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.
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
Sony ha
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
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"
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 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
Their choices do not include abandoning "the futile attempt to reign in every pirate." Their choices are pretty much (a) stop widespread piracy of music or (b) close down. There isn't much of a middle ground.
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 recorded music is headed for obsolesence. Once you enable "usable, sharable, transferable music" there is no more money behind music promotion. This is the only thing that drives the current music industry - promotion, fueled by the money from sales. Why buy when you can share? There is no music industry without promotion.
This does enable a whole different kind of promotion, the sort of word-of-mouth person-to-person sort of promotion. But one that doesn't create big names with big sales - it creates small crowds at concerts. Can individual artists live with this? Probably. But it does mean there is no promotion anymore. And promotion is a multi-billion dollar industry right now that interacts with many parts of people's lives.
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
"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
But you are right on when you say
The first question the judge should be asking is where the affected parties are and why they aren't at the court.Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful