
Since then I have made a handful of exceptions, in cases where I have personally bought CDs directly from the artist, that is, it went from the songwriter's hand to mine, usually autographed, after his show. I have developed quite a large collection of independently produced and distributed music, and an even larger collection of things that have been released for public consumption by the artists with no intention of monetary gain.
Back in the day, I was a hardcore record collector. I basically started life with a collection of records from the 40s and 50s already handed down to me. I kept it up throughout the whole 60-70s rock era. I collected classical recordings, especially while majoring in music theory at university. For most of my life, buying recordings was one of the major expenses, usually right after rent and food. Since I'm a musician myself and had made a career of it, music purchases weren't merely entertainment expenses, and more than just business expenses. And granted there were lots of freebies. (When you have a lot of records, people give you records, you're making volume trades all the time, plus I worked in public radio, where I got to keep whatever was being thrown away, plus all the good promos.)
Anyway, long story short, I *stopped* buying RIAA-represented music because of the RIAA b.s., and I didn't ever start up again. Instead, I already realized that what was out there beyond the mainstream was far more interesting anyway, and I never looked back. Granted, I was already heavily into alternative and independent stuff to begin with, but the RIAA sent me all the way over.
Thanks RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, if you buy CDs you're buying product from a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why, but this makes me more sick than anything else i've heard the riaa do.
Slashdot front page... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot front page... (Score:5, Funny)
After the initial barrage of overlord and soviet russia jokes, they will be pretty much in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one doing a disservice spouting nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. This is the first time I've ever seen a news article reporting on the fact that the RIAA got an ex parte order signed. Usually it does remain a secret except to the ISP who eventually learns of it
after it's already been accomplished .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the RIAA can't be the *only* underhanded "litigious bastards" out there!
As a matter of fact I'm not aware of anyone other than the RIAA who's ever pulled this stunt. I'm hoping one of the ISP's or one of the universities will take them on -- with some of the materials [blogspot.com] I've assembled -- and I'm sure any decent judge, upon seeing the legal reasons why the process is improper, will deny the discovery motion.
By the way, the RIAA's so-called expert Dr. Doug [blogspot.com] is being deposed Monday in Atlantic v. Andersen [blogspot.com]. We've moved to exclude him from testifying at the trial [blogspot.com] in UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I like your Open Letter, I think it lays out the situation and best response in solid layman's terms that a non-lawyer can readily understand. The one point where I think people could become confused, is that it needs a quick definition of "ex parte" -- especially since the vast majority of people who will use this advice are non-lawyers, and may not have a lawyer instantly handy, either.
I read through a big chunk
RIAA Government of the People (Score:4, Interesting)
Possibility for abuse aside, at least the government claims to do it save lives, whereas the RIAA is doing it to make (more) money.
Note: This is not a comment on the PATRIOT Act. It is a comment on how the RIAA now has more power than the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local police combined. The only difference being that they can not shoot you.
...not so much (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, more likely, the ISP responds "Okay, you won this round. Along with the requested information, we've enclosed a copy of our new 24-hour-max log retention policy, effective immediately. We look forward to your next ex parte order".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But then you can't check the logs yourself if something goes wrong.
Personally, although I don't run an ISP, I have
And as a nice bonus, as the first thing the police/FBI do in a raid nowadays, they unplug your comp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs are so large now they could give a flip less about their individual customers. Things aren't like they were back in the early '90s when each subscriber was a bigger slice of the revenue pie. The fact many people are locked between one or two high-speed providers means they have a captive customer base. There's no worry of mass-exodus over privacy issues for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yet.
Re: (Score:1)
"The RIAA Decision" simply doesn't have the ring as "The Seretech Decision." (background) [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: You don't understand. (Score:1)
Ok, so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
(IANAL)
The goal is again? (Score:2)
Re:The goal is again?--Last resort (Score:1, Interesting)
In June 2006 someone blogged an interesting suggestion. People were told Not to go to record stores on July 4 between 11 am and 2 pm, buy some DVDs, leave the store, realize that it contains a DRM label, change mind, go back to store and return the item saying the reason.
Apparently, it didn't work last year. But this year, who knows people will follow the suggestion in great numbers?
This kind of action should touch the sensitivity of RIAA, MPAA and the Holl
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was Baldrick [wikipedia.org].
"Baldrick, you wouldn't know a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked atop a harpsichord singing 'Cunning Plans Are Here Again'".
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, or even Don Ho over American Idol any day... and they're dead!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Tiny bubbles...in the wine..."
Ex parte? Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Until they are specifically involved in a relevant action, they have no legal standing, and therefore there is no reason to notify them.
Mountains out of molehills again.
"Secretly"? Seriously? This is in the public record, it's not sealed. Or should anyone making any kind of legal motion be required to send out a mass mailing to anyone potentially affected?
I'm all for shutting down the ridiculous tactics of the RIAA, but this hardly qualifies -- the reporting is sensationalistic and misleading. When the RIAA demands information from an ISP, then the ISP can fight back (in court) if they choose to do so -- which is exactly why the judge in question did not rule on the general applicability of the issue, and instead just granted that particular request.
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to change your name, you have to make a public notice in the paper. If a store that sells liquor is changing ownership, they have to put a notice in their window.
Just because something is public doesn't mean it's actually out in the open. Who here goes through each docket of the courts in Denver? I wonder w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This ruling would not change that at all. The RIAA could request info from ISPs before.
The point remains that anyone affected can challenge this in court, when they are affected.
So who, exactly, should have been party to this motion? Every ISP? Every person who uses the internet? What happens when
Re: (Score:2)
You're starting to sound like an RIAA troll to me.
You've got it wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
Once the MafiAA have gotten a court order / judgement, it "can" be overturned, but it's much harder to get a ruling overturned than it is to get one in the first place.
The whole trick with the MafiAA going for a ex parte decision is so they can go behind closed doors, give the judge a long blowjob of lies and deception, pay him off, and get their "judgement" which they'll then use to threaten and abuse even more people - without anyone being able to give the other side of the issue and point out where the MafiAA is full of shit.
Jack Valenti just kicked the bucket. Wouldn't it be nice if the MafiAA lawyers/suits would follow in his footsteps quickly? It's not like they are contributing members of society. They won't be missed and I doubt even their own mothers would cry at their funerals.
Two MafiAA trolls modded this "flamebait." (Score:1)
Re:Ex parte? Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Under our American justice system, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a strong presumption in favor of giving notice prior to the Court's taking action , not after.
It is much harder to get a Court to take action to undo something it has done, then to get it not to take the action in the first place.
Having a couple of days to hurriedly (a) investigate what the case was based on, (b) investigate what the motion for discovery was based on, (c) engage your own witnesses, and experts, and do legal research, and prepare and serve and file papers, is not the same as having an opportunity to meet all that ahead of time.
The honorable and legally correct and professional way to seek this discovery would be to give the university notice prior to making the application, and give the university extra copies of the summons, the complaint, the motion papers, and the court rules, for distribution to the John Does, so that they would all have a meaningful opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and so that their counsel would have a meaningful opportunity to act.
The RIAA doesn't do thing the honorable, correct, or professional... it always opts for the sneakiest, most un-American, most unfair, way of doing everything.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Unfair - check.
Un-American when your executive branch engages in this kind of behaviour on a daily basis, then sees their way clear to lying in public about it when they get cound out? That seems to me to make this about as American as you can get.
It's a sad but true commentary on the state of the nation that what was once held up as a utopian ideal (that of "The American Way") has become so corrupted
Re: (Score:2)
Motion for blanket authority to demand ISP records, which is what your summary focuses on? No notification, since it's a non-issue. No press release needed to publicize the motion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for shutting down the ridiculous tactics of the RIAA, but this hardly qualifies -- the reporting is sensationalistic and misleading.
You must be new here...
/. about the MAFIAA; that's pretty much the only media that'll even take a stance against them.
/. was enlightened about such matters. Commonly-held beliefs will be smeared in mainstream media until the MAFIAA has won. Better to give them a straw man to attack.
Don't bother worrying about sensationalism and deception on
Oh, you wanted the truth? That's a foreign concept to a MAFIAAoso. It would be of no consequence if
Here's a Thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's a Thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Next Up.. (Score:2, Funny)
Say, on a small island.. just off the coast of Miami..
And this is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Private Property Wins Out (Score:3, Insightful)
2. This is to be expected in a society that places privatizing over everything else. Those of you that think the "ownership society" is a good thing, please consider this example carefully. It is the logical outcome of a legal system that emphasizes priviatization. Other than that, I'm not sure why this is so outrageous.
What I'd like to know is why _that_ judge? I mean there had to be some maneuvering to this whole affair. What was the process that got them this privilege?
Where's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA has an IP they believe is downloading copyrighted material. This allows them to request that the ISP give them the personal information of the person that was using the IP addresses, according to the logs of the ISP. This request must include the court's order, which specifically mentions that the ISP can move to squash the request.
So the RIAA can take the information they have (the IP), and get the detailed information they need to file a full lawsuit. I think they've been getting burned on their "John Doe" lawsuits, so they're actually trying to get the right info early on.
So where's the problem with this?
-- Ravensfire
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get detailed information to name a specific person if you don't file a lawsuit. BUT, you can't get that detailed information unless you file a lawsuit.
I feel that if the RIAA can present to a judge the IP address and the evidence the RIAA has that this IP address is probably downloading copyrighted information they probably don't have the rights to, an order should be given.
The alternatives are equally ugly - file a s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Squash is a vegetable.
Court did the right thing... (Score:4, Informative)
They (the RIAA) are really reaching for anything that will make this easier for them. But going after an unknown defendant is never easy.
Hell, it's hard enough to go after a known defendant and collect your money after you've already won a judgment against him.
I wonder what kind of return they are getting on their investment here. If they can't even get a settlement proposal to a defendant before going to a judge, and more of those who do get served are fighting it... I would think the returns will begin to diminish.
Coupled with the good will they are losing (assuming they even factor that in), they may decide this is a lost battle at some point... But that's just rampant speculation. I'm curious if NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks that this insanity will ever end... If not, maybe I should change my area of practice (that would be defending the criminally accused, an area of the law which is almost completely lacking in geekery).
Re: (Score:2)
How did the courts accept a one sided case? Any outcome of this would be crapish.
Maybe RIAA aren't on it by the money, and they really belive that lawsuits are an efficient means of fighting piracy. They've already
Re: (Score:2)
The defendants are currently "Does 1-9," so at this point, there are no known defendants.
The court noted that the cable companies can move to quash the subpoenas when they get served, so it's not necessarily going to stay one-sided.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts should not be accepting these ex parte, one-sided, applications. They should be insisting that prior notice be given to the John Does through the ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing that it's "right." But I thought that was the procedure they were supposed to use (file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the ISP).
Re: (Score:2)
It's always easier to skulk about... (Score:2)
...in the bushes, hoping to catch someone in the act or dig through someone's trash than it is to allow for benefit of the doubt. The RIAA's tactics are not new, but they are certainly not good publicity. They are treating people like MAC/IP addresses, not like potential customers/users. They are putting such an enormous amount of effort into trying to trap the unwary, instead of redirecting that energy toward giving their customers what they want: usable, shareable, transferable music. If they just gave up
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people that are uploading music to others aren't "potential customers", they are people that want to destroy the business of selling recorded music. Period. Oh, and by the way, so far it looks like they are winning.
This is a fight to the death, pure and simple. The business model of selling rec
On Slashdot it's not 'ex parte' secret.... (Score:1)
We need to sue the RIAA. Perhaps with 66 Attorneys? http://www.66attorneys.com/ [66attorneys.com]
Two words for the RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
- In New Contested Cases in Brooklyn Federal Court, Defendants Challenge Status of RIAA Cases as "Related"
- Wolfpack Stands Up to the RIAA; NC State Students to Fight Back (Corrected article)
- RIAA Subpoenas High School Student for Deposition; Demands He Miss Class; Gives Only 1-Day Notice; in Houston, Texas, case
- RIAA Drops Case in Which it Pursued High School Student on 24-hours' notice
- Judge Denies RIAA "Reconsideration" Motion in Capitol v. Foster, Calls Plaintiffs' Counsel "Disingenuous", Motives "Questionable"
- Battle Rages Over Counterclaims in Atlantic v. Andersen
- RIAA Goes Into Court "Ex Parte" in Denver, Colorado, Tries to Get Ruling that it Doesn't Need Court Order to Get Subscriber Info from ISP's
- SONY v. Merchant Heats Up in Fresno; Defendants' Lawyer Attacks RIAA "Ex parte" procedures
- Defendant Opposes RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Corpus Christi case, Atlantic v. Boggs
- Ms. Lindor Moves to Exclude RIAA Expert Testimony For Failure to Meet Reliability Standards Under Daubert
I know the record labels were hoping that people they sued would just "roll over" and settle. However, here are the two words that describe the real situation: "game on."Re: (Score:1)
The decision is possibly good (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing the article doesn't mention is that this is actually a good decision by the Magistrate Judge. I'm not a lawyer, but from a friend who is:
"...The RIAA also tried to get the Court to issue a ruling saying that 47 USC 551(c) did not apply to internet providers. That statute says a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. The Court declined to decide, likely because it wants to wait to see if Qwest will fight it, and that way have lawyers arguing both sides, instead of just the RIAA's lawyers.
They are not "above the law", and the Court issued the order in a way that actually allows the battle to be joined fairly--should Qwest so choose. And I'll bet they will."
Just to clarify. I think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm guessing he had something to do with getting the decision published in Internet Law & Regulation [ilrweb.com], which is where I learned of it.
Oh Shit ! (Score:2)
Get a load of that. "Laws do not apply to riaa". You americans let them go THAT far to the extent that they are now delusional about they being above the law ?
Only step they can take from this point is hiring small gangs to mark and beat up suspected "copyright infringers".
please, you people are too familiar with class action lawsuits. find some clause in some law to sue the shit out of these morons.
what!?!?! (Score:1)
How to rule a country (Score:2)
2. Provide them with resources (food, oil, etc.).
3. Outlaw free entertainment.
4. !?!
5. Profit?!?
definition of ex parte (Score:2)
Ex parte is latin for 'one party', which means that the motion is effectively unopposed.
It says nothing about notice nor secrecy. In fact, it is my understanding that the only secret trials in the US are military tribunals (and maybe some cases where judges question children who might feel vulnerable and lie in the presence of, for example, a forme
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But you are right on when you say
Re: (Score:2)
I argued a motion Thursday that was ex parte. We gave technical notice, but counsel for the opposing side did not appear. I inquired, and the Master confirmed that it was indeed ex parte, per se.
This is in line with Black's Law Dictionary: "Done or made at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or argument by, any person adversely interested."
Thus, I think my
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How may I ask did you arrive at the conclusion you have? It's contrary to the definitive legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), contrary to a Judge's opinion upon my inquiry, and contrary to my understanding, intuition, knowledge and belief (which isn't exactly paltry in the area). I would be quite surprised if you
Re:They shouldnt have to get it (Score:5, Interesting)
And whose to say that getyourfreewarez.com isn't a joke sight? Or webcomic? By your argument I could tell whatever ISP hosts
The RIAA is a dirty fighting company who uses scare tactics and outright extortion to put an end to a business which costs them almost nothing and deserve no more aid from our justice system thank you very much.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The poster's tone was a bit testy, but nowhere near troll standards.
He was modded troll because someone didn't like what he said.
Trying to say otherwise is disingenuous and unconvincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take a comparison:
What he COULD have said: "Copyright infringement is still illegal, and ISPs are not being forthcoming with help, because piracy only helps their business model. If the cops and the ISPs won't comply, what alternatives are there?"
What he said: "Pirates are criminals, people who pirate are bad, and people here just won't admit it because they like to pirate."
To get your point across, you don't need to insult or demean your audience,