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."
Yeah well, California legalized pot and we saw how that caught on...
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Where the RIAA goes from here. They have managed over the last couple of years to really put the screws to people by skirting various legal and technical constraints. If this were to hold up they would have to engage in litigation more the way that normal organizations do it.
I imagine that they'll probably appeal until they get their way, but that won't be cheap for anybody. The best thing that the RIAA could do for themselves is actually follow the procedural rules, as in the long term a witch hunt only lasts as long as there are angry villagers to burn the resulting witch.
Instead of paying RIAA money by the shovel, the labels should wake up and realize the utter futility of RIAA and stop paying their lawyers.
Instead the labels can put more effort into a more generous licensing model, pay artists slightly more, and release tracks as MP3 in iTunes.
They could also try to identify real talent (Nor Ashlee) and promote them free of cost until the artist wants to sign an agreement.
The labels should wake up to the reality that paying lawyers shitload of money does not mean they win every lawsuit.
Spend on the money on identifying new lines of operations, and promoting music (schools concerts, etc) and STOP insisting on getting paid each time i sing a tune in the bathroom.
Labels: The more your RIAA goons try to restrict us, the more customers you are losing to emusic.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
So did the Judge get busted for selling cocaine to the RIAA, or did the RIAA get busted for buying it?
... finally a judge that is requiring the RIAA to follow the law and due process.
One more nail in the RIAA's coffin - the question is what type of backlash can others (music buyers, other "potential infringers", artists, etc) expect now that it is getting harder and harder for the RIAA to conduct "Business As Usual"?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
1. nobody attended the court to hear the motion being ruled upon
2. nobody read the court filings after the ruling
3. nobody bothered to get a transcript of the trial to see what happened.
In other words, the trial wasn't all that important to [news organizations].
And why wait a month to 'disclose' the ruling?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Wait - judges aren't allowed to deal blow, least of all to the RIAA
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.
It's nice to see a judge applying some common sense to these RIAA fishing expeditions. You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. Something along the lines of: "Our students pay $x thousand per year to attend our institution. They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and every single piece of personal information they have. We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship." (As a public institution, UNM could also add something like, "The citizens of the great state of New Mexico do not allocate a substantial portion of their money to us so that ..." etc.) Honestly, if universities didn't knuckle under as easily as they do, most of these cases would probably never make it to court -- or if they did, it would be the RIAA vs. universities instead of individual students, which would at least be something closer to a fair fight.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
... in the long term a witch hunt only lasts as long as there are angry villagers to burn the resulting witch.
Actually, witch hunts (at least the "Spanish Inquisition" kind) worked by targeting the deep-pocketed serfs and, once they were convicted, splitting their assets between the church's witch hunters and the local governmental nobles. (That's why they didn't get going very well in England - where the swag would all go to the King.)
Similarly the RIAA witchhunt will continue until either the RIAA can't profit from it or the courts (the "governmental nobles") stop allowing it.
(Remember, too, that the RIAA can profit from it by dunning its members, even if it's not making money off the accused. The members may go along with that, thinking that the witch hunt is profiting THEM some other way - such as by diverting some fraction of music users from "pirated-content" downloaders to purchasers.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The article mentions a New York judge that ruled the opposite way in a similar case. Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone explain exactly how it's deemed even mildly legal for the RIAA to file suits against individuals and have motions against them when they're not allowed to face their accuser due to secrecy? This seems like an open and shut case to me.
So did the Judge get busted for selling cocaine to the RIAA, or did the RIAA get busted for buying it?
Unlike ISPs, which have either knuckled under or put up a very weak defense of their users, the university-as-ISP decided to put some effort into defending its students' interests against the RIAA.
For-profit ISPs have little to lose (beyond their own inconvenience) in handing over logs, and each customer represents a very small revenue stream. Bean counters might decide that failing to defend them costs the ISP little, while defending them costs more than they can ever recoup from that customer's fees.
Universities have a lot invested in each student and receive a lot from each in the form of tutition and various grant monies, along with other rewards from their success. And they have a lot to lose in other intangibles (such as security of their papers, reputation when recruiting students, staff, and faculty, etc.) So letting students swing in the wind is not just a bad idea academic-freedom wise, it's bad financially as well. (Doubly so if the RIAA's target is a faculty member, staffer, or administrator. Letting one of those get hit, or even distracted, by an RIAA suit comes right out of the University's "intellectual capital".)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. ... "They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and ... personal information ... We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship."
AIUI that's exactly what the University did, which is what got this decision from the court.
If the ISPs had shown similar spine the RIAA would have hit this wall long ago.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... file-sharing attorney...
Yo, Ray! Stop sharing those files, you rascal!
Isn't it usually, "Judge blows RIAA"?
Judge Garcia: WHAT?!? We'll see about that...
I hope in the future that you
will break
paragraphs
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
That's the most horrendous story of judicial misconduct I have ever read since this story! I mean a JUDGE! Dealing Blow!!! To the RIAA of all people? I mean, did they find out where he was getting it? Was it any good?
(Yes, this is probably the worst mis-read headline ever! Muhahaha!)
The mistake you're making is imagining the RIAA is some sort of independent body that record labels pay, and the RIAA is busy on their behalf doing stuff that is just done with so much as a phone call.
In fact, there is no difference between the RIAA and the record labels. They are the same. The RIAA is essentially a beard for the record labels so that you say "those bastards at the RIAA, they're suing the children". Meanwhile, the lawsuits are the creation of the record labels completely.
To put it another way, the RIAA won't sneeze without specific instructions from the record labels.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
(...that was my attempt at getting some "Insightful" points) Pthbbbt!
(What do I get for a no-word comment?)
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" -- Plato
Perhaps we object to its mission. Or perhaps just its tactics. Either way, the objection needs to be evaluated on its own regardless of the tactics of file sharers.
Oh, if they want to play in the technical arena, they have every right to be creative. They'll lose, of course -- which is why they don't want to play in that court exclusively anymore. When they start playing in the LEGAL arena, their "creativity" is something else entirely -- it's promotion and institutionalization of injustice.
Like most RIAA apologists, you've got the order backwards. The Draconian and strange moves on the industry's part which really make it hard for everyone -- Serial Copy Management System (which killed DAT) and the DMCA -- came BEFORE Napster. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) have the power to make things crimes -- and they do, no question about it -- their complaining about criminal behavior is simply a demand for obedience.
1. Illegal trespassing upon a computer system ("hacking" or "cracking")
2. Doctoring the screenshot
So how is it that this "evidence" is even allowed?
It's not just that they file a John Doe suit, it's that they join dozens or even hundreds of unrelated parties into a single lawsuit. The one and only basis for that is that all the Does in that lawsuit share the same ISP, which is not, to my non-lawyerly knowledge, a permissible reason for joining parties according to the FRCP. One Texas judge ordered them to put a stop to that very practice of "defrauding" the state of its rightful filing fees, yet the practice continues in other venues.
:-) For all I know, I'll end up being one of the Does by mistake someday (I don't listen to or like their crappy music, why on earth would I waste HD space on it?). I'd like to say that might even make them waste a little money responding or objecting to it, but I bet they'd make a form letter brief to reply to them if anyone made a habit of it...
Also, even once they have someone's identity, they've been known to play tricks with John Doe suits. I believe that, in the case of Mr. Merchant, he retained a lawyer and they offered to make his hard drive available, but only to outside counsel. The RIAA withdrew that lawsuit before they filed an answer in court (you can do that, it's a free pass to get out of court) and filed another John Doe suit in an attempt to get his hard drive directly, where they could have in-house people fish through it at will. By virtue of that being a John Doe suit, they meant to keep his lawyer out of the courtroom, preventing the counsel they knew he had from responding to their dirty tactics.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although John Doe suits are perfectly normal, the way the RIAA uses them is not. They use pretty much any trick they think they can get away with, however dirty, even if it's contrary to the law. And when they pull these tricks, they try to make sure that no one is able to object.
To be honest, it tempts *me* to do things that I sincerely doubt are well supported by any laws at all. For example, can you file amicus briefs in random John Doe suits pointing out that Texas case? I have no idea, and incredibly dubious, but it might be worth the price of a stamp, especially because I could ask that the judge give those facts judicial notice even if the amicus itself was thrown in the trash... The other trick might be doing so anonymously. Can you even file an amicus anonymously? I haven't the foggiest. But I'm pretty sure I could just not sign my name. And I'm also pretty sure I could sign it "John Doe" out of an abundant sense of irony
Of course, these things being done ex parte also makes it pretty hard for me to find out about them before they're over...
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.
Are the addresses for judges freely availiable in the US? Work address should do fine, no need for personal.
When reading this, I just kept thinking to myself: What if lots of people that are against RIAA tactics sat down and wrote a short letter each? Some positive words showing him that this is an issue that people actually care about. It's obvious that there are a lot of supporters on the net.
BTW, how many praise-letters does a judge need before it itself would become a news item?
I lost my sig.
It is a blow because their whole scheme relies on being able to make this happen easily and cheaply. They need to be able to easily identify people based on very shaky evidence, and bully them in to settling. They cannot afford to have to go through a real trial in each case. Despite what they like to pretend, they are not losing millions of dollars per person, and the people they sue don't have that kind of money. Plus, if they start losing cases, that sets legal precedent and can make future cases that much harder. So for this to keep working they need things fast and easy.
A big part of that is easy discovery. They need to be able to just hand the court a list of John Doe suits with IPs and demand that ISPs hand over subscriber info with no argument. If they have to actually go through the proper proceedings it may become quickly not worth their time, especially since they are likely going to need to get better evidence beforehand.
These are not solid lawsuits we are talking here, hence why they've never actually won a suit (at least not that I am aware of). They've bullied plenty of people in to settling, and dropped suits that went to trial, but they've never actually argued in court and won. They'd do it, if it was a strong, legit case but it isn't.
Hence this IS a blow to them.
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.
You have a file (video, music, whatever) that you didn't pay for? It's wrong...
Says who? The law? The law also said some time ago that I may buy and sell people of black skin color, that I may shoot native americans on sight, that I must not sell, own or drink liquor and many other things that I wouldn't consider too legal (or relevant) today. If you move out of the US (there are parts of the US legal system that I'm not too sure of, so let's continue with old Europe), there were laws concerning torture and how to apply it legally, homosexuality was illegal and it was (and afaik still is in the UK) high treason to burn paper money. Not to mention that according to a still existing law, the male population between the ages of 14 and 60 have to gather after mass under the observation of the clergy to fire arrows into the countryside, using a bow. I don't even own one anymore!
There've always been pointless, senseless or outright insane laws, there've always been laws that had little to no support in the general population and there have always been laws that we, looking back from our vantage point of today, deem horrible. Yet still, they existed and were valid, often also executed.
In a free country, laws rely on the support of the population for them. Laws that are not supported by the majority require a dictatorship and vast resources to be controlled to be forced upon the subjects. Many countries already fell over their laws, and the fact that their subjects did not support the laws and thus required an incredible amount of resources to be wasted on their enforcement.
Copyright laws in their current state fit into this.
Our current copyright laws enjoy no general support. Laws are generally far more successful if they do. If you know a murderer, would you turn him in? Even if it was your best buddy? He killed a human being! If you see someone shoot someone else, would you call the cops? I'm fairly sure, the majority of people would answer yes in all cases. Murder is something we do care about, something we generally consider a crime and something we want the culprit to do time (or get killed in return) for.
Now how about illegal file trading. Would you turn your buddy in? Hell, would you turn a stranger in? Do you care?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Universities have a lot invested in each student and receive a lot from each in the form of tutition and various grant monies, along with other rewards from their success. And they have a lot to lose in other intangibles (such as security of their papers, reputation when recruiting students, staff, and faculty, etc.) So letting students swing in the wind is not just a bad idea academic-freedom wise, it's bad financially as well.
There's also the possibility that a university student could have easier access to legal advice than a member of the general public.
Paying for something is to me more a sign that the payer thinks the receiver of the payment is "worthy" of it. That he "earned" it. And that decision should be in the customer's hand, not the seller's. I agree, mostly. Except the seller determines the price at which they feel their job is worth their time. The buyer agrees that the price is worth paying to have something done better and faster. Now, all that being said, entertainment doesn't fit my argument horribly well. The nature of putting a price on entertainment is so much more subjective to the buyer.
Please tell me if I've made errors in my assumptions; I'm kinda stuck with my point of view until someone shows me another one.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
In order for it to be money out of anybody's pocket, they would first have to prove in court that I would have in fact purchased the content had I not been able to download it. I'm willing to bet that at least some people who download files (music, movies) are too broke to buy them all. How can they say that they are "loosing money"? Prove that there would have been a sale had the download not been there, or else shush and stay out of courts of law please.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.