Slashdot Mirror
Oregon AG Seeks to Investigate RIAA Tactics
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Turning the tables on the RIAA's attempt to subpoena information from the University of Oregon, that state's Attorney General has now filed additional papers to conduct immediate discovery into the RIAA's 'data mining' techniques. These techniques include the use of unlicensed investigators, the turning over of subpoenaed information to collection agencies, and the obtaining of personal information from computers. The AG pointed out (pdf) that 'Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits ... their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.'"
Wow, hopefully this isn't shot down in the court system, and honestly if there's any common sense left in the courts (which there seems to be a slowly increasing amount of) it won't be. There have been far too many cases of snooping going unchecked, be it RIAA, NSA, FBI, etc.
Can't wait for updates to this one.
The original generic sig.
It's about time!
A bill appointing the RIAA and its investigators as deputy federal marshals.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Looking very similar to the SCO case now. The RIAA through data mining has come up with "evidence" and the AG for Oregon is asking something reasonable of the court: how did you get this information and what was it? Oh, and does the company you got this from even have an investigating license? It's sickening to see the RIAA try to get their way by their dumpster diving discovery requests.
They stalled on another case when they were asked to prove their methods. I believe the AG may have something there with investigator license which could turn into criminal charges for maybe both the RIAA and the company they hired to do their dirty work.
My blog
As I understand it, this is related to the RIAA asking the University of Oregon to give them the names of a dozen or so students who are suspected of inappropriate file sharing.
Most American universities have named names. The U of O has refused to help the RIAA, and the AG is helping them out. I don't think this filing will have much effect beyond this case.
Oregon is a blue state (Steven Colbert called us "California's Canada").
I don't want to be all negative here, but this would be a good time to keep your eyes open for whatever new tactics the record labels will inevitably deploy. Experience has taught that whenever this much money is involved, the parties responsible do not so easily give up. Instead they appear to give up, only to come back in a worse guise.
Real life is much like Dragonball Z, in that way...
The RIAA keep buying the pot. They go all in, and the little guy folds. They don't have to show their cards unless someone calls their bluff. Seems the AG is willing to do that with the state of Oregon as a backer.
More than that. The legal system in the US is set up so that even if you have an ironclad defense -- but don't bring it up at the right time -- then you waive that defense. This is just one of the reasons you do not represent yourself unless you have no choice at all. The justification is that otherwise, no judgement would ever be final because you could continually add new legal theories to the case. In fact, this is very similar to SCO's tactics (which were quite effective at causing huge delays).
In this case, a number of promising avenues haven't been explored because nobody got good attorneys to bring them up. So the issue gets waived, the court accepts the RIAA's version because it was "undisputed". Recall the RIAA suits have been going on for a number of years, but it was only a couple months ago that this PI licensing issue was even mentioned -- because nobody ever did their homework before.
I don't think it's likely that any state is going to allow people to just download stuff for free without consequence. The issue here is whether the current methods being employed are illegal, denying defendants their rights through threats and suchlike.
I think it's likely that file sharing as it exists will die a death in the not too distant future. I also think that's its the reason for most of this draconian crap to start with, we are, as it were, all to blame.
Its very easy to point the finger at the RIAA and blame them. You can indeed get angry at them for their methods, but not their aim, which is to shut down illegal file sharing.
Even if, and I doubt this bit, it is harming the recording industry, who gives a crap. What I'm thinking about is the billions that could be made, boosting the economy, by providing cheap streaming media content. That's what the RIAA should have been concentrating on. I'm astonished that they had all that money, all those lawyers, and they still donkeyed it from day one.
Personally I long for the day when I can dial up the days entertainment on the net and have it delivered to me as and when I want, in the form I want, via a nice fat pipe to my house. I expect to pay for it too. I can't be alone in this thought.
this is not an AG office investigation, its a discovery related to this pretrial motion.
This crap is entirely too complicated.
Let's grab our pitchforks!
Why not? Nobody is being hurt. Copyright is actually the curtailing of the public's inherent rights. Government doesn't create rights, it curtails them. I see the need for copyright, the author should be the one to benefit financially from their work as a reward for creating it or incentive to create new works. However there is no harm in one who copies the work without financial reward. Originally the copyright lasted for 14 years, now it lasts for 75 years after the author dies. I am not willing to give up my rights that easily, and you shouldn't be willing to either. I think we need another amendment to the constitution, saying that absent financial motive, the rights of the people to exchange information shall not be infringed.
> Copyright is actually the curtailing of the public's inherent rights
>> Is it?
Yeah, pretty much. The whole point of copyright is to enrich the public domain, in fact Jefferson went so far as to call copyright "a loan from the public domain." So yes, copyright is very much a curtailing of the public's rights, with the express expectation that the public would be the ultimate beneficiary from that very explicit tradeoff. The current state of affairs is, I'm afraid, not remotely aligned with the Supreme Law of the Land or the public interest.
Look, I certainly hope your book is successful and that you reap any rewards you are due. However, I hope you can understand that as a member of the general public, it is my expectation that that work should belong to all of us, after you have had a reasonable time to profit from your efforts. Unfortunately, what is reasonable has carried to new levels of absurdity by Congress.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Minor nitpic. Distributing is the crime, not downloading.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's actually a major nitpick. Everyone talks about downloaders, but it's the uploaders that have been getting sued.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.