RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA is apparently having an allergic reaction to the request by the State Attorney General of Oregon for information about the RIAA's investigative tactics. The request came in Arista v. Does 1-17, the Portland, Oregon, case targeting students at the University of Oregon. Not only are the record companies opposing the request (pdf), they're asking the Judge not to even read it. (pdf)"

Comments

Cornered

[psued0ch]

The RIAA is a cornered beast that is under increasing scrutiny, of course it will react like this in response to a federal case. Not to mention it is a profit-hungry corporation just like all the rest.

Re:Cornered

[ScrewMaster]

I wouldn't say they're cornered, exactly, but there does appear to be a rising tide of awareness among the judiciary of the RIAA's tactics. Doesn't seem like they're getting rubberstamped as often as they use to be.

Sur-replies?

[mbstone]

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?

Re:Sur-replies?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted? Good question. No they do not.

However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.

The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).

I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster. Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.

Read it, read it all

[cdrguru]

The question that I haven't seen anyone pose yet is if the claims by the RIAA attorneys are valid. Is it permitted under Oregon rules to raise the items that were raised in the University's reply? Are the seven different points all just meaningless drivel or is there something real there?

I don't know. It does not seem to be completely without merit and the University's reply seems to contain a bunch of material that is utterly irrelevalent. Certainly when arguing for the quashing of discovery bringing up opinions about what the plantiff's motivations may or may not be is not relevant to the issue at hand. Implying (or stating) that the plantiff is "spying" on the Does hardly seems to be on point in such a reply either.

Re:Damn Lawyers.

[rts008]

Thanks for the thought, but I cannot seem to harm my Karma on /., so I don't really worry about mod points.

Thank /. for the 'preview' button! wow!

I don't know that I really expressed myself well above. The last part seemed too cavalier for what I intended.

I don't try too much to pay attention to the mod's to my replies, as it doesn't seem to make much difference to my Karma. Perhaps I inadvertently balance the good, the bad, and the fuggly in my replies after reaching the "Excellent Karma" rating I have. Sometimes I can be rather an asshat- especially when I've been drinking. (which is frequent- I like to relax with some good beer after getting off work at 2300 hrs.--if you doubt this, just enter my user name and "slashdot" in Google search!- and yes, I am most of my way through a sixpack of Guinness Extra Stout right this moment)

As far as Ray Beckerman (NewYorkCountryLawer) goes, I meant every word I typed. I have made him one of my (few) /. 'friends' for several reasons:
1. As a 'friend', his posts are "+" rated so that I can see them at my current settings. He always has something to say that is worth listening to whether you agree with him or not.
2. I admire and respect his work on our behalf. (not just the /. crowd, but media lovers everywhere) and envy his saeemingly superpower energy to juggle all the things he is doing! He even takes the time to keep us here up to date, and gives us his insider type insight without crossing the line of trying to lawyer or preach to us.
3. He backs his play in real life- 'puts his money where his mouth is'. Yes, I'm sure he is a successful attorney in the usual parameters, but he is one of the few who 'dare go where eagles fear to tread'(bad paraphrase).
4.?????
5. Profit!!! (Sorry, this IS /. after all!)

This post brought to you by an idiot powered by Guinness!!!

"Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"

"Huh? What? Damn, thought I was pissing on my own shrubs...sorry neighbor! I'll just go home now."

"Er, uh, could you point me towards my house? Most obliged!" *staggers off*

Re:FAGGOTS

[ScrewMaster]

Ray, I've known a lot of attorneys over the years, worked for a few, hired a few, have lawyers in my family (you might even have heard of one of them), number them among my friends ... and the ones that have delved into this business to any degree are uniformly aghast at the RIAA's activities. I mean, regardless of whether they agree with what the RIAA is trying to do, the lack of professionalism and disrespect for the courts just leaves them shaking their heads.

I've read most of what you've written on your blog, and of course have spent too much time here on Slashdot, but as an engineer I know my understanding of what is going on here is shallow at best. I just don't have the background to fully grasp why, from a legal perspective, their tactics are so wrong. However, those I know who do have such knowledge of the law take a very dim view of these proceedings. Frankly, the RIAA's legal staff seems to have garnered about as much respect among real attorneys as the mob.

That tells me a lot.

Re:FAGGOTS

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray, I've known a lot of attorneys over the years, worked for a few, hired a few, have lawyers in my family (you might even have heard of one of them), number them among my friends ... and the ones that have delved into this business to any degree are uniformly aghast at the RIAA's activities. I mean, regardless of whether they agree with what the RIAA is trying to do, the lack of professionalism and disrespect for the courts just leaves them shaking their heads. I've read most of what you've written on your blog, and of course have spent too much time here on Slashdot, but as an engineer I know my understanding of what is going on here is shallow at best. I just don't have the background to fully grasp why, from a legal perspective, their tactics are so wrong. However, those I know who do have such knowledge of the law take a very dim view of these proceedings. Frankly, the RIAA's legal staff seems to have garnered about as much respect among real attorneys as the mob. That tells me a lot. When these lawyers lose the RIAA as a client, they're going to have a hard time finding honest work. Every real lawyer I know has had the same reaction you're describing. They are a laughingstock in the profession of which they pretend to be members.