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."
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
"Show Cause" technically means, to prove oneself right" or as to "justify one's actions within the best interests of all concerned." Either way the RIAA can kiss my arse. I get promotional music and play it. This is the way I see things, if you want free Airplay, one needs radio stations and DJ's. No Radio Stations, no DJ, no plug for your new tune! If you like it then buy it. The RIAA is supposed to protect Artists, or are they really just another money making scheme, purporting they are protecting you, as the artist, so you get your Royalties? I think not! Record companies and they're PR dept knows who they have sent out promotional music to and therefore should be immune from Royalty charges. The same applies to PPR. In all honesty, the RIAA is more of a hinderance to the Music Industry, rather than supports it. Whether some people use p2p in order to get the latest tune is another matter. People will use p2p to try and get the latest music as we are a consumer driven society.
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?
... that might be different. But if you're going to be throwing a lawsuit at someone that will cost both sides tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, you'd goddamn well better be required to have more than a server log. Otherwise what you're doing is not redress of grievance but ... well, I'm sure there are a hundred legal and non-legal terms for what the RIAA is doing but justice isn't one of them.
No. Now, if you had me on camera downloading music and heard me listening to said tracks
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Since when did the RIAA actually makes music?
Well, I'm sure the sound of all those settlements rolling in is music to their ears. They probably copyrighted it too.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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
It is you who have lost sight of the big picture. The big picture is that we are a nation of laws. The reason I went into the legal profession is because I believe in the rule of law. Bringing frivolous cases based on misstatements of existing law and bogus evidence is contrary to the law.
Secondly, even before I went into the legal profession, I was raised to believe in fairness and decency and courtesy and humaneness.
I have never once suggested to anyone that the laws regarding protection of intellectual property rights should not be followed. I have been working in the copyright field for 34 years, and I have never once said anything like the bogus points you are trying to attribute to me.
Yes the RIAA has to work a "little bit harder".... small details like
(A) identifying the right people, who
(B) actually did infringe their copyrights, and then
(C) handling the matter in a lawyerlike manner instead of an extortionate gangsterlike manner.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is actually the basis of the flaw in the RIAA's reasoning. An IP address does not relate to an individual. Even if there is only one person normally associated with an IP address, that IP address, for that particular (illegal) action may not relate to the individual.
If you are assuming that someone is committing a crime, you have to also consider that they may be falsely laying the blame on someone else. Cracking the password on their router, spoofing packets, botting their machine, hacking their wireless, or even physically splicing a wire. After all, people have been physically splicing into other networks for decades (cable and telephone). Why assume that the relationship is a pristine one-to-one for IP addresses?
If you are going to burden someone with thousands of dollars in legal fees, you should have to have more than an IP address. Most people will simply fold under the weight of a lawsuit; that doesn't imply guilt, just poverty in the face of huge legal fees.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
I must say that from reading your submissions I'm less cynical about the judicial system.
Let's also remember that the term "piracy" in copyright parlance means large scale reproduction of exact copies for commercial gain. None of these cases is about "piracy" and the RIAA's and MPAA's repeated use of that term is rank propaganda.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful