Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request

Posted by Zonk on from the tough-pill-to-swallow dept.

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)"

4 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Cornered by psued0ch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Cornered by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Re:Sur-replies? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Read it, read it all by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.