Slashdot Mirror
Judge Deals Blow to RIAA
jcgam69 writes "A federal judge in New Mexico has put the brakes on the RIAA's lawsuit train, at least in the US District Court for New Mexico. The case in question is part of the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing on college campuses and names "Does 1-16," who allegedly engaged in copyright infringement using the University of New Mexico's network. In a ruling issued last month but disclosed today by file-sharing attorney Ray Beckerman, Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denied the RIAA's motion to engage in discovery. This means that the RIAA will not be able to easily get subpoenas to obtain identifying information from the University."
Yes we did. Over 20% of the country has done the exact same thing to date.
This isn't a blow for RIAA in any way. This is a win for a fairer usage of legal system to punish copyright offenders.
The issue in question is the abuse of the discovery process by the MAFIAA -- they use subpoenas to get identities without the people involved knowing about it; they then then proceed to racket the people directly by offering them a 'cheap' settlement without giving the people a chance to mount defense.
The ruling only says that MAFIAA has to work out a process with the university to allow people to contest the subpoenas before their identities are revealed. This seems only fair, and it is not a blow, but a remedy instead.
If someone is caught violating the law, defend themselves, lose and are found guilty -- or decide to settle out -- things still work as intended, only they get a chance to be informed and contest charges.
Of course and as usual, the MAFIAA has the audacity to say informing people about the subpoenas is doing 'irreparable harm' to them. Yep, sure it does, since it would require them pony up some proof instead of racket.
To which the judge notes that RIAA will not suffer 'irreparable harm' because of that, since if they can produce proof they can still sue for damages and collect.
So, i don't see any victims in this ruling.
IANAL, but the 6th Amendment protection is meant to protect citizens from being prosecuted by the State for criminal action. When and if the RIAA decides to bring criminal charges, rather than suing in civil court, the 6th Amendment will apply to all the John Does.
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
No, they did not.
California decriminalized pot, it it still illegal. Cannabis is still a Federal schedule I controlled substance.
" Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation." - www.norml.org
Our wealth breeds emptiness
The RIAA is not the government. They do not dole out authority; we, the consumer, do. I am perfectly willing to pay for my music. I will not, however, pay the RIAA. The fewer artists who sign to the RIAA, the more artists go independent, which leaves more artists I can buy music from and feel good about it. When I buy music from these artists, I know they're getting money. I know I'm paying the money to a free man or woman, not one who sold their life into indentured servitude. I know they're making more then 2% of the money I pay them, I know they're not driving down other independent artists with legal action. As a consumer, I don't care whether they like the way I behave. If I do something illegal, I would, in fact, expect the law to be enforced. There is nothing, however, which forces a false choice of "buy RIAA, never listen to music, or commit copyright infringement." The RIAA is not the only organization which deals in music, as much as they'd like to be. Have you ever seen http://wwww.magnatune.com/ or http://www.emusic.com? Many independent artists are even sold on Amazon! Payola, questionable lobbying regarding copyright extension, and illegitimate tactics regarding lawsuits (including the prosecution of those who were either known (or should have been known) known to be not guilty along with those suspected to be) make the RIAA the problem, not the solution.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It was an ex parte motion.... i.e. no one other than the RIAA knew of its existence.
The judge rejected it, realizing that there was no reason in the world for the motion to be ex parte rather than on notice.
I.e., the judge was looking out for people who weren't even aware the case was going on... he was doing exactly what a judge is supposed to be doing in such a situation.
Since the judge ordered the RIAA to confer with the University of New Mexico, that's how the order came to their attention.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
But I have a hunch that the University of New Mexico is doing just that.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Something about this has always amazed me. The only possible way that a screenshot could be obtained is by one of the following ways:
1. Illegal trespassing upon a computer system ("hacking" or "cracking")
2. Doctoring the screenshot
So how is it that this "evidence" is even allowed?
You missed:
3. Public file sharing.
And YOU missed:
Photoshop.
I can whip up a 'screenshot' showing an IP at RIAA headquarters looking at kiddy porn on a few hours. It's absolutely crazy that a printout of an alledged screenshot can stand as evidence on Court.