Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Agreements to Stay Secret
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is opposing Ms. Lindor's request for discovery into the agreements among the record company competitors by which they have agreed to settle and prosecute their cases together, by which she seeks to support her Fourth Affirmative Defense (pdf) alleging that 'The plaintiffs, who are competitors, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and of public policy, by tying their copyrights to each other, collusively litigating and settling all cases together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in accordance with a uniform agreement, and through common lawyers, thus overreaching the bounds and scope of whatever copyrights they might have. ...As such, they are guilty of misuse of their copyrights.'"
Go Ms. Lindor!
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
On our side, we want the lawsuits to be secret. No one will ever know. How about that.
Kinda makes the effort worthless, doesn't it.
Doing PR by lawsuit. It'll remain in history, and our grandchildren will be reading about what the RIAA used to do in our days in attempt to keep Earth from spinning.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Looks as if balls are not the necessary equipment.
rj
I think there are quite a few factors at work:
1) It takes either lots of money or a civic-minded attorney to put up a fight. Many good fights don't get fought because they're too expensive.
2) When taken at face value, a lot of what the RIAA says it stands for can look very acceptable to people who aren't thinking critically. That includes colleges and universities who deem it appropriate to give up their students; mainstream newspapers and other media in a lot of places; and anybody else who doesn't take the time to think clearly. I learned from a local news outlet just yesterday that the RIAA is fighting against drug money, illegal gun money, and even "terrorism." So even the news outlets aren't taking the time to observe and evaluate.
3) People are just flat-out terrified when they find they're being sued by such a massive organization.
People who read Slashdot, and other people who've taken the time to think this through, are scandalized by what RIAA is getting away with. We've all seen and read about their abuse of elderly people, single mothers, recent orphans, and children, and that's had an obvious impact. It's going to take something truly spectacular that is widely reported out there in the mainstream before the general public wakes up.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
The RIAA's strength is spin control. The whole industry is one massive PR machine. In fact, it's the only thing it knows how to do anymore. It's no surprise they're taking the same approach to their legal strategy. Promote pro-RIAA messages and actions as much as possible, suppress anything that's negative. Rinse, repeat.
Something off topic, but worth mentioning: I appreciate the various members of the legal profession who take the time to breakdown and explain legal cases such as this, people such as Ray Beckermann, PJ from Groklaw, et al... Not only do I have a better understanding of what goes on in the legal world, but I have a little bit better respect for the people and procedures involved. Thanks..!
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
The RIAA has to hope they can get the judge to ignore the Amurao case. Good luck.
The RIAA says discovery is over. The problem here is that counterclaims can arise as a result of discovery. In that case, it would be unfair to limit discovery to that of the original case. As an example, consider the SCO v. the rest of the world case. SCO was given extremely generous discovery in spite of the fact that they had produced zero evidence. It seems, on its face, that the record companies seem to be acting as a cartel. My wag is that the judge will decide that there is enough smoke to justify the conclusion that there may be fire.
I have the balls to stand up to the RIAA.
The hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal feels and representation? Not so much.
By spectacular I think you mean "The RIAA will have to start killing copyright violators indiscriminately". Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, we just had a Vice-president assert that his authority lies beyond the reach of law, logic, common sense, and the Constitution of the United States, and there was no call for impeachment from the masses, but rather only vaguely cranky inane ineffectual grumbling. If people aren't aroused to action by that sort of outrage, I don't think random little folk getting legally pummeled by the RIAA, for using software that most older people don't even comprehend much less use, is gonna get people rowdy.
But I could be wrong.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
In simple terms, maybe.
The Court could very well hand down an abrogation of the protections afforded to the works because
they misused their position in this way. If the Court hands that down as the punishment/remedy,
the decision and the penalty would have stand upon appeal- which you KNOW they would immediately
do if they got handed a decision like that. If it stands upon appeal, they may still be stupid
enough to try to get the Supreme Court of the US to listen to an appeal of the whole thing- IF
the SCOTUS decides to listen to the whole thing, they still have to convince the Justices that
it's a bad decision, RICO's Unconstitutional, etc. or they lose hard.
Even if it does happen, it'll take years for 'em to lose the rights protections.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Plaintiffs are guilty of unclean hands.
Apparently the RIAA downloads a lot of porn.
Certainly, if by "worked" you mean "fooled everyone into thinking it was capitalism", and if by "largely discredited", you mean "widely adopted as the prevailing American 'wisdom of the day'".
But go ahead and be just like the Germans: "They thought they were free."
Fuck Slashdot
Seriously, we could have any legally binding contract go into a public database on the internet, which could be viewed by anyone.
Why? Aside from that being completely impractical and ultimately fruitless (when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts), what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs? If you have a good legal reason to know, then you'll get it through legal action. If not, just because you want to know other people's business doesn't mean you get to.
Ma'am, there's a Mr. Godwin on Line 2...
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
what business is it of yours what contracts anyone else signs?
Okay, let's narrow it down a bit. How's this: Government and corporate contracts go into the database. It's a matter of public policy.
(when secret contracts are outlawed, only outlaws will have secret contracts)
Maybe, but it will be more easily apparent what behavior is not a matter of public knowledge. The government could reward publicizing contracts with tax breaks or whatever.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Scenario: your child has a problem for which requires a stay in a 24-hour care facility. The paperwork they have you sign is a contract and it is with a corporation. Therefore, by your rules this contract should be public so the world will know what your child is being treated for and thousands of other little facts you might want to keep private.
Still sounds like a good idea?
Oh, maybe you meant just contracts between two corporations? Well, obviously that loophole would be exploited to the hilt, rendering the entire idea pointless.
Riot? In response to something happening that is perceived to threaten the lives of everyone in the US if not the planet? Are you kidding?
In 1970 there might have been a riot. By 1980 you start seeing people being rather self-indulgently restrained worried about how this would affect their future as a lawyer or CEO if it ever came out. That was pretty much the end of it. Were there massive protests against the Iraq war? Not really. Were the police called out in riot gear with people being beaten and arrested? No.
Nobody is going to do anything like "riot". They will sit at home just as they have been trained and keep reading dailykos and other stuff like it and let the world go on around them. Yes, they will be angry and write some really scathing posts for firedoglake but nothing else is going to happen.
Backbone? Commitment? Resolve? Naaa. What we have is a nation of sheep that are being directed by a few sheepdogs. Some of the sheepdogs want to control things through large businesses and some of the sheepdogs want to control things through government. Some confused sheepdogs seem to want to control people through both, even though they are diametrically opposing forces. The problem is that most people can't even identify a sheepdog when they are in their presence, much less knowing when they are being led by one.
Most people seem to want a government that is run by poking fingers in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing today. Take a poll before any decision. Let the "voice of the people" tell them what to have for breakfast. This doesn't look good because nothing is ever finally decided. If the morning poll says "Raise taxes" and the afternoon poll says "Spend less" government grinds to a halt. In some ways that is a good thing because a uniformly undirected government isn't going to accomplish anything at all, least of all something bad.
If you choose a life where you say you don't value money, don't come crying to your political masters 20 years down the road for not having any.
If you choose a life where you don't value your rights, don't come crying to me when 20 years down the road you don't have any.
When I look at my life I look beyond the end of my street, and I don't like what I see. An issue like global warming won't have a practical impact on you, but you grand children are going to be killed by it. The won't be able to "just move inland" because everyone else from all the most populous places on earth will all be doing the same. Once everyone gets there, the fresh water supplies will fail because the overcrowding on top of the lack of infrastructure. So now you have hundreds of millions of displaced people worldwide, a potable water shortage, and guess what pops up everytime you have widespread conditions like that? Disease. So no you personally might not be effected, but your grandchildren and great grand children will die most misreable deaths because you refuse to take resposibility for anything past the end of your driveway. Don't confuse money with respect, freedom, or responsibility. Some actions have effects beyond making or losing a dollar, maybe when you grow up you'll see that.
We are all just people.
How does the government really control all aspects of my life? Does the government stop me from any of the following:
a) starting a business
It depends on what business you want to start. Depending on what the business is government can make it harder to start. For instance my sister started trading, buying and selling on eBay. However in North Dakota the legislature has a law that require auctioneers to spend a lot of money to be licensed as an auctioneer. For those who are poor yet have the skills to sell on eBay this could prevent them from doing so, as least doing it legally.
b) selling a product
Same as above.
d) expressing myself however I want
I guess you didn't try to attend any of Bush's campaign stops in 2006 wearing a tshirt that wasn't approved. Even Bush supporters were turned out when they appeared with tickets to events where Bush was. And it's not just Bush, both the Democratic and Republican Parties were able to get law enforcement where they had their conventions to setup "free speach zones" away from the conventions.
e) buying anything I want
Government prevent you from buying many thing legally. There's this fake "Drug War" going on which deprives people of liberty.
f) eating however much I want, when I want, where I want
If you live in New York, or a number of other cities, yes. NYC has banned trans fats.
The answer is really no.
As listed above, the answer is YES! Just because it's not as bad in the US as it is in most other countries it doesn't mean there isn't any restrictions on liberty in the US as well.
Do I like the USA PATRIOT ACT? No, I don't. However, I've not seen the Democrats do anything to even try to repeal it.
Of course, Democrats supported the PATROIT Act as much as the Republicans did. Not only that but as President Clinton tried to get many of the same powers. Only two congressmen voted against the Act, one from Wisconson though I don't recall his name, and Rep Ron Paul (R) of Texas. And the thing is is none of them read the whole thing!
FalconShould there be a Law?
tjstork, I bet you don't realize just how much of your little screed is actually the result of a message that is embedded in just about every bit of news and entertainment in the US Media. I've been hearing, more often of late, the so-called "smart people" in the media scoffing at problems like global warming, the US health care mess, the expanding divide between rich and the rest, and the growing environmental catastrophe, rolling their eyes at the silliness that any of these problems could actually cause a problem for any of us. These things, we are told, aren't really worth worrying about because they are either the natural order of things or completely fabricated by liberals who are somehow going to get rich by telling people the climate is changing. Just look at the way the everyone in the world is trying to get into the US. You don't see any Americans trying to leave do you?
Well, yes in fact. Of course people who are starving in Columbia or Rwanda or whose lives are being threatened in Iraq or Rwanda or who can't feed their families in Mexico or Rwanda are desperate to get into the US. But you'll find a lot more Americans trying to move to Canada, Sweden, Finland or other "semi-socialist" countries than you'll find people from those places trying to get here. Recently, when I had to renew my Italian passport (I'm born an American citizen, but I got my Italian passport back in the '70s when I learned that I was eligible because of my ancestry), I was talking to the guy in the Italian embassy here in Chicago and he told me that the Italian government has been trying to streamline the procedure because so many Americans are trying to get EU passports. He said that he hears all the time from Americans who want to emigrate because of the far better civil services over there. Even formerly Soviet bloc countries are seeing large numbers of US citizens moving there, and not just the rich retirees, but regular working people who are concerned about the erosion of their standard of living. They are working harder, longer and living on less, he's told. Sure, unemployment rates are low, but how many people who a few years ago were making really good wages and benefits are now making 20 percent over the minimum wage in the "service" industry with no benefits or job security? Why do you think the elite want to open our borders to Mexico, and do you think that's going to improve our standard of living or just improve their bottom lines?
How many people do you know who say they are working "just for the benefits"? How many would stand up for themselves to their boss or decide to make a bold change in their career except for the fact that they are held captive to the shrinking health care benefits that come when you have a decent job. Guess what? Those health care benefits are getting smaller and harder to get every year. Just a few minutes ago, I read an article at cnn.com about how they assigned a research team to test the assertions in Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko", and surprisingly (to anyone who listens to talk radio or watches Fox News), his facts were pretty much dead on right. But the media is extraordinarily effective at getting people to believe the way you do, tjstork, that we are "lucky to be American". Not "lucky to be living in a wealthy country" or "lucky to have a good job and good health", but "lucky to be American". I wonder if you realize just how much damage this kind of exceptionalism causes. There's this circular kind of reasoning that "The way we do things is the best because we're Americans and it's the way we do things".
I love this country dearly. I love the people here, the stunning diversity of population, topography and climate. I especially love the virtues and values that the exceptional group of men who lived at the birth of the United States held and shared. Thomas Paine, Ben
You are welcome on my lawn.
Maybe the Mafia objected to be put in one bag with the RIAA and MPAA. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
Pun unintended, but at least noticed before posting.
I seem to recall that the specific copyright violations have resulted in the specific rights holders (ie. individual record companies) being listed as plaintiff on the cases involving violation of their copyrights, with those violations and rights being specifically listed in the filings. As such, the RIAA, and by extension its other members, are not attempting to sue collectively for the rights violations. This claim contradicts that, which is easily found in the collection of suits and pre-suit collection attempts.
This claim will fall apart based on this evidence. The rest of it will be moot, as it is not illegal to actively pursue settlement collectively as long as specific individual instances of damage are not claimed when they don't occur. This is the basis of class action suits. Suits brought by trade unions on behalf of more than one of its members for a specific complaint similar to each v. a specific company would perhaps be a more apt example.
As to why the RIAA would then attempt to block it: delaying tactic. They are trying to cause this case, as they have with many others, to be as costly as possible for the defendant to pursue. Their collective purse, paying the RIAA's attorneys, is much larger than any defendant's, and they're simply trying to price the case out of existence.
As much as I'd like to see the RIAA and its members hung using their own intestines if not vas deferens, I think there's a gaping hole in the tactic being attempted here. If the agreements the RIAA seeks to block discovery of contradicts this in some way, great. But the individual suits as filed, used as their evidence in defense, indicate the opposite and makes it unlikely those agreements will get examined due to this action. It could even backfire. A request for discovery without the claim that they're tying their rights to each other, perhaps brought separately by one of the RICO countersuit v. RIAA plaintiffs, might have been a better idea. Now the RIAA is warned, can delay, and can alter any agreements that might have supported it by superseding them with newer ones that don't have this problem. The old ones would still exist, but would be evidence of this claim in the past, not of claims that this is how things are being done in the case that resulted in the claims.
No, I'm not a lawyer. But I did work on behalf of some in collecting evidence and acting as witness in some intellectual property cases.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B