U. Maine Law Students Trying To Shut RIAA Down

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."

Comments

Hidden subject

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I'm just trying to be helpful here. NYCL's wording is a bit too lawyerly for the likes of us IANALs.

They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking -- among other things -- an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders.

They filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, seeking an injunction against these cases. They argue that 1) the cases seek to circumvent the FERPA (the FERPA protects student privacy rights), 2) the cases are in violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders, and 3) the cases are brought for improper purposes of a) obtaining discovery, b) getting publicity, c) and intimidation.

If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish.

Re:Hidden subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way to karma whore and not provide anything useful. 1. Good a) job.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish

I don't question the money my doctor will make when he sticks needles in my eye tomorrow. He has the training and experience to do the job. I also didn't question the money I paid my divorce attorney when I was divorced; she, also, had the training and experience. I don't pay my lawyer to produce gibberish, I pay him to translate it to me, and speak Martian with his fellow Martians. Most normal people (i.e., those not on slashdot) whouldn't have a clue what two slashdotters were talking about when we're discussing, say, computers. "Sorry, Mr. Geek, I don't speak nerdish".

I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.

Re:Hidden subject

[Kierthos]

Actually, I pay him because he knows what the hell he is doing and has had the training to do it. I wouldn't pay an auto mechanic to represent me in court, and I wouldn't pay a lawyer to fix my transmission. It has nothing to do with any sort of government enforced monopoly. It has to do with the fact that they are trained to perform the jobs I ask them to do.

Re:Hidden subject

[idiotnot]

Actually, reading the complaint, the RIAA did subpeona the records. The argument is that what they requested should still be protected, because the RIAA doesn't actually end up litigating these cases. It's a stretch.

Re:Hidden subject

[steelfood]

Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.

Not quite. A good lawyer, or team of lawyers, should be able to put their knowledge to good use. Just knowing how to defeat someone doesn't mean you actually can.

So you're paying for both, the strategist who comes up with the game plan and the warrior who executes it.

It's the same with surgeons, and even sometimes with general physicians. You wouldn't want to have a needle meant to draw blood going into a nerve, would you?

I kind of agree with everything else though. Well, except that it's far more likely to be: "Sorry Mr. Geek, I don't speek Klingon."

Re:Hidden subject

[BenEnglishAtHome]

>But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities.

Actually, they do

Aren't you both right? There are some illegal things that have privacy protection in some circumstances and some that don't.

In the case of your wife who's a doctor, she may be obligated under HIPAA to keep drug use private. But if some 8-year-old comes in with a condition clearly caused by repeated sexual activity, I'll bet she has a higher priority legal obligation to notify the authorities. You can get no-questions-asked treatment for drug addiction but if you go to a therapist and ask for help overcoming your addiction to child porn, you're likely to find the cops banging on your door.

Likewise, confessional privilege varies. It doesn't exist in the U.K. In the U.S., it's modified depending on the state you're in, whether your priest is a licensed counselor of some sort (and thus subject to the laws applying to that profession) and the context under which your confession is made.

In the instant case, we're dealing with things at a lower level. This isn't a planned murder or ongoing child molestation. This is a civil claim, represented as being *really* big and important by the people who are bringing it, versus a set of legal protections for student records, something generally acknowledged to be a good thing. But neither concern is so clearly inferior to the other that a judgement is easy. It sounds to me like a real crap shoot whether a judge would come down on one side or the other.

Of course, I could render a more insightful opinion if I actually read the article. But then I wouldn't be a true slashdotter, would I?

Re:Hidden subject

[bob.appleyard]

There are mandated certification schemes for doctors and lawyers (among many other professions). Which isn't a bad idea, in itself: there are medical quacks (dunno anything about potential legal quackery), and the certification process provides some protection against this, along with academic qualifications and so on.

Those can be viewed as legal monopolies, but I don't think it's much of an issue. Provided you're not a quack, that is. Then I imagine it's the height of injustice.

It might even be a good idea to certify IT professionals (beyond other schemes like Cisco certification), as the presence of IT quackery is manifest. How you'd go about it in an industry like IT would take a great deal of thought, though.

Re:Hidden subject

[sm62704]

What I question is the need to obfuscate the simplest law to the point it requires a lawyer to interpret.

No evidence

[Merls the Sneaky]

All the so called evidence the RIAA has would be circumstantial. Just because a particular computer was at a particular IP address does not mean a particular individual was responsible for the infringement. I certainly hope they are fully successful.

Re:No evidence

[timmarhy]

it's even worse because an IP doesn't mean you even have the computer.

Re:No evidence

[Kierthos]

For colleges, this is especially true. What if the IP is for a computer in a classroom or lab? Oh look, suddenly, it's gone from 1 or 2 possible students using a dorm room computer, to potentially hundreds of students having access. (There are/were several computer labs at the university I went to which were open to anyone, and several others where you only needed to know the door code to get in, and they were remarkably simple to learn.)

Re:No evidence

[cpt kangarooski]

Intent is not difficult to establish in these cases.

Intent is irrelevant. Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense; mens rea is not a factor at all.

How do you suggest they protect their intellectual property rights

Oh, I'm not very interested in that side of things. I think that the better answer is to create an exception to copyright so that natural persons acting noncommercially can do anything, and it isn't infringing. The copyright holders still have copyrights, it's just that fewer things are copyright infringements.

Que the people suggesting that they should just give up all legal protections for their property, and thus there's no crime... just like there'd be no theft if we all owned everything equally.::

It's 'cue,' not 'que.' And the thing is, I recall Prohibition, where people suggested that a good way to get rid of the crimes of making, distributing, possessing, and consuming alcohol, as well as much of the criminal activity that was supported by people who violated the Prohibition laws, was to make alcohol legal once again. As it happens, it worked pretty well. Sometimes, when social norms and the law are in disagreement, the norms need to change, as happened in the civil rights movement; but usually, it's the law that has to change, since the law should serve the people, including their norms of behavior. Most people do not find noncommercial infringements by natural persons to be unacceptable. Lacking any very good reason to act contrary to that, the law should comply with those norms. OTOH, most people do somehow manage to distinguish copyright from the unrelated fields of real and personal property, and can support reform in the former and nevertheless be content with the latter. Go figure!

New Library Wing.....

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Dedicated by the RIAA in the near future at the University of Maine.....

That should get the faculty to shut up those pesky law students :)

Re:New Library Wing.....

[elrous0]

More likely, they will bribe the U.S. Congress directly to cut of federal funding for any college that doesn't bow before the RIAA. They've been trying. And with Democrats (who are owned by Hollywood) and Republicans (who are owned by big business) dominating Congress pretty much exclusively, it's quite likely they will succeed.

Talk about a quality law school

[unity100]

im a foreigner, dont know us law, and even i have understood what they were suing against, and what they were going to use.

you dont need to have a big name to be a good law school. you just need quality students, and encouraging teachers.

Re:RIAA is Slashdot's new SCO

[Mantaar]

As long as they suffer the same sort of demise SCO has suffered in the end - I don't really mind.

Besides, RIAA gives us plenty of reason to bitch about them, as long as they do, I actually want to stay informed. I'd be glad to see a rapid decline in bitch-against-RIAA-stories on /. and reddit, but only because that would go hand in hand with a decrease in corruption and braindeadtivity on the MAFIAA's side.

If RIAA wins all these cases

[bravo369]

Then they will have too much power to continue these actions. On the flip side, constantly fighting these cases in court is not what RIAA wants to do. They want it settled and out of the way as soon as possible. Hopefully law students in each state all take up this cause pro bono. I say law students because they probably will be most likely to fight pro bono and save the defendants money but also they will probably fight as hard as anyone against the RIAA. Imagine putting that on your resume after law school...that you successfully brought down the RIAA.

Re:A Generation Against Them

[garcia]

The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.

That's what the hippy's thought in the 1960s with free love, drug law reform, and peace. Look at that generation now...

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[hobo sapiens]

You really nailed it. It is very nuanced and the reason why the debate rages because people can play the semantics game and make either side sound plausible. Thing is, slashdot is *the* place for geeks, and geeks are normally more objective than this. I guess everyone (or community) has their blind spots. You'll probably catch a few undeserved troll/flamebait mods for stating what you did because you'll look like an RIAA stooge (and you obviously aren't). But at least what you said is objective.

That said, the RIAA should NOT be allowed to use questionable tactics to enforce their copyrights. They really do bully people. It's unfortunate that well connected and very wealthy organizations can do things that the average guy couldn't. The law should be enforced with a modicum of parity. If the law really falls short in addressing what downloading music illegally is defined as, at least it can be consistent in how far a corporation can go in defending its IP, as well as how much in damages it can seek in a civil trial. The story of the woman from Michigan who was successfully sued for >200K should have never happened. What sane court could grant such a sum for such a small crime? That should be as illegal as copyright infringement, I know the constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't pertain to civil trials but in this case that's what it was.

Re:FERPA

[Hatta]

So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.

Unfortunate that we can't hold these judges responsible somehow. Sovereign immunity should be abolished.

Re:FERPA

[thomas.galvin]

I think the reason it's happened is because the proceedings are ex parte: i.e., they're behind closed doors, without prior notice to the students or to the college. Had the discovery motion been made on notice, the university and students would have had a chance to educate the judge about FERPA and other privacy statutes. Certainly the RIAA isn't doing that. The fact that judges are issuing ruling without being knowledgeable of the pertinent laws kind of terrifies me. It also kind of gives lie to the whole "ignorance of the law is no excuse" line; if the judges don't know the law, how on earth are the rest of us supposed to?

Another musical career insight

[deesine]

from somebody who doesn't know a single working (as in making a living with music) musician.

The artist at this point seems to be supported, so now I want my art for free and I'll worry about the artist when necessary.

That statement reads exactly like a 5 year old saying "I want it now!" - absolutely no connection to reality.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier...

[compro01]

1. not to mention not go to the same educational institution or use the same ISP, or live in the same general geographic area as someone who might be distributing copyrighted works without authorization.

2. you're missing the fact that almost every time anyone has lawyered up against them, they speedily drop the suit. that would seem to point to the fact that they're simply throwing lots of lawsuits with minimal or non-existent/inadmissible evidence and hope that they're uninterested in contesting the claims and/or unable to get a lawyer to do so, and simply pay them X thousand dollars to go away.

3. no doubt that what they [the sharers] are (allegedly) doing is illegal under current (US) copyright law. what is at issue is the manner in which they are perusing appears to blatantly violate several other laws regarding legal process. simply because they believe they are perusing people doing something illegal should not give them carte blanche to do whatever they like in the process.

4. that is being worked on.

Re:Easy on the pr*n stars

[sm62704]

Smart != educated. Smart+educated is better than either one alone.

But you're not going to have a clue about any actress' intelligence or education from watching her in a film, whether porn star or G rated actress.

What would happen with a pr*n start as president?

Maybe they'd finally legalize prostitution? I'd vote for her!

Dumb peple are IMHO irritating, especially when they become president.

You know, I never thought I'd see a worse President than this guy (Bachelor of Science degree in physics), until This guy (MBA) moved into the White House.

Re:Interesting problems for students

[Technician]

Why stash the drive?

Truecrypt, baby.

The live CD doesn't come with Truecrypt installed. Having a live CD modified to include Truecrypt could be incriminating and give them reason to search further. Having a stack of Live CDs that you pass out for free does not raise an eyebrow. I pass them out all the time.

In a dorm, it's easy to loan out a USB drive to have it disappear.