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."
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.
'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.
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
> '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
How will this affect this case?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/2026213v
It seems that this industry cannot help but 'shoot itself in the face' from here on out.
I'm not a christian, but it reminds me of the 'tower of babel'.
How stupid can these people be?....nevermind, they have the US Gov't. backing them.
It seems we have a steep slope to climb to get back to our founder's (US Constitution) ideology on the subject.
I hope that the afore mentioned case (under FBI investigation) will make some waves.
If you can answer to this. fine. If not, I understand.
Keep 'Rocking' on', you are doing much good.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
With all that has been going on with these cases, there has been tons of money thrown down the drain through court costs and layers fees. Most of it on the side of the recording industry. They haven't made any dent in which accounts for anything. I understand going after legitimate pirates who attempt to profit from shared distribution. People like that need to be jailed. With the industries failure to create a viable model of distribution within the digital age, I start to ask are they spending all their time on lawsuits while hoping the internet is a passing fad? I think it's time they wake up to reality and take a good look at what is already available and accept it. Acceptance can be a bitch sometimes but what else can you do sometimes, right? RIAA, please just move on. This is getting embarrassing.
Please tag responsibly.
I didn't know TCP-over-moose technology had matured!
Anybody want my mod points?
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?
> And how many people are actually innocent?
Everyone is, until proven guilty.
(Though you have a great point about criminalizing large segments of the population for profit.)
You would not happen to be from the RIAA would you?
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
Sorry, but I am a conscientious objector. I do not share music, I refuse to buy any more CDs, instead, I rely on the massive compilation I collected in the 80s and 90s, and in the event that I just HAVE to have the latest Fall Out Boy single, I buy it on iTunes since I have the disposable income. But generally, if it's not on the radio, I refuse to continue to fund the economic terrorists that represent the RIAA and I pretty much eliminate "pop music" from my life as an objection to the RIAAs business practice. In effect, I'm a well-to-do Gen-Xer who votes with my wallet.
I take issue with this heap o' crap because the RIAA is trying to criminalize MY behaviour. They fight against fair use and try to prevent me from transferring my CD collection to my iPod. They fight to criminalize my sharing" or music between my own media devices... the two tivos and 5 computers I own and share within my home.
I abhor any and all court cases that imply that all potential "infringers" are guilty until proven innocent, as this represents a stereotypical assumption that the "criminals" are young kids who "rip off" the establishment through their deeds.
This straw man argument actually DENIES my ability to vote with my wallet, as the courts presume that criminal violations have undermined the RIAAs business, when in fact, my boycott of their goods contributes to their market failure. However, my "voting with my wallet" is misrepresented as a "crime against the RIAA" that has cost them loss of revenue.
Criminalization of a "loss of revenue" is an undue burden on our society and must not be tolerated.
I've often heard it said that those in the legal profession are the ones who carry out responsibilities that were once held by kings and nobles. The RIAA's only fault is confusing kings and nobles with vindictive gods.
The mp3s (or more often DRM infested files with other extensions) are made from the same remastered masters as the CDs, so your MP3 will still be inferior to the CD.
And yes, the album version of Led Zepplin's Presence has more presence thatn the CD version, due to its superior dynamics and frequency response.
And how can a CD have less dynamics than an LP when CDs have a superior dynamic range? Bad remastering. I wish the labels would simply sample the old analog masters on the stuff that was originally recorded analog.
If you mix analog with digital (digital masters for LPs, or CDs of originally analog material) you get the worst of both worlds, the disadvantages of both mediums and the advantages of neither.
Vam Halen's first album was one of the few I could crank to 9 and be fooled into thinking the band was in the living room. I have yet to hear such a CD.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful