Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Secretly Tries to Get ISP Subscriber Info
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."
They're just following the example set by our leader. And we just can't get enough. The abuse is turning us on.
What?
It's not much of a secret anymore
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
If the government is not allowed to secretly spy on you (before the PATRIOT Act anyway... IANAL), why should the RIAA?
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If you aren't with the RIAA, then you're against them, and that means the pirates have already won. We need to surrender our freedom in order to preserve it. Don't misunderestimate the pirates. They hate us for our freedom. Fortunately they are in their last throes. Down with Oceania.
Life needs more saving throws.
The RIAA cannot win these cases based on any factual evidence or merit, so they resort to lies and trickery to get what they want.
Alright, so the judge issued the order. But isn't a big part of an ex parte order the fact that affected parties can contest it? ISPs aren't bound to this ruling in any meaningful way, am I right?
Sony ha
....do not feed the trolls.
Sony ha
Even if they stopped all file sharing would that revive their crap-tastic industry? The most exciting thing they have going is "American Idol" and even that only appeals to fans of Vegas style crooning.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
When the RIAA requests the information, then is the time for ISPs to challenge whether they have to hand over the info.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...Have you been living in a cave? Your arguments would be valid...if the RIAA was only suing pirates. Since they're suing people who can't possibly have copyrighted or it would be absurd to say they've pirated anything ever they don't deserve any right to make their job any easier. If the RIAA was a good company who legally went after those who caused it damages and didn't use scare tactics, questionable legality, heavy lobbying, and attempts to get outright illegal things (e.g. pretexting) made legal for them then you'd be valid.
/. that it's a repository of pirated stuff and they'd be obliged to check it out or just shut it down. Doesn't sound too bad, until you consider how many notices they could be receiving every day. Hey, that would be a new way to do DOS attacks wouldn't it? Send a couple thousand e-mails to the ISP instead of the server and wait for them to pull the plug.
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.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
"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?
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 what the reaction would be if no attention was brought to this and suddenly hundreds get affected by this because the ISPs don't give a rats about their users and give the RIAA whatever they want. Bet people would be calling FOUL!!!! then...
Hindsight's 20/20, of course.
Let them, but force everyone who is a affiliated with the RIAA to expose their personal information publicly. Make a website where anyone, at any time, can log on and see what any member of the RIAA is looking at online, what email they get and where they shop online. Maybe then they would see how utterly ridiculous this is and would think a little bit before they start reaching for every dollar hanging out of some kid's pocket.
The entire basis of the court system is the adversarial system.
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.
..US Government opens prison for political dissidents, on foreign soil to escape constitutional challenge.
Say, on a small island.. just off the coast of Miami..
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
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 we extrapolate to all ex parte motions?
Exactly, which is why we have a legal system to adjudicate this. The courts exist so that people can cry foul, and have a legal option for determining if a "foul" actually occurred.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'm far more worried about the RIAA than Google+DoubleClick
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
1. I agree the summary is a bit inflamatory.
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?
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
Okay - I'm trying to find a problem here, and can't.
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
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
The last resort in this kind of dilemma is boycott.
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 Hollywood establishment.
Essentially, the RIAA was asking for a declaratory judgment against the ISPs. But the ISPs aren't even parties to the case. It makes far more sense for the court to provide the limited order than to give some sweeping declaration of the law on an ex parte motion.
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).
...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 this futile attempt to reign in every "pirate", they might stop burning valuable public capital before it's too late. I suspect, however, that like the kamikaze pilot, the RIAA is hell bent on its suicidal mission and won't be deterred.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
The only difference being that they can not shoot you.
Yet.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Don Rumsfield's house up on the net? While I did not agree with doing that to him....would it be appropriate to do with various RIAA officials? These are the cockroaches that scurry away when someone turns on the light. Well, maybe that is a bit over the top.
if 3+ million people know about it.
We need to sue the RIAA. Perhaps with 66 Attorneys? http://www.66attorneys.com/
- 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."This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...The only difference being that they can not shoot you... You forgot a word. It should read.The only difference being that they can not shoot you yet.
And at this rate it won't be too long now...
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
Yet.
"The RIAA Decision" simply doesn't have the ring as "The Seretech Decision." (background).
More Twoson than Cupertino
Proving Slashdot's been infiltrated.
I, for one, will welcome our new music industry overlords.
the government spied on us secretly even before the PATRIOT act.
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Mod me troll if you want, but I don't see this as being "un-American" in the slightest. Sneaky - check.
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 and broken that it now means the exact opposite of what was intended.
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
"The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."
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.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
I think it's time to go to the "Other, Other Operation".
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I think it was Baldrick.
"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'".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
A day not passes without learning about yet another Hitlerjugend crap pulled by RIAA lackeys.
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.
Read radical news here
RIAA? Secret? ZOMG!!/sarcasm I always thought it was obvious that the riaa sucked at being private in the least bit
destiny, chance, fate, fortune; they're all ways of claiming your fortunes, without claiming your failures. -gerrard
It is my humble opinion that seeking out the downloaders is getting way to easy for the RIAA/MPAA. It seems all they have to do is point and cry "filesharer" and they get your info or at the very least get your ISP to contact you.
I'm sick of their tactics. They should be told to **** off and try to get that information themselves. If you want to nab a filesharer, you'll have to hack their systems/network to do it. Good luck with that guys. Those of us that are using filesharing as a tool to help us decide to purchase something are being punished for those that use it and purchase nothing.
"Welcome to the country where one person can screw things up for everybody!" -- Tim Allen
1. People need resources and entertainment (bread and circuses).
2. Provide them with resources (food, oil, etc.).
3. Outlaw free entertainment.
4. !?!
5. Profit?!?
Ex parte does not necessarily mean it's secret. Adding the word secret (which appears nowhere in the article) makes it sound like this was a sealed proceeding. Due to the fact that we have a published ruling, this was not done in secret, but (regrettably) absent the party the ruling was against. Setting aside all my feelings on this matter, I don't like to see cheap words added to hype an article. Heaven knows this topic will get enough air-play here. -AZ
"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."
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 formerly abusive parent, but even then there's probably a court reporter).
As for notice, that's a whole different story. If you serve notice and the other side just doesn't show up, that's still ex parte. It happens all the time. It makes judges reluctant to make an order, because we're in an adversarial system that grants the court enormous powers in the right situations.
I wouldn't describe an ex parte motion as secret, since it's on the public record in an open court room that anyone can walk into, but the manner is clandestine. The first question the judge should be asking is where the affected parties are and why they aren't at the court.
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
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
You're starting to sound like an RIAA troll to me.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful