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."
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.
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
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.
I read through both the judges order and the motion filed by Doe #3; it's good reading.
The two most strong points for me are:
a) they can't lump all the Does together; that wouldn't hinder the RIAA much but still having to file 25 or 100 or 1000 or 50000 cases, each one with filing fees, would have some effect but as Doe #3 claims, it would also serve and advance the interest of justice for each of the Does to be treated on a case by case basis, with their own juries, lawyers, etc. [A Doe who actually illegally sold copies of music wouldn't get lumped in with someone who had their ID stolen or their IP address spoofed].
b) that for someone to violate the copyright law, one of the major tests is you have to do it for a) commerical gain and b) merely offering to sell a copy isn't a violation (you have to actually sell it). It's clear that the P2P system is anything but a commerical sales system; everyone admits the copies are free; it's also fairly clear, to anyone who wants to really research the matter, the only party that gets commerical gain out of the P2P sharing of media is the copyright holders.
PS.
Many decades of radio station play of records as well as song "play" on MTV, VH1, etc. has shown that when people are exposed to new sounds/songs, etc. they buy them; this was the novelity of MTV, kids started buying songs that didn't get played on the local radio.
So even if there wasn't any evidence that P2P directly boosts sales of songs, CDs, etc, 50+ years of radio play has proven that point; listening to a song boosts its sales.
It has proven it to the point that many members of the RIAA have illegally (in the past and in the present) used a system called Payola, which pays radio stations to play songs by a particular artist repeatedly more than other artists for commerical gain; they do this because they believe the more their songs are played the more $$ they will make.
Copyright holders spend 100's of thousands to mulitple millions of dollars to produce "music videos", engage in Payola, advertise to DJs and radio station programmers, etc. all for the purpose of allowing the music to be played on the air or on TV/Cable all in the hope that people will buy the music. Clearly they could save those $$, let P2P do it's work, and accrue the savings in production, Payola, etc. to any lost of royalities.
In fairness not deserved by the RIAA, their is a difference between listening to a song on the radio and making a copy of it via P2P but in fairness to the public, owning a physical copy of a song is not the same as having a 3rd rate digital copy, that may or may not be 100% as the artist intended.
http://www.hawknest.com/
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
The problem is that NewYorkCountryLawyer (Ray Beckerman) is a publicity whore. This story is just more of his anti-IP FUD that will, in the end, mean nothing.
I didn't know Gene Simmons read slashdot.
Trolling is a art,
To add a bit more: A "show cause" order means the judge wants to take some action you won't like, and is giving you one last chance to protect yourself from it (this is, after all, only fair). They are basically the judge saying 'This is your last chance to explain why I should not take [action] against you. It had better be good.' After Jack Thompson filed the 'grey prawn' in the case he's currently embroiled in, the judge in that issued a "Show Cause" order demanding to know why Jack should not be referred to a disciplinary committee. A show cause order can't possibly be good for the recipient. It means you've pissed the judge off. Particularly, the judge here has begun to suspect the RIAA pulled a fast one and got him to sign an unjust order.