Slashdot Mirror
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)"
Nevermind our tactics, just give us the convictions (oh, and the penalty money too) we seek!
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.
Just like cockroaches scattering when the light's turned on, the RIAA is trying to scuttle this motion for discovery because they know that their ass will be grass...
Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
...the University appears to argue that the Court should reconsider its Order granting Plaintiffs' leave to take early discovery because the "record shows more intent to harass than anything else," and because Plaintiffs' discovery is supposedly "fairly characterized as a fishing expedition." It really does feel like the RIAA is nearing its end.~ Ron Fitzgerald
Isn't this standard lawyer behavior? Objecting to everything the other side does?
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted?
But wouldn't the judge not reading the request be grounds for appeal?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Some sorts of safeguards are required for this material. Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases. Perhaps some sort of "fruit of the poisoned vine" is required for civil evidence.
Your post made me think of a certain Orang-outang Librarian.
Ook
Where's the mafiaa tag???
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.
I think this deserves an insightful mod. :)
I'm getting tired of articles about the RIAA. But I also keep being amazed about how an organization can be that clueless and detached from the real world. Anyway, wake me when they're being dismantled and cease to exist, OK?
-- Cheers!
The RIAA also wants the judge to put his fingers in his ears and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you, nah, nah, nah...", whenever the Oregon AG speaks.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
What, SCO suing the RIAA for stealing the business practice of suing?
Destroy all evidence of destruction of evidence.
LOL
Insert
At least you'd know what the capital of Budapest is during the questions.
Oh, no. That's the part when everybody goes out of the room to put more popcorn in the microwave.
No sig today...
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Well, you're not crazy (well, I don't think you are anyway) but this isn't like SCO. Once SCO ran out of money the show was over, because SCO was a stock scam, not an old-line organization with multiple official funding sources. Funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars: as it happens, the RIAA is being paid to do just what it is doing. Now, how long that will continue is the real question. Probably for a good while, there's a lot of inertia here, and the studios learn veerrry sloooowwwwlllly. I mean, they've had how many years since the RIAA shut down Napster to figure out that the world has changed around them? This is going to take even longer than SCO to reach a conclusion, I think.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Thanks a lot. I couldn't figure out who you were replying to so I hit parent.
Yuck.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
and discovery of evidence and development of the chain of evidence is a bedrock principle of the law in the US. the absolute best mafIAA can hope for is an independent monitor from the judiciary to look at the requested discovery evidence, and rule it in or out.
fsck 'em. they chose the court, they can play by the home rules.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
does not SCO unix have the ability to read audio files?
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Help the world, Groklaw... you're our only hope!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Why even pay anyone when there are plenty of musicians willing to do it for free. Just look around the internet. They are not hard to find. Yeah, a lot of it sounds amateurish and crappy, but that is because they have no budget and have crappy equipment.
If you want a "solution", why not create a site to help people find these musicians, and also a system to get them some decent equipment--maybe a donation system which sends new equipment to the most popular musicians. Maybe have free music studios available. ...then again I swear this sounds familiar...has this been done already?
At any rate, creating music is a social activity which the music "industry" has caused to degenerate into a passive activity. It used to be that common people would write / perform music to send a message or just to socialize with people. Why can't it be that way again?
Was fairly unpleasant wasn't it? Bit harsh to get modded "off-topic" because the original got wiped I thought. Probably should have seen that coming though...
"They looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined"
No one here (except Ray of course) seems to be getting the Oregon AG's point. The plaintiffs were allowed to issue a subpoena to the University that said essentially "for each of these IP addresses we want you to identify the infringer ". That is, the University must decide who is responsible for the alleged deeds, not just provide a linkage between IP address and a user. They reply essentially "we can't prove the plaintiffs case for them, so the subpoena should be quashed". Now the plaintiffs -- the arrogant bastards that they are -- can't admit they are wrong. They could simply reissue the subpoena to say essentially "what user (provide a name) was assigned this IP address at this time and date". But instead, they throw irrelevant tantrums about procedure. I expect the judge will simply narrow the scope of the subpoena, but I hope he plays along and lets the AG have her discovery.
Regards,
Art
Actually Direct TV should be suing the RIAA for the theft of their litigation model of sending extortion letters, followed up by lawsuits, to everyone they could locate who had ever bought a smart card writer. Evidence of any actual crime wasn't necessary since defending yourself was far more expensive than just forking over several thousand dollars. And I don't think anyone ever stopped them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
He wasn't "wiped", just modded down to oblivion. Apparently a lot of other people felt the same way, and some of them had mod points. Sometimes I wish Slashdot could implement some kind of semantic filter that would keep that kind of crap from getting posted. Ah well. Gotta take the good with the bad, I guess.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Okay, I'm going to second the AC before me: What the hell is a sur-reply? I can't find a definition online nor in Black's Law Dictionary for it.
Here's a link to Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, if that'll help, but I can't find anything to suggest whether that's true or what that might even mean. Oregon still retains fact pleading rules instead of FRCP pleading rules, but I'm not sure if that's relevant.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It's:
Fletcher: "Your honor, I object!"
Judge: "Why?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devastating to my case!"
Judge: "Overruled."
(Only Jim Carrey movie I didn't walk out of midway....)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.