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.
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
I suspect NewYorkCountryLawyer has some clue about what he's talking about.
Also: According to the (current) page on it in wikipedia:
In Australian, Canadian, U.K., and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.
So it's "ex parte", not because the Does aren't present, but because the RIAA is asking the judge to rule without consulting the Does and giving them a chance to file a counterargument. If they are given a chance to file a response (even if they're not physically present - especially at the same time as the RIAA representatives which could lead to them being identified even if they should not be) then it's no longer "ex parte" according to the US usage.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
I didn't know TCP-over-moose technology had matured!
Anybody want my mod points?
In the University of Oregon, the RIAA conveniently "forgot" to tell the judge that the University had told the RIAA that it had gathered and was preserving the records.
In the University of New Mexico case, the judge had this to say about the RIAA's "ex parte" request:
In the College of William & Mary case the judge just rejected the application outright.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
More specifically, if the prosecutor loses they should have to pay. If the defendant loses, lawyer fees are paid by their respective parties. Wouldn't want the RIAA to have all their cases handed to them for free.
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.