RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request 172
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
That would end it once and for all.
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...
Re:Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You meet some interesting people when you know some of Ken Kesey's old friends.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
-
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Emphasize the talent angle, I suppose.
Re:Right... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Kill the RIAA? Sure. Kill the major labels and their evil machine? Absolutely. But somebody please think of the childr...er...artists!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Don't outsource, get it for free( was Re:Right...) (Score:3, Interesting)
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 you want a "solution", why not create a site to help people find these musicians, and also a system to get them some decent equipment--maybe a donation system which sends new equipment to the most popular musicians. Maybe have free music studios available
Re: (Score:2)
Eivind.
Re: (Score:2)
But are they NON-RECOUPABLE as well?
Re: (Score:2)
How about if the copyright is stripped from the record label and given over to the artists which appear on it?
At least you'd know the capital of Budapest (Score:2)
Oh, no. That's the part when everybody goes out of the room to put more popcorn in the microwave.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the correct punishment is to lock them in a mirror and send it hurtling through space.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Cornered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cornered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Funny)
:)
Good one.
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 $$'s to EFF and several similar ongoing efforts we all benefit from.
I call on all
Yeah, a little over the top, but this IS a pep talk!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank
I don't know that I really expressed myself well above. The last part seemed too cavalier for what I intended.
I don't try too much to pay attention to the mod's to my replies, as it doesn't seem to make much difference to my Karma. Perhaps I inadvertently balance the good, the bad, and the fuggly in my replies after reaching the "Excellent Karma" rating I have. Sometimes I can be rather an asshat- especially when I've been drinking. (which is frequent- I like to relax with some good beer after getting off work at 2300 hrs.--if you doubt this, just enter my user name and "slashdot" in Google search!- and yes, I am most of my way through a sixpack of Guinness Extra Stout right this moment)
As far as Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawer) goes, I meant every word I typed. I have made him one of my (few)
1. As a 'friend', his posts are "+" rated so that I can see them at my current settings. He always has something to say that is worth listening to whether you agree with him or not.
2. I admire and respect his work on our behalf. (not just the
3. He backs his play in real life- 'puts his money where his mouth is'. Yes, I'm sure he is a successful attorney in the usual parameters, but he is one of the few who 'dare go where eagles fear to tread'(bad paraphrase).
4.?????
5. Profit!!! (Sorry, this IS
This post brought to you by an idiot powered by Guinness!!!
"Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"
"Huh? What? Damn, thought I was pissing on my own shrubs...sorry neighbor! I'll just go home now."
"Er, uh, could you point me towards my house? Most obliged!" *staggers off*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
-
Re: (Score:2)
As a side note, I have decided to contribute my tax return $$'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!
Thanks, rts.
The best ways to contribute financially to the anti-RIAA fight, at the moment, are the Expert Witness Defense fund, the Marie Lindor Defense Fund, and the Jammie Thomas Defense Fund. Links to all 3 are here [blogspot.com]. Contributions to the Expert Witness Defense Fund are tax deductible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ThaNooch, NewYorkCountryLawyer, et al vs the People Who Take Everything Seriously
Never thought when I started visiting this site that I'd spend so much time laughing my ass off.
And in response to my esteemed opponent here today to represent the RIAA, might I respectfully point out that I got yer copyright violation right here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Judge: "Heck, why?"
Lawyer: "Because else I'd lose the case, duh."
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhhh! You're revealing SCO's deep dark secret strategy for dragging their case out through multiple appeals.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?
It's not standard practice for judges to take orders on what they may any may not do except from judges on higher ranked courts. Anyone else trying to order a judge around just irritates the heck out of said judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn Lawyers. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good lawyers conduct discovery amicably with little or no running to the judge unless there is a general, reasonable dispute. Judges hate to have their time wasted, and when it happens, both sides tend to lose something. Shady lawyers with shady clients who have something to hide---those are the ones that object to every reasonable discovery request. I know one like this. He is pretty much hated by every lawyer in the city.
I suggest that he seek employment at Holmes Roberts & Owen. He would fit in well with their corporate culture. Tell him to send his resume to Richard L. Gabriel, Esq.
So not a lawyer... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a way for the second party to file a reply to the new arguments. It is called a surreply and the RIAA has do
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess most surreplies are limited to a rather narrow set of allegations such as that the other party raises a new argument or blatently mischaracterized the law. If
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just require everything that is discovered to be instantly public domain. This would make corps think a lot before trying to sue each other. Would you sue anyone if you were aware that the other side could publicly air your dirty laundry at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
What?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fuck the RIAA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pfff (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As long as they have the legal fees they'll be in business. They're in this for the quick buck and to build enough precedents to haul in front of their bought and paid for Congresscritters to show that 'there is a serious problem and something must be done'. Their solution of course is to buy legislation to loot anybody they can target, with the taxpa
Re: (Score:2)
Class - thanks :-) (Score:2)
Darth: You don't need to read that brief... (Score:2)
The RIAA also wants the judge to put his fingers in his ears and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah...", whenever the Oregon AG speaks.
RIAA Counters its own arguments (Score:5, Informative)
hey, fsck 'em. court is an open process. (Score:2)
fsck 'em. they chose the court, they can play by the home rules.
Now that SCO is essentially done for... (Score:2)
Help the world, Groklaw... you're our only hope!
Re: (Score:2)
PJ has covered the RIAA stuff, but if she now plunged into it as she did the SCO case, that would just be unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sur-replies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's true, they live in their own little world without a connection to reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry.. (Score:2)
Ook
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Oook.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" publication should have "This publication supersedes all older versions", and you shouldn't be permitted to pick and choose which versions you're going to use to interpret law.
I guess only in a perfect world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can get the Republican Party to go medieval on the RIAA's ass for employing undocumented workers?
-
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 Plaintiffs' discovery and litigation
practices is irrelevant to any issues presently before this Court. The evidence submitted
regarding what may have happened in different cases involving different parties, different facts,
different allegations, and differe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:SCO vs RIAA vs Dirct TV (Score:2)
Actually Direct TV should be suing the RIAA for the theft of their litigation model of sending extortion letters, followed up by lawsuits, to everyone they could locate who had ever bought a smart card writer. Evidence of any actual crime wasn't necessary since defending yourself was far more expensive than just forking over several thousand dollars. And I don't think anyone ever stopped them.
Re: (Score:2)
What, SCO suing the RIAA for stealing the business practice of suing?
Actually Direct TV should be suing the RIAA for the theft of their litigation model of sending extortion letters, followed up by lawsuits, to everyone they could locate who had ever bought a smart card writer. Evidence of any actual crime wasn't necessary since defending yourself was far more expensive than just forking over several thousand dollars. And I don't think anyone ever stopped them.
Actually the ones who should really feel aggrieved are the Mafia. They're the ones that deserve to have a business method patent for "extortion". The Mafia should be suing the Mafiaa for infringing on the tactics which it perfected. Probably the only reason we haven't seen such a lawsuit is that they're too closely connected, with interlocking directorates and the the like.
Re: (Score:2)
hey, this has some merit! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FAGGOTS (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 copyright infringement, and alleges that, and will sue that person once it gets his or her name and address.
3. The Attorney General correctly recognized that, contrary to the RIAA's careless pleading and careless affidavits, the RIAA's evidence does NOT sho