Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'bumpy ride' in its 'ex parte' litigation campaign against college students just got a whole lot bumpier. After reading the motion to quash filed by a George Washington University student, the Judge took it upon herself to issue an order to show cause. The order now requires the plaintiffs to show cause, no later than November 29th, why the ex parte order she'd signed at the RIAA's request should not be vacated. She's also requested information showing why her ruling should not be applicable not only to John Doe #3, but to all the other John Does as well. p2pnet called this a 'potentially huge setback' for the recording companies."
IANAL but OSC hearings happen all the time, it's absolutely routine, it was almost inevitable given the filings. The ride is neither bumpier or smoother.
The judge is ordering them to give her whatever reasons they have as to why she shouldn't vacate the order.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Though I'm sure Mr. Beckerman will arrive with the correct interpertation shortly, I think show cause just means show why. "They asked me to throw this out. Why shouldn't I?"
Ex parte just means without the other team appearing, but the other team just showed up in this case. Show Cause means show cause for their complaint, i.e. justify why the judge should rule one way or the other, it's basically just a hearing date where each side shows up and presents their arguments, but there will be paper sumbissions before then, any evidence and arguments or declarations in writing has to be served on the other parties in advance of the hearing. OSC is your day in court.
It can't help the RIAA. Either it will hurt them, or things will be as they are now. But there's no scenario under which the RIAA comes out of it better because of the Judge's signing the order to show cause. The RIAA will now probably spend $10k or more "showing cause". Meanwhile, it's evidence is defective, and its legal arguments are nonexistent.... so it's unlikely that the Judge will find it has established "cause". Most likely this ex parte order, which never should have been signed in the first place, is going bye bye.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It's normal to set a deadline.
What's highly unusual is the judge issuing an order to show cause on her own.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I do think that the RIAA folding and giving up on protecting its copyrights would be a positive move for everybody. And I do include the labels in that as well. Where things got screwed up was when they expected to sell crap albums to people, because the people couldn't hear the whole thing prior to purchase.
There are a number of albums by artists that I would never have purchased had I not illegally downloaded a few songs first. They just weren't easily accessible to me in other ways.
It's largely a matter of the RIAA having too much protection from piracy that has caused most of their problems in the first place. The whole concept of copyright is one that should probably be largely revoked. It was never meant for a copyright to last more than about 30 years, and even then it originally required people to file paperwork to have it extended.
A lot of what the piracy is about these days is a whole lot of poor customer service. It was for a long time easier for me to crack windows than it was for me to go searching for my legitimate serial number everytime I wanted to reinstall windows. It was horribly inconvenient and significantly more so than pirating the OS. Likewise in the music industry, it is difficult to separate the good music from the horrid crap, because the labels are terrified of piracy. Wrongly equating a full sale for each illicit download.
I won't personally purchase another CD until such a time as they've decided to start playing fair within the generally agreed upon legal principles. There are plenty of other artists out there that put out quality music and do so in a manner which makes it easy to spread word of mouth reviews of them.
I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense to pretend like the RIAA didn't make their own trouble. The majority of music consumers understand that if nobody buys the music, nobody will make the music. But lied to about the cost of producing the music, and then being expected to pay $18 or so for an album that was recorded in a way that kills nearly all of the nuances and subtleties is absurd.
For a physical copy of an album $5 is more than enough in the volumes that an album that is charting will sell. A platinum album would bring in $5mill, with less than $1000 for a decent recording probably $500,000 for the discs, and an additional $500,000 for promotion $1mill for the artist. That's a pretty huge profit, and depending upon the actual terms, very little risk, only a bit over 100,000 albums reguried to break even with that type of budget.
The digital era has thrown a wrench into the the system for 2 reasons. 1. The cost to make reproductions has gone to zero. I can copy a file as many times as I like, it doesn't cost me anything. If I want to make 10 copies of a VHS tape, I have to actually buy 10 tapes. 2. Tracking bootleggers has become close to impossible. If you buy 10,000 VHS tapes, produce 10,000 copies and sell them in Time Square for a buck each, you leave a paper trail. I can (well not me personally, I have no skills) figure out where the tape was sold, then who bought them and track them back to you. In the digital era, this become quite impossible. On the Internets, I might be able to figure out that a computer is hosting files to be downloaded, but I don't really have a good way to figure out who is downloading those file, or who even owns that computer that is hosting the files. The RIAA is trying to get copyright law changed to say that if you even make it possible for another person to reproduce a copyrighted work, that you are "hosting", then you are in violation of copyright law. I've been told that the copyright doesn't work that way, but I am not a lawyer so I have no clue. The problem that I personally have with the RIAA is not that they are trying to protect their copyrights, it's how they are doing it. They are using scare tactics to make people think if they share their music with others they might have to thousands of dollars, and they are (ab)using the legal to accomplish their task.
"b) that for someone to violate the copyright law, one of the major tests is you have to do it for a) commerical gain"
Where did you get that silly idea? Comercial gain has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright allows the owner to control distribution of the work, whether for fee or for free.
2. If the Judge grants the Does' motion, and does so with sound reasoning, the decision will reverberate throughout the country, and may lead to the end of the RIAA's John Doe litigations, which is where it all starts.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Usually a judge decides something after hearing arguments from both sides. In rare cases, a judge will decide something without giving one of the parties a chance to make their arguments. That's what's called an "ex parte" order.
The catch is, if you're asking a judge to do something without giving the other side a chance to be heard, you have to be EXTRA SPECIAL fair in the way you present the arguments and evidence.
This judge granted an order trusting the RIAA had not misled her on the facts. But now, after the fact, the other side has had a chance to respond in writing. And after reading those arguments, she's started to wonder if the RIAA was blowing smoke in her face. So she wants the RIAA to come back and make their case again, this time with the other side in the room so they have a chance to say "wait a minute, that's not true!" and explain why.
No, they represent the Recording Industry. The artist thinks up music, then signs a contract giving the recording copyright over to the recording company. The company makes money off the recording, and gives a few pennies to the artist in royalties. So they protect their own copyright and interests, not those of the artist. The busines model of the current music industry is to get a few songs on the radio, on MTV, or wherever it is these youngsters hear their music, and use that to sell the entire album. The recording, if you will, making the Recording Industry the biggest part of the Music Industry. There may be more dollars exchanged in other forms, like performance rights or writing songs for a performer, but album sales pretty much support the business to customer portion of the current business model of the industry.