Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Refuses To Sign RIAA 'Ex Parte' Order

Posted by Soulskill on from the wearing-out-their-legal-welcome dept.

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."

6 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. These guys... by that_itch_kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The RIAA are getting stupider by the minute. It's high time they learned that people aren't going to take this shit sitting down for much longer.

    The more the courts resist their moves, the more people will stand up for their rights.

    1. Re:These guys... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ultimately, that is what will get them in the end: the judges. Changes to the law are slow, but the unspoken consensus of the judges isn't. They're supposed to be unbiased arbitrators, which means they everyone gets a fair shake to prove themselves. However, it works when you prove yourself to be a scummy, annoying, lying, untrustworthy entity-- well-- you can't be biased against the truth. ;)

      --
      UTF-8: There and Back Again
    2. Re:These guys... by Ethidium · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The more the courts resist their moves, the more people will stand up for their rights. Don't pull out your revolutionary songbook quite yet. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be news if judges were resisting this shit left and right. It's news because this judge did something uncommon.
      --
      \
    3. Re:These guys... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it's "copyrighted", not "copywritten", which isn't even a word.

      And, no, some of us don't like to pay these bastards anything at all. I don't download illegally. I don't download legally. I don't buy CDs.

      Instead I gave $100 to the EFF. I'll probably give them more.

  2. Hey CmdrTaco by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How 'bout getting an interview with these guys? I think it would be the perfect opportunity for the **AA to put up or shut up with the community on their long term goals.

    No need for ad hominem attacks, et all, but an opportunity to speak on an issue that is mostly one sided here on /.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  3. Losers should pay by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is really why there needs to be some sort of change to the way that trials are conducted. It's really an embarrassment that one side so often outspends the other by such a huge amount. And it's considered to still be a fair trial.

    Seems to me moving loser pays system would make it a lot more difficult to abuse the system. Or potentially require the loser to pay the winner the cost of the winner's counsel plus the cost of the losers council as well. In cases where the loser had insufficient counsel it wouldn't add a whole lot but in cases where the loser brought in a lot of high priced attorneys to try and pull a fast one, they'd get a much large penalty. Of course require the winner to demonstrate that the size of the bill is reasonable for a case of that type.

    I think that the Judge refusing to sign the order was perfectly reasonable considering both the spurious nature of the suits as well as the other nefarious dealings of their unlicensed "investigator" mediasentry. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213

    What I do wonder is if this goes where it looks like it's going to something resembling an organized crime prosecution, would any or all of the settlements still be valid? Or would a conviction for extortion and misrepresenting the facts be grounds for declaring the settlements invalid?