Slashdot Mirror
Judge Refuses To Sign RIAA 'Ex Parte' Order
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA just can't get enough of going after University of Maine students, but it appears that the judges in Portland, Maine, may be getting wise to the industry's lawyers' antics. RIAA counsel submitted yet another ex parte discovery order to the Court ('ex parte' meaning 'without notice'), in BMG v. Does 1-11, but this time the judge refused to sign, pointing out that there is no emergency since there is no evidence that records are about to be destroyed [PDF]. This is the same judge who has previously suggested the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the RIAA lawyers, accusing them of gamesmanship."
'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice. It refers to a legal proceeding where all involved parties are not present. Usually when one side is trying to get the judge to do something without the other party having a chance to argue their side. This is 'ex parte' because it's a John Doe defendant. And I'm pretty sure that it being 'ex parte' has nothing to do with this story, but something thought it sounded nice when they submitted the story. 'Ex parte' does sound nice.
Judges are starting to get fed up with their bs they been shoveling.
> 'Ex parte' does not really mean without notice.
Normally, no. In RIAA 'expedited discovery' cases, however, it _does_! They grab the discovery against twenty or so people and withdraw from the case immediately afterwards.
If you knew anything about our submitter, you'd know that he's a lawyer and that when the RIAA runs things, they go for "expedited" motions so that things really do happen without reasonable notice for the parties in question.
While you're correct about what ex parte (usually) means, in RIAA cases, I will defer to NYCL. He is, after all, an attorney who has been directly involved in cases opposing them and who has a nice FAQ on his website. It tells you exactly how they run these cases and why they habitually withdraw from the case once they get discovery in the ex parte suit and send people to their "settlement center" after that, making the entire process something most parties only find out about after the fact.
So no, he didn't include the words "ex parte" just because he thought they sounded cool.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
My guess is you're not an American. These are civil cases, not criminal. In that case, you aren't innocent until proven guilty, and there is no concept of "reasonable doubt". They just have to prove that its more likely that you did it than that you didn't. No one has been fined. A settlement is not a fine. Fines go to the government, settlements to the other party. You aren't convicted in civil court either. Either stop pretending to be an American, or take a civics class.
Spelling might be funny/wrong and the term might not be entirely correct but I'm pretty sure that it is "preponderance." Civil vs. criminal matters at least. My limited studies of the law were ages ago and are muddied by idealism and beer.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am from (sort of - it is my "home base") Maine. I am also fairly well educated according to the vast amounts of debt I've paid off. I can say that I know that the RIAA is going to run out of favor here, in this State, shortly and have already begun to wear out the welcome mat. We tend to just laugh about the suits and even our news/media makes light of them while encouraging students to just stand up. Mind you, I personally think that there's no reason to have something you don't own in your possession AND I'm a wanna-be musician but I also think the system is flawed.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How is this flamebait? It's correct. Yeah, he could have been a little more friendly in his tone, but honestly, we can't have a /. story on an RIAA case without some nimrod getting criminal and civil cases confused.
In civil cases, the burden of guilt is based on preponderance of evidence. In other words, if it is more likely then not that you committed the act in question, that is all that is required in a civil trial. This, BTW, is how O.J. Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman... although he was found not guilty in the criminal trial, the same evidence was used to find him liable for their deaths because the burden of proof was that much lighter.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
No, but in many cases, speeds limits are absurdly low. At least in my country (Netherlands). I've seen speed limits drop by an average of 20km/h, up to 50km/h at some points over the past 10 years. And many of those limits are just plain silly, I know how several in my neighborhood came about, and it had little to do with safety or cyclists.
Cyclists are vulnerable road users, yes, but they are also the worst traffic offenders. They run red lights, don't use proper lightning at night, swerve all over the road, take right-of-way when they don't have it, listen to music (iPod etc) instead of the traffic and surroundings, etc.
The standard of proof is different, but I was definitely under the impression that you were still innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise it'd be a madhouse in which I could sue people and automatically win most of the time (without even making any arguments), just because they didn't have the wherewithal to defend themselves properly.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Actually there is no copyright infringement claim that can be based on even 'offering to distribute' as in the example you posited. The courts have clearly held that the distribution right does not come into play unless you actually disseminate the copies. E.g., one of the leading cases involved putting it in a catalogue, which was clearly an "offer to distribute". But since no items had actually been sold from the offending catalogue, the Court held that no case for infringement of the distribution right existed.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful