RIAA Wants Student Deposed On School Day

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Houston, Texas, case, UMG v. Hightower, the RIAA has served a subpoena on the defendant's son, a high school student, on one day's notice, telling him to be at a lawyer's office at 9:00 a.m. the next day, a school day, for a deposition. The defendant's lawyer objected (PDF)."

Comments

School Day == Work Day?

[rsmith-mac]

Uhh, I hate to even sound like I'm agreeing with the MAFIAA on anything, but when exactly are they supposed to depose him if not on a school day? The school week and the work week are pretty well aligned, and forcing them to either work on a weekend or wait until he's on vacation is stretching things. Their actions are certainly deplorable, especially giving a one-day notice, but doing it on a school day isn't one of those deplorable actions.

Re:School Day == Work Day?

[pla]

and forcing them to either work on a weekend or wait until he's on vacation is stretching things.

THEY want his deposition. Not the other way around.

Why should he suffer an inconvenience to suit their schedule?

In the same situation, if I had to lose a day's pay to humor the RIAA, I'd feel mightily pissed off. OTOH, I have very little doubt that some hungry young lawyer would work OT on the RIAA's dollar to take the deposition on Saturday or some weeknight.

Re:School Day == Work Day?

[cprael]

The 24 hour notice thing is called abuse of process. It goes beyond the fishing expedition aspects, and gets into "now we're going to use this to screw up your life."

BTDT.

Re:School Day == Work Day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he suffer an inconvenience to suit their schedule?

Because this is one of the RIAA file sharing lawsuits. Making people suffer is their primary objective. The greater inconvenience in the initial stages, the less likely someone will actually challenge them. This is the RIAA saying "We can make life miserable for you and your entire family, and it's completely legal. So cough up whatever amount of money _we_ think is fair, and we won't keep you dangling in legal hell for the next decade."

Re:School Day == Work Day?

[ec_hack]

when exactly are they supposed to depose him if not on a school day?

Well, it's not just any school day they picked. It's TAKS testing day - a statewide test in Texas that has to be passed to graduate from high school. They picked one of the worst possible days of the year to compel him to show up. They are either evil or ignorant, in my opinion.

Go figure.

[Mockylock]

RIAA is basically becoming an automated bot nowadays, anyway. I'd be surprised if they don't show up in court as robots with brief cases as well.

Someone needs to start doing something about RIAA's boundaries and arrogance, considering they're getting so careless with who they're attacking nowadays. How long will it be, before Judges and courtrooms are sick of these petty charges, and start only allowing the larger criminals who actually sell and distribute?

Right now, you're paying less when distributing marijuana or posessing cocaine, than you are to host MP3's.. EVEN if you're a child!

There HAS to be a line drawn somewhere.

Re:Go figure.

[mpcooke3]

How long will it be, before Judges and courtrooms are sick of these petty charges, and start only allowing the larger criminals who actually sell and distribute?

Or they could spend their time prosecuting price fixing media cartels.

Wow

[EvilGoodGuy]

RIAA is realy getting out of hand with their bullying. It's good to hear news about their losses, but their abviosly winning enough to keep harassing.

Why would they need a deposition anyway?

[aadvancedGIR]

With their own lawyer and without giving enough time to prepare anything. There is only one possible explanation: what they really want is an intimidation session.
Since he would not be facing a policeman but the opposition lawyer, can he simply walk away anytime he wants or refuse to sign anything?

What happened?

[jakosc]

Also, I just realized '9:00 am the next day' was two days ago, so...what happened?

Re:What happened?

[robbiethefett]

you are very true to your nick, Overly Critical Guy.. i can't fault you for that. but the emphasis you placed on "FUCKING OVER" made me think that perhaps there was a direct correlation between downloading and slumping record sales. Of course, on further inspection, i have found no scientifically credible data that would lead me to believe CD sales currently are, or ever will be affected by piracy. I decided to phone one of my friends who happens to make a living from playing music. I asked him what his thoughts were, and the answers he gave me were pretty enlightening.. it seems that most musicians, from unsigned artists, all the way up to the most popular mega bands make the majority of their income from touring and merchandising. those $20 t-shirts you buy at a concert have a several-hundred-percent profit margin. Another interesting tidbit that came straight from the horses mouth has to do with advertising.. apparently most "starving artist" type musicians love the idea of free advertising. at least that's the case with my guinea pig artist and everyone he plays with. according to him, the best thing that could happen to an unsigned musician who is playing professionally would be to have an album or two skyrocket up the "most downloaded" chart. a group's popularity is apparently what pushes more bodies into the venue, and in turn, what ramps up an artist's income. who woulda thunk it? so, yes, you are completely correct; downloading the entire Metallica catalog is, in fact FUCKING OVER metallica for as much as a thousandth of a percent of their yearly income. especially when you see them play live and buy 5 $10 beers and 2 $20 t-shirts at the venue. but hey, i have to agree with you that its appalling that many people on /. were saying to go after individual infringers, where as now they are completely opposed to the idea. i mean, christ, it's almost as if the socio-economic climate has completely changed in 7 years.. despicable rats always changing their stance on issues every 2/3 of a decade or so.. next thing you know, we'll have republicans challenging a republican president's decisions, or even a government rife with opposition to war.. ...i think you get the idea.

hmm

[nomadic]

The fact that it's scheduled on a school day is no big deal. I've never seen a depo scheduled on a weekend.

One day notice is pretty weird, though. Traditionally you clear dates with opposing counsel as professional courtesy, or you at least set it far enough in advance to work things out.

RIAA's fishing expedition

[t35t0r]

The defendent's attorney said:

The subpoena is being used for patently improper purpose, namely as a fishing expedition by plaintiffs'

That sums up the RIAA's entire strategy.

Response:

[debrain]

Say your lawyer is busy. You are entitled to your choice of legal representative.

Serving a notice for a sworn deposition on one day's notice is contrary to the rules of professional conduct, and can (and should) result in penalties against the lawyers' clients in court, as well as with with the lawyer regulatory disciplinary authority.

How to avoid RIAA entanglements

[kimvette]

1. Quit downloading RIAA music
2. Do not share RIAA music (help prevent the spread of mindshare) (ugh, I hate buzzwords)
3. Do not buy RIAA music (or if you do, stick to back catalogues from USED CD/record stores)
4. Do not tune to new RIAA music on the radio so you can avoid being tempted to buy new product from RIAA

By doing so, RIAA members will eventually either go broke or go independent, and the independent labels will rise in popularity as their buying power increases beyond that of the dying RIAA cartel.

Re:Prays?

[Bogtha]

article 1 section 4 of the bill of 'rights' of the texas constitution states that people may not hold office if they don't "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being".

No it doesn't. Read it again. It says that people who acknowledge the existence of a supreme being are not subject to any other religious requirements. It doesn't say anything about people who do not acknowledge the existence of a supreme being.

It's a statement restricting what the government can demand of public officials who believe in a deity. It's practically the opposite of a requirement to hold office — it's a loophole, not a demand.

It's a stupid law alright, but it doesn't forbid atheists from holding office per se, it just doesn't give them the same loophole as everybody else.

Re:Absurd

[Lithdren]

And as the mods have already pointed out, what does this have to do with this article?

Right, wrong, left, right, it doesn't matter. The kid was told to show up in court under penalty of law with a 24 hour notice, on a school day, that was a state exame day required for graduation.

If that isn't unreasonable, I dont know what is. This kid hasn't been shown to be guilty of anything, thats what the court is trying to do. Is it right to yank kids out of school on VERY important days, because someone believes he, or someone he's closly related to, MAY have POSSIBLY violated a CIVIL law, and isn't by the very nature of the beast, a criminal act?

Should they be allowed to strongarm people, and scare them into settling out of court for outrageous fees and fines, without being given enough time to even have a laywer review the damn situation? Should this kid, who again, is not yet proven to be guilty of anything, have his future jepordized by missing quite easily one of the most vital days of the school year, because some multi-billion dollar company thinks he might have copied that floppy?

There's your damn wild west.

Re:Prays?

[Xtravar]

There are nuts everywhere. Most don't become too nutty until you start pointing out things that are wrong and differences that nobody noticed before.

The Texas constitution was made a long time ago by the people of the time. So were the original designs for US currency, and protocol for swearing on a bible before testifying in court. Do people look at currency and think, "Gee golly, it's right! In God I trust!"? Do they swear on the bible and actually feel compelled to tell the truth more so than otherwise? No.

Most nonsense that people complain about is left over tradition. Yes, sometimes tradition has to go. Other times, it doesn't, as it really means nothing to the people anymore. The moment someone complains about something like the Texas constitution, it starts a shoving battle between people who feel like their culture is being attacked and people who feel the need to fix something that isn't broken. IMO, in some cases it's better to let tradition and culture, remnants of the past, fade out silently than to attack them and renew interest in them.