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."

Comments

Simplify this legal language

[bogaboga]

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.

I have trouble understanding legal lingua. I therefore ask somebody to explain the above quote. That is to say: What is it to "show cause?" Thanks.

Re:Simplify this legal language

[Kierthos]

Possibly. Or the judge could not be fond of ex parte discovery.

See, that, to me, is a sham (ex parte discovery). The RIAA doesn't know who specifically is infringing on their IP. Hence the John Doe lawsuits and the motions for ex parte discovery. But then the students who are the targets of these lawsuits don't know what may be used against them in court and help prepare their own defense because if they show up to the discovery proceedings, it actually strengthens the RIAA's case because now the RIAA knows who they are.

But what the hell do I know... most of the law I know is from Law & Order and serving on jury duty. (Okay, and printing out a lot of legal documents over the last seven years.)

The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman?

[compumike]

So, I understand that the legal process that the RIAA is trying to use is questionable at best, with ex-parte discovery and merging of multiple unrelated acts of infringement. But I fear that too many people are reading into your fight against the RIAA that the music industry should not be entitled to protect their intellectual property rights.

Maybe it's easier to take an example outside of the music industry. For example, say that I write a creative text, and publish it online as a PDF file that I sell, and that I do not grant the right to redistribute my work. If I later discover that someone who legally obtained my work is now hosting it online for others to obtain, and even have evidence that an actual unauthorized redistribution has taken place (i.e. someone linking to it with a comment suggesting they've downloaded it), do I not have a right to protect my intellectual property? Even if all I have is a time and IP address, shouldn't I be able to seek appropriate civil action against the infringing party?

There are lots of cases of genuine copyright infringement occurring, and while I understand and support your campaign to make sure the RIAA plays by the rules and isn't overly broad in their accusations, I also don't think it's right to let infringers go unpunished. I think too many people see the endgame as one where the RIAA "folds" and can't protect its interests, and where IP holders have no recourse against digital infringement. But when I read into your work, I think the endgame is really one where the RIAA just has to work a bit harder to present its case in the right way, and infringers are punished.

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman?

[ScrewMaster]

Congress has to update the DMCA, taking into account the competing interests at stake.

"Update", in this context, being synonymous with "repeal", I'd say. I suppose that as a software developer with (ahem) "intellectual property" to protect I should be more sympathetic to the DMCA and those who invoke it but ... I'm not. I've read as much of it as I can understand, and I can't say I like it. That's because I think that, while it's good for some people, it's bad for society as a whole. Congress was unusually irresponsible in passing that law, even for them.

Even so, as I understand copyright law (as much as a non-lawyer can, I suppose) the penalties for copyright infringement were centered around large-scale pirate operations (those who illegally mass-copy protected works for sale) and that when applied to individual infringement don't really don't fit the crime. You know, like using a .50 cal to swat a gnat.

Re:The bigger picture, Mr. Beckerman?

[Anonymous Coward]

A date and IP address, and affidavit that the investigator believed he found copyrighted works on a computer at that IP address at that time, is sufficient to get a subpoena to ID the person associated with that account, so *further* discovery can be had, such as asking that person who had access to their IP address, do they have a wireless router, and examining their hard drive for the infringing works. Depending on the answers to those additional facts, the person may or may not be subject to liability. But date and IP address alone is not enough to win the case. There likely isn't a single computer in the universe that doesn't have "copyrighted works" on it. Aren't the operating systems copyrighted (even linux has GPL fine print). Any material viewed over the internet is COPIED. This means there will be "copyrighted" material on the computer in its RAM. That a computer may have "copyrighted" material on it doesn't PROVE how that material got there. The RIAA could claim investigators drive by houses and sign affidavits that they heard copyrighted sounds emanating from specific houses at specific addresses at specific dates and times? So does that mean they can obtain warrants to to not only search your house (but confiscate it for discovery purposes) and if you have copyrighted books on your bookshelves, copyrighted music on cds, copyrighted videos, you are liable for $150,000 per copyrighted work you possess in your houses because the RIAA alleges a copyrighted sound was heard (made available) coming from your house?

Not only is date and IP address not enough to win the case, but the existence of copyrighted materials on the computer also isn't enough to win the case. Computers cannot be liable, only PEOPLE can be liable. And that means at a minimum EVIDENCE of persons intentionally infringing copyright. At a minimum police forces should be required to obtain warrants from judges to be allowed to investigate alleged copyright infringement. Unless you are sitting in the street with a giant laptop screen so that investigators can see actual persons infringing copyright, they need a court ordered wiretap to record sound or video of actual persons for evidence purposes. That means the FBI must get authorization to put hidden cameras in your home with a view of your computer, the RIAA investigative goon trackers aren't the FBI. They have no evidence. And then if they got evidence of a person downloading and uploading to a P2P site, it must be taken into account that is a non-commercial purpose. That the RIAA has not followed this methodology of gathering evidence, imo puts them in violation of RICO statutes, subject to criminal prosecution with hefty penalties, not to mention forfeiture of all settlements thus far garnered along with penalties and interest.

Re:Commerical Copies

[Attila Dimedici]

Copyright holders spend 100's of thousands to mulitple millions of dollars to produce "music videos", engage in Payola, advertise to DJs and radio station programmers, etc. all for the purpose of allowing the music to be played on the air or on TV/Cable all in the hope that people will buy the music. Clearly they could save those $$, let P2P do it's work, and accrue the savings in production, Payola, etc. to any lost of royalities.

Actually, the problem the RIAA members have is that they don't control what gets played this way. RIAA members believe (wrongly) that they can manufacture demand for particular music, no matter what its quality is. They, also, believe (correctly) that if this new distribution/exposure system takes over, they will no longer be able to justify the large share of the profit from music distribution that they take.
Under the old, established music distribution system (brick and mortar stores, exposure on radio stations and MTV), the RIAA members added a lot of value to an musicians work, justifying the large share of the profits that they reaped. Under the new distribution system (download music file and mount to media of user's choice, exposure on internet radio and free download), the RIAA members add much less value and so artists are starting to realize that the artist should get a larger share of the profit and end users are realizing that there is no justification for the profit being so large.