Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.
Similarly here, these students seem to have a deparment which values them enough to give them something interesting AND useful to work on.
Good on them all.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
That's right, it was I who falsely accused thousands of innocent people of having violated copyright. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
And note,Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
In case you were wondering what Rule 11 is like I was...
FERPA is a law that products student records. FERPA
Joinder rules are what let a party join, whether the plaintiff or defendant, be named together in a single lawsuit. What these law students are doing is accussing the RIAA of misjoinder: The 3rd one is pretty obvious and means what it says.
Rule 11 is just the part of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure that lets parties seek sanctions against a party in a lawsuit, usually for some type of misconduct.
My blog
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
Read radical news here
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.
Have you ever been subjected to porn which attempts to actually have a dialog and maybe a plot? Believe me, these people aren't really capable of delivering lines. It's purely gibberish, and jarringly annoying.
Er, at least, that's what I've been told. Yeah, that's it. I, uh, read it on line some place.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Talk about your bad car analogy.
Look: I take your car. Now I have a car, and you don't. I have clearly caused you harm: I have made it more difficult for you to go to work, spend time with your family, pick up groceries, and pay for a new car.
Now look again: You're sharing some music files. I download them from you. Now we both have a car... I mean, music files. I have not caused you harm- you still have your music that you (presumably) paid for. The only argument you can make is that I have caused harm to the RIAA (and those who work for it) and the artist. This may be the case, but it's not a given. If I was never going to buy that music to begin with, I haven't deprived anyone of anything. In fact, if I decide I like the music I would never have heard otherwise, I may decide to buy it somewhere down the road. I have caused no harm; I have simply gained a benefit, but not at anyone else's expense.
On the other hand, if I were planning to pay for the music, but downloaded it instead, I have denied income to the RIAA and the artist. That's pretty lousy, although a lot of people understandably have a lack of sympathy for uber-billionaire multinational corporations and their multi-billionaire hack artists. This lack of sympathy doesn't make the denial of income any less wrong; just more understandable.
You paint this out to be black and white, but in truth, this situation is extremely nuanced, and the heart of the problem is that our current laws (and the RIAA's current business model) are in no way sufficient or even relevant for it.
The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.
In the exchange you proferred, the school broke the law. They should have, to cover their legal arses, requested the cops come back with a subpoena. THat would be completely within the law.
My blog
>But privacy protections do not extend to protections of illegal activities.
Actually, they do. My wife is a doctor and she always asks her patients if they're doing crystal meth (we're in the midwest; apparently the question gets changed to coke/crack in the east and pot/shrooms in the west) to make sure the meds don't have adverse reactions. Under HIPAA, she cannot provide that information to the authorities. A recent case in Kansas supported this where the attorney general (AG) tried to get Planned Parenthood (PP) to turn over medical records because he thought they were performing illegal late-term abortions. The Kansas Department of Health and PP fought the order and after 4 years have succeeded multiple times in preventing the AG from looking at patients medical records because he thought they _might_ have done something illegal (he was on a fishing expedition).
Lawyer records are similarly protected, except that a lawyer has an ethical obligation to report an ongoing crime (eg if his client tells him he plans to kill the informant).
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yeah, I just read the scripts.
No, you're mixing together two different arguments.
The FERPA argument is: "The records are not discoverable under FERPA; the issuance of the subpoena was contrary to law. Period." The same point is made by the Oregon Attorney General in Arista v. Does 1-17.
The additional arguments for sanctions, which are separate and distinct from the FERPA argument, are that (a) the case is brought for improper purposes (publicity, intimidation, and discovery) and (b) the deliberate misjoinder flaunts the court rules and numerous court orders.
The discovery issue under (a) is that it's never proper to bring a lawsuit in federal court for the purpose of obtaining discovery. The "John Doe" cases are definitely brought for that purpose, because they are immediately dropped after the RIAA gets the information it was looking for. I.e., it is a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding. It is immaterial to the latter argument whether the discovery is or is not barred by FERPA.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.
The problem businessmen have is that they can't figure out the solution to this problem. Perhaps by exposing a band to a wide market, they could collect x amount of dollars from the concerts they performed, as they're supposedly responsible for popularzing the band to begin with. So the contract would spell that out for as long as the band is signed up with a particular record label. Recording music would simply be to advertise for the band rather than a major means of profit. You simply can't reproduce live performances--it's a different experience. Start making shit that can't be downloaded! Add extra shit to those hard copy of albums to make them worthwhile to buy: extra art, neat case, raffle tickets to win apparel, dogtags with band member names on it, et cetera. It's time to be creative. 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. After all, isn't art's main purpose to be enjoyed by both the creator and his of her fans? As long as the artist isn't broke, I'm not going to feel guilty for not supporting the business of uncreative suits.
actually, the lawyers are required by the bar of whatever jurisdiction they practice in to disclose to the court all applicable laws and binding precedent. failure to do so leads to serious sanctions, including disbarment, which is a very serious matter for a lawyer
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.
blah blah blah
There was no need for that. Apologise.
simon
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?
You'd think the judge could put a stop to that -- or better yet a new Federal Rule -- mandating that any identities discovered could only be utilized in the current case. That way, if the plaintiffs lost, or never went to trial in the first place, that information couldn't be misused otherwise.
There was a non-RIAA non-Copyright case a couple years ago where a company sued to obtain the identity of a blogger, critical to that company, and believed to be an employee. While that company had no possibility of winning their case under the First Amendment, once they forced the internet site to cough up sufficient identifying information, they dropped their case and simply fired the employee. That should have never been allowed, and side-steps the whole intent that anonymous persons can be forced to be identified by the courts in virtually any case, no matter how lame, because it's necessary for the administration of justice to identify these defendants.
The whole idea that this will all come out in the wash so to speak, meaning at the actual trial exonerating innocent defendants and punishing overreaching plaintiffs totally misses the point of the damage already being done by the time identities have been revealed under the most flimsy of pretenses.
There should be an argument made that because the RIAA cannot win at trial with the illegally gathered evidence they already have, then identities shouldn't be revealed in the first place. Of course the RIAA will throw back the Jamie Thomas case were stupid juries, a less than bright defendant, and outright wrong jury instructions show that anything is possible if you throw enough b.s. at it.
Of course, my idea will only work if the penalties for actually misusing identity information outside of the trial itself are very VERY severe!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't question the money my doctor will make when he sticks needles in my eye tomorrow.
Aren't you taking the whole "cross my heart, hope to die" thing a little too far?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
What I question is the need to obfuscate the simplest law to the point it requires a lawyer to interpret.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
And I always preface it with: "I'm not the cops, and I don't really care, but I have to know."