Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the doing-their-part dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "When some North Carolina State students recently brought to the attention of the Court the apparent illegality of the RIAA's investigations by unlicensed investigators, they also caught the attention of the judges. After reading these new papers, District Judge Louise W. Flanagan, who admits that she's been routinely signing the RIAA's ex parte discovery orders in the past, has indicated that she is now going to take 'a fresh look' at the RIAA's tactics. She issued a stay of the subpoena, ordering NC State not to respond to it, and referred the motions to dismiss the cases to a Magistrate Judge for him to take that 'fresh look' at what has been going on."

86 comments

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Treat these subpoenas like they came from the mafia or a drug cartel. Make them go out of their way to do something crazy, like having proof.

    1. Re:Good by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Treat these subpoenas like they came from the mafia or a drug cartel. Make them go out of their way to do something crazy, like having proof.

      They have proof*, the issue is whether the proof was legally obtained.

      *for small values of proof

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Treat these subpoenas like they came from the mafia or a drug cartel. Make them go out of their way to do something crazy, like having proof.

      They have proof*, the issue is whether the proof was legally obtained.

      They have no proof, since it can not be verified it is correct.

      Here credibility enters the stage. Only officers of the police (etc) have sworn the statement to forfill truthfullness.

    3. Re:Good by Kingrames · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two possibilities:
      1) This is a christmas miracle and a single Judge is turning out to be something other than a slimy evil-beyond-belief scumbag and we'll all live happily ever after...

      2) She's just doing this to force them to bribe her again.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an old saying that the problem with bribing public officials... is that they don't stay bribed.

      But in all honesty, this seems very positive. Let's have some faith that eventually the judicial system will catch up with the dishonesty of the music industry^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcartel.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is amazing is this part:

      After reading these new papers, District Judge Louise W. Flanagan, who admits that she's been routinely signing the RIAA's ex parte discovery orders in the past, has indicated that she is now going to take 'a fresh look' at the RIAA's tactics.

      Shouldn't she have taken a look at the illegality of RIAA's tactics like way, way back when RIAA first requested a motion for discovery? The fact that some students brought this illegality to attention long after the first case of what became routine is rather disturbing.

    6. Re:Good by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The RIAA is using false pretenses to gather the names though. The biggest problem so far is that they are "jumping" cases... filing one case against "jonh doe" at an ISP to get names, then taking discovery from that case to create new cases against individuals NOT in a group... not legal in many places as it is false pretense to the court as well as wastes time tracking down what a federal court would consider trivial cases.

      The other problem is how they got the IP addresses in the first place... they've never allowed judges to look behind the veil at WHO was generating these and the paper trail...was it obtained legally? That question is getting very murky and deserves investigation. when challenged they drop cases instead of provide the evidence. Judges are getting tired of being systematically duped. These are Corporate national lawyers this behavior is not acceptable at that legal level. Not telling the "whole truth" is equivalent to lying, just harder to prove.

    7. Re:Good by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Informative

      there's no bribery here, just misrepresented court documents. These are judges used to corporate case language for "stolen" IP and contract violations. The RIAA lawyers are disguising these "common" violations in mountains of legal speak like they were running pirate manufacturing operations... Judges to date have been willing to overlook the legal hyperbole because both sides will get their day in court... at least that's how it's supposed to work.

      now that there have been more than a few plainly misrepresented case at all the stages, before discovery and during trials, these cases are going to get extra scrutiny to their worthiness before allowing them to continue en masse. It's wasting the court's time and of questionable legality.

    8. Re:Good by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      They have no proof, since it can not be verified it is correct.

      Here credibility enters the stage. Only officers of the police (etc) have sworn the statement to forfill truthfullness.

      The issue here is that the **AA's investigator is not licensed to investigate.
      So while the evidence they gathered may or may not be correct, it was gathered illegally and the correctness becomes moot.

      Anyone submitting evidence or an affidavit to a Judge has to swear (or affirm) that it's the truth. What I think you're talking about, is the fact that Judges generally give Police Officers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to hearsay testimony in support of a warrant or subpoena. Because the "(etc)" that you mention includes the lawyers on both sides of the case, at least in the USA legal system.

      What would be interesting to find out is if the **AA attorneys had internally discussed the issue of private investigator credentials before the public or defendants raised the matter. Because if the **AA lawyers knew and didn't say anything to the Judges, they'd be looking at sanctions.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:Good by mpe · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't she have taken a look at the illegality of RIAA's tactics like way, way back when RIAA first requested a motion for discovery?

      Better late than never!

    10. Re:Good by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      What would be interesting to find out is if the **AA attorneys had internally discussed the issue of private investigator credentials before the public or defendants raised the matter. Because if the **AA lawyers knew and didn't say anything to the Judges, they'd be looking at sanctions.

      1. They're not smart enough to have thought about it on their own.

      2. Tanya Andersen's lawyer thought about it for them in October 2005, so they've been on notice since then.

      3. So yes they have exposure to sanctions, big time.

      4. Or maybe worse, because they are aiders and abetters. If you hire a hit man you're equally guilty of the murder. We're talking criminal law here, because the use of unlicensed investigators is a criminal matter.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    11. Re:Good by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Make them go out of their way to do something crazy, like having proof.

      ... that they came from somewhere as bad as the mafia or a drug cartel? Oh no, you don't mean that, of course.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    12. Re:Good by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      We're talking criminal law here, because the use of unlicensed investigators is a criminal matter.

      I would have thought it would be civil matter. I mean, come on, just because you hired an unlicensed investigator, doesn't mean you have to go to jail. You're not a menace to society, you're not endangering anyone.

      [/subtle parody of typical /. opinion on copyright infringement]

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    13. Re:Good by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I'd submit that the music industry has more to do with drug cartels than most would admit.

      Or do musicians grow the famously massive quantities of drugs they're always smoking, snorting, and ijecting in their back yards? Maybe MC Hammer has a grow op in his pants?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    14. Re:Good by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling if the schmoes in the RIAA value their liberty, they won't procure drugs for the musicians. Can you see the RIAA stepping up, and admitting that its their fault? I'm guessing there's more accessories than drug dealers in the RIAA.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  2. Hurray for justice! by y86 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even if it's late.

    1. Re:Hurray for justice! by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      What do you expect? Justice is blind! By the time she actually makes it to a RIAA trial, it's usually been over for weeks!

    2. Re:Hurray for justice! by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually in the U.S, justice is a whore, she fucks the highest bidder.

    3. Re:Hurray for justice! by Ren+Hoak · · Score: 1

      Now now... everyone is entitled to as much justice as they can afford.

    4. Re:Hurray for justice! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno ... I had a cop issue me a bad ticket once. He was a well-known asshole on the force, and the judge apparently knew that. He was a fat fuck with coke-bottle glasses claiming he saw me pass a schoolbus with its sign out from six blocks away. The driver closed her sign and waved me on before I made my turn. It was the end of the month, so I guess he figured he had an easy ticket.

      Still, this would have resulted in a six-month suspension had it stuck. The judge told me that the law had recently been changed, and she no longer had any leeway for this particular "offense". However, the judge actually had the prosecutor looking through a thick book of statutes to find a way to plead me down. He eventually said, "Ah-ha!", because there was wording that allowed the offense to be plead down to a lesser offense if the alleged offender (me) had not had a moving violation within the last ten years or some such. So I got off with an illegal left turn ... didn't even affect my insurance rates. So I walked out $250 poorer (what my attorney charged) but feeling that justice had been done. The judge also had a couple of harsh words for the cop.

      Back in my days as a software contractor, I was in court a few times because of customers that refused to pay their bills. That happened rarely: the smart ones try to keep their developers happy because they know they may need support some day. But there were a couple that were (I found out later) having financial troubles and just figured they'd save some money. I did my homework, and when I went to court the response from the judge was always, "Pay the man!"

      I know, small potatoes compared to these RIAA cases (although we were talking projects in the $35-40,000 dollar range) but so far I've been well-treated by the courts.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Hurray for justice! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      She's a blind whore. She fucks the highest bidder and takes bukkakke from group interests right in the eye.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Hurray for justice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that!

  3. Oh well... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Funny
    Oh well... It was fun while it worked.

    Time to look for another business method...

    1. Re:Oh well... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I believe their answer to the law not allowing this isn't to change their business methods, but to change the law. Here in the US, this seems to be the easiest and cheapest solutions -- the price of your average politician is too high for individuals but low enough to not make a dent in a corporation's coffers.

      Do us all a favor the coming November -- look up the contributors to your representatives before voting, and strike anyone who has accepted money from the entertainment cartels or their lobbyists.

    2. Re:Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget, the recording industry and the movie moguls are getting results from policticians in Europe and elsewhere now too. Our main hope may still lay in judges are are mostly expected to recuse themselves from a case if they could be said to have bias in it, like having gotten polictical donations from any of the involved. Not only watch what laws are being snuck in, but what treaties exist and are trying to be modified or added.

      Tons of amicus curiae may need to be filed across the country to avoid ignorance amongst judges and defending lawyers, such as the EFF and Ray have provided before. May even need a nationwide ( maybe even worldwide ) watch system to alert capable filers of amicus curiae to new filings of lawsuits by the RIAA/MPAA.

    3. Re:Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Do us all a favor the coming November -- look up the contributors to your representatives before voting, and strike anyone who has accepted money from the entertainment cartels or their lobbyists.

      Most Americans already do this. It's called abstaining.

    4. Re:Oh well... by MrKaos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I believe their answer to the law not allowing this isn't to change their business methods, but to change the law.

      Or to paraphrase Emperor Palpatine, I will make it legal

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Oh well... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      look up the contributors to your representatives before voting, and strike anyone who has accepted money from the entertainment cartels or their lobbyists.

      Or any other cartel... Which pretty much means all of them as that is how it works.

      Even the ones that don't accept payoffs, are just newbies and will as they are indoctrinated into the system.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Oh well... by Lunarsight · · Score: 1

      Oh well... It was fun while it worked.
      Time to look for another business method...

      ...or look for a new job.

      These RIAA clods may find this particular line useful in the near future:

      "Would you like fries with that?"

    7. Re:Oh well... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Exactly. here in the US you usually get a choice of "rich old money corporate ass kisser A" or "rich old money corporate ass kisser B". Between the revolving door of public servant/corporate shill and the outright bribery,added to all this old money and politicos who are multi generation power brokers, it is no wonder that the top 6% control more than 90% of the wealth. And I don't see how the vote will EVER change that.

      Basically any real change will end up from nationwide civil disobedience,like Dr. King and Gandhi used. Unfortunately we don't seem to have a charismatic leader to rally the troops at the moment. Perhaps in the future one will arise,but until then "voting the bums out" will simply allow other bums to get their piece of the pie. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Oh well... by db32 · · Score: 1

      In other words. Don't vote.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    9. Re:Oh well... by aepervius · · Score: 1

      and strike anyone who has accepted money from the entertainment cartels or their lobbyists.

      So... You are advising him not to vote at all ?

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    10. Re:Oh well... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what Lessig was complaining about. All "throw the bums out" and term limits does is disrupt the cozy relationships for a short time. Even now, I'm sure lobbyists are maneuvering in expectation of a big Democratic win in the US election this year. The more likely it looks, the more they can plan for it, and the shorter the disruption will be. Lessig hopes more transparency can fix this problem.

      I've an idea that yet another reason why wealth concentration is bad is that the money cannot be used as efficiently. The rich waste money extravagantly because it isn't worth their while to be prudent and careful with money, it's time that counts for them. They will blow off $20 or $100 or even more if it seems it might save them 10 minutes of time. In addition to the less than 100% performance they get out of their money by such practices, by being willing and able to pay extravagantly, they add to inflation, making it harder for everyone else. It's an outrage the way upper management pay has so grossly outpaced peon pay. At the other extreme, the poor are constantly forced to accept bad deals because they have debts to pay right now. Cash that paycheck at the check cashing place that skims 5%, so they can get the money and get it into their checking account right away, before the check they wrote the day before has a chance to cause them to be overdrawn, triggering a cascade of expensive fines. (You know how banks love to delay deposited checks to make penalties happen. They can't use that "check clearing takes time" excuse for cash deposits.) Lose 5% so they don't lose even more in penalties.

      But back to the topic. It looks as if the RIAA's reputation in court is at last cracking. They've been getting away with a lot of crap an individual couldn't do, because courts have been more believing in the professionalism of corporate lawyers and corporate lawsuits. Courts are no longer taking the RIAA's professionalism for granted. The courts are at last realizing that although a corporation has a lot to lose by ruining its own reputation, the RIAA really is that stupid.

      Way to go RIAA, turn the public against you. Turn artists against you. And now, turn the courts against you. Trash your reputation. There anyone left who still thinks you have any reputation? Congress maybe? Apple Computer?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    11. Re:Oh well... by houghi · · Score: 1

      look up the contributors to your representatives before voting, and strike anyone who has accepted money from the entertainment cartels or their lobbyists.

      I think you should also look up why they did not accepted money. Perhaps it was not (yet) offered and when the people who take it now are not elected, they will be the next generation happliy taking that money.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Oh well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh well... It was fun while it worked.

      Time to look for another gullible judge...

      There, fixed it for you.

      Cause that is all there is going to happen : either the curent judge gets a "working over" (probably some friendly talking to by the right person), or the RIAA will simply erase her from the "preferred/pocketed judges" list, and approach the next one on it.

    13. Re:Oh well... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      While I agree,sadly if you look at the big picture ultimately the *.A.As simply CAN'T lose. Why? Because even if judges happen to order the R.I.A.A disbanded their members will simply enact more laws through "donations" and no matter how loudly the people cry their voices are but a whisper compared to the voice of money. I will have no doubt that we will see the end of P2P and any other technology that dares to threaten the profits of the cartels. They will then raise prices by 30-50% across the board and when their sales don't return to 1970's levels they will STILL cry piracy and demand even more controls be placed upon us.

      Sadly I believe there is a way for both sides to be happy. Offer us a "download all you want" P2P channel for $5 a month. No DRM,just standard Mp3 and Flac. Offer another channel on the same network for software more than two years old,and yet another for games that are the same age along with a movie channel with the same age limit. I know I would happily pay the $15 a month for a place where I could download any music and .ISOs that I wanted and know they were genuine. This would still allow them to charge full price for new releases while creating a very profitable market for the items that usually are in the bargain bin by that time. Want new releases in one of those four categories? Add another ten dollars to your subscription price and enjoy.

      But I doubt we will ever see such a thing occur,simply because they are pigs. Their greed knows no bounds and they would rather destroy our networks and buy our laws than to sell anything for less than the market can bear. And let us not forget that a few years back one of the cartel members presidents said that digital should be a "pay per listen" model,because ultimately that is their goal,anything less just isn't piggish enough for them. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Oh well... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

      It looks as if the RIAA's reputation in court is at last cracking. They've been getting away with a lot of crap an individual couldn't do, because courts have been more believing in the professionalism of corporate lawyers and corporate lawsuits. Courts are no longer taking the RIAA's professionalism for granted.

      Yes I think you're right. For a judge to publicly acknowledge that he made a "manifest error of law", because he was misled by the RIAA's lawyers, is extraordinary.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    15. Re:Oh well... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, the degree of intellectual honesty that judge displayed is heartening.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    16. Re:Oh well... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You guys HAD the choice of Ron Paul, but everyone said he was an insane fringe candidate.

      He doesn't have a hundred million dollars from a lifetime of accepting bribes, he's got 5 million dollars from a lifetime of community service.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    17. Re:Oh well... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But Ron Paul really WASN'T a choice,as he refuses to run as anything but a Republican. It would be like a black refusing to run for any other office than the head of the KKK. There was no way in hell the republican old guard was going to let Ron Paul have a shot at it period. They made sure that at every opportunity they got they labeled him a wacko and even gave that big pile of suck Huckabee better lip service than Ron Paul. So the only one to blame for Ron Paul not being a choice come November is Ron Paul. Personally I'd be happy to vote for a real 3rd party candidate like Ron Paul or Jessie Ventura, but sadly all we get is Bob Barr,which is just as big a pile of suck as any democrat or republican. But that is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    18. Re:Oh well... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Ron Paul HAS to run as a Republican. He doesn't have any choice. If you run as anything but a Republican or a Democrat, then you're just a spoiler candidate because of the myth of the 2-party inevitability in the US.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    19. Re:Oh well... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
      If you really believe that,then there really isn't a point in voting anymore,is there? Because all the dems and repubs are going to give you is "rich old money corporate ass kisser" A or B. They will NEVER have someone who doesn't "play ball" on their ticket,ever. There is just too many alliances and giant paychecks from lobbyists and special interests to allow a "rogue" like a Ron Paul or a Jessie Ventura.

      The simple fact is if someone with fresh ideas and some charisma like Paul would run as a 3rd party then we would have a real shot at breaking the whole thing up. But as long as folks like Paul think they can win at a crooked game then voting is about as useful as spitting in the wind. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  4. And so it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all....

    1. Re:And so it begins! by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Goliath falls dead. After a stunned silence, the crowd turns back to tending breakfast around the campfire, content to go on with what they were doing. All of David's friends celebrate, but the politicians and leaders simply begin plotting a new strategy.

      And some people think CoS is evil?

      Seriously: I'm glad to see that the courts are finally paying attention... to the law instead of politicians.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    2. Re:And so it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad to see that the courts are finally paying attention... to the law instead of politicians.

      Who is it that you believe writes the law?

    3. Re:And so it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >And some people think CoS is evil?

      Yes! I would have no problem telling any of my friends I was accused of pirating music, even of going to jail for it. I'd wear it like a badge of honour.

      I would not wear a badge of breech of the public trust (ie: putting plants in judicial organizations to pervert justice) so proudly, however. If anything, I'd do my best to hide it.

      The RIAA might be guilty of this, although I suspect they are not. Rather, they are guilty of corruption. There *is* a difference between planting people into judicial organizations and simply bribing them...

    4. Re:And so it begins! by mpe · · Score: 1

      Goliath falls dead. After a stunned silence, the crowd turns back to tending breakfast around the campfire, content to go on with what they were doing. All of David's friends celebrate, but the politicians and leaders simply begin plotting a new strategy.

      It looks like they might already have one. Currently "on test" in France with plans to extend to the entire EU.

    5. Re:And so it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem being that the politicians make the law

    6. Re:And so it begins! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Both. The congress passes laws, but the courts determine how it's going to be interpreted, which is a more subtle power, but one that allows the courts to effectively write the law when they want to.

      Also, there's an entire body of law known as "common law", created by the courts. The courts themselves hold full authority in what the common law is, since they're the ones who created it, long ago.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  5. What now? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where is the motion to dismiss going now, and what is likely to happen to it?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. OK, which one of you guys at RTP did this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Jesse Helms (NC-R(acebaiter)) dies this morning, now a North Carolina judge is second-guessing RIAA subpoenas.

    So fess up. Which one of you geeks up at Research Triangle Park left the cluesprayer on last night, because it's obviously leaking cluons all over the friggin' state.

    I'm not saying you should stop the leak, by the way. I'm just curious as to the source.

    1. Re:OK, which one of you guys at RTP did this? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Next, Duke Nukem Forever will get released.

    2. Re:OK, which one of you guys at RTP did this? by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Way to go ...

      Duke Nukem Forever is innocent !!!

      Free Duke Nukem Forever !!!

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:OK, which one of you guys at RTP did this? by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      "Cluons" Ok I love this one :D

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  7. Good for the students by Gay+for+Linux · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to hear that the university students are standing up for their rights and taking action.

  8. !suddenoutbreakofcommonsense by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Took too long.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:!suddenoutbreakofcommonsense by v1 · · Score: 1

      oh so you want me to read that thing before I sign it? Isn't that a little extreme?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  9. Getting a license may not be too easy: by Steve1952 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is from the North Carolina state website:

    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_74C.html

    Section 74C-12: Denial, suspension, or revocation of license, registration, or permit; duty to report criminal arrests.

    (a) The Board may, after compliance with Chapter 150B of the General Statutes, deny, suspend or revoke a license, registration, or permit issued under this Chapter if it is determined that the applicant, licensee, registrant, or permit holder has done any of the following acts:

    (1) Made any false statement or given any false information in connection with any application for a license, registration, or permit or for the renewal or reinstatement of a license, registration, or permit.

    (6) Engaged in or permitted any employee to engage in a private protective services profession when not lawfully in possession of a valid license issued under the provisions of this Chapter.

    (8) Knowingly made any false report to the employer or client for whom information is being obtained.

    (12) Undertaken to give legal advice or counsel or to in any way falsely represent that he or she is representing any attorney or he or she is appearing or will appear as an attorney in any legal proceeding.

    (13) Issued, delivered, or uttered any simulation of process of any nature which might lead a person or persons to believe that such simulation, written, printed, or typed, may be a summons, warrant, writ or court process, or any pleading in any court proceeding.

    (17) Failed to notify the Director by a business entity other than a sole proprietorship licensed pursuant to this Chapter of the cessation of employment of the business entity's qualifying agent within the time set forth in this Chapter.

    1. Re:Getting a license may not be too easy: by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I am reading that right, it means it very likely (if the magistrate judge follows the law) that the RIAA and their current cohorts will never be allowed to carry out any form of investigation in NC.

      Nice!

      Well, one can hope...

      --
      StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
  10. Silence... by jaminJay · · Score: 3, Funny

    How am I supposed to get good legal commentary if no-one's posting on /.?

    --
    Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    1. Re:Silence... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Funny

      How am I supposed to get good legal commentary if no-one's posting on /.?

      Don't look at me. I shouldn't even be working today.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Silence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't look at me. I shouldn't even be working today.

      Well, since it is the Fourth of July, thanks for letting us know the fight goes on and that there will be some fireworks. We will all be happy to know that, on this day, your not the only one with a missile left. Enjoy your holiday.

    3. Re:Silence... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, since it is the Fourth of July, thanks for letting us know the fight goes on and that there will be some fireworks.

      Definitely the fight goes on, and there will continue to be lots of fireworks.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Silence... by The+FNP · · Score: 1

      Wow, those are some fireworks! Just make sure we can see them all across the country. I'm really enjoying your letter. It's hilarious and very compelling reading to anyone with half a brain, let's hope the judge agrees (Assuming the RIAA can find the right one to get their motion rejected by).

      --The FNP

    5. Re:Silence... by kwandar · · Score: 1

      And it is even dated the 4th of July :) Now I'd have expected more of Mr. Reynolds as an officer of the court. Do you ever wonder what type of fee structure is in place, or what client pressure must Mr. Reynolds be feeling to act in what I'd consider to be a completely unprofessional manner. OR is it perhaps just a lack of experience. Really, I am puzzled by the RIAA legal team.

    6. Re:Silence... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, those are some fireworks! Just make sure we can see them all across the country. I'm really enjoying your letter. It's hilarious and very compelling reading to anyone with half a brain, let's hope the judge agrees...

      Thanks. But I can't really take the credit. The RIAA's lawyers are the ones feeding me my material.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    7. Re:Silence... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Wow I saw MS in the URL and assumed it was about Microsoft.

  11. Good by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About time a judge follows the law instead of following the money.

  12. Way to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go alma mater!

  13. the rubber stamp wore out? by EllynGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe they should look for judges who know the law and read the documents that pass before them.

    Oh quit laughing, it could happen!

    --

    we will end no whine before its time

  14. s/fresh/first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has indicated that she is now going to take 'a first look' at the RIAA's tactics.

    FIXED 4 U

    1. Re:s/fresh/first by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      sed to the rescue. I wish I could have a sed machine to fix peoples' words before they leave their mouth.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  15. Yeah Right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ray Beckerman: Pirate Lawyer Extroadinare

  16. Re:yu0 Fail It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lolwut? Nice try. Mod parent troll.

  17. Only the police? by slashing1 · · Score: 0

    Uh, while I'm not defending the credibility of these particular private investigators, I'm pretty sure there are people besides the police who might have credibility and/or the ability to swear regarding truthfulness.

  18. Discovery, Discovery, Discovery by monxrtr · · Score: 2, Funny

    In all cases before this court, the undersigned has allowed plaintiffs' expedited motion for discovery.

    Open source file sharing of all files, containing both copyrighted and uncopyrighted content, is Constitutionally mandated on Legal Discovery Process grounds. We all have just as much of a right as any trade organization, as any ISP, or as any government to analyze all content ever created to search for copyright infringements. We can all legally enlist all paid and voluntary help whatsoever in this endeavor.

    If defendants are charged with copyright infringement, they have the right to argue and exhibit evidence that invalidates the original copyright claims themselves, such as showing prior art, or overlapping use of content which is the copyright ownership of secondary parties. This can only be accomplished by copying and manually (or automatically in hash recognition programs) inspecting the files. Prohibiting defendants and secondary claimants from gathering evidence is a violation of their due process and legal discovery rights. Thus, cease and desist and take down notices for any and all files shared on the internet are violations of due process and discovery rights for First, Second, and Third Parties. Result, P2P file sharing is absolutely necessary, and inhibiting the free flow of information (for non commercial non profit legal discovery evidence purposes) is wholly unconstitutional.

    What's next? The Courts rule that handwriting expert testimony cannot be introduced as evidence in a court because it violates the copyrights of the person who wrote the words?

    Thus I have Discovered that P2P open source file sharing is absolutely necessary for the protection of copyrights. Yeah, I'm just that good. Please notify me immediately if you find this post in any torrent files such as for example a file which was theoretically named everything_ever_made_by_Walt_Disney.tor so that I may undertake appropriate legal actions to defend myself. I also humbly request infinite deputized voluntary intern help in vetting every data bit available on the internet for the purposes of determining that no copyright violations regarding my content are being wrongfully claimed or distributed. I will also likewise be glad to reciprocate in helping to determine that none of your copyrighted stuff is also illegally contained in files. Thank you for your assistance, and welcome to your first day as an intern in Open Source Legal Discovery Inc. ^_^

    May your file sharing Legal Discovery Searches, be fruitful. And yes, you can put OSLDI Intern on your resume.

    --
    "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    1. Re:Discovery, Discovery, Discovery by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      The parody rules allow me to go with the great riff you set up:
      Discovery, Discovery, Discovery, Discovery! Come on!!!!

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  19. Another reason... by jgoemat · · Score: 1
    From the order:

    Several of the cases assigned to me, all originating out of the prior pending action, recently have been closed upon voluntary dismissal.

    I believe the judge is catching on that the RIAA is just using the courts. Most times they probably are just fishing and/or have bad data so they don't find the right people. The rest of the time they are using their lawsuit assembly-line operation to extort money from people and they don't intend to bring court cases. If not for extorting money, then simple to try and affect public opinion. They can basically sue dozens of people for the cost of suing one. When a lot of the cases are dismissed, it's a sign that the plaintiffs need to be reeled in.

  20. Hammer Time! by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    That Big Hammer is starting to come down on their little empire that they have established, and I don't think there will be any survivors once the courts get done with them. RIAA has done little to adhere to the laws of the land and it has come time to pay the collector for their misdeeds.

    I want front row, center seats when the judgment comes down on them, destroying their careers.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    1. Re:Hammer Time! by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      And that will never happen. They'll lobby for new laws and get them or have them sneaked into other laws this http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/06/211236&from=rss">this. The RIAA is going nowhere. And neither is piracy. If DRM-Free mp3's weren't so expensive, I'd be more inclined to buy them.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    2. Re:Hammer Time! by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      wow did I fuck that up Here.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  21. Will ATCA make this redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since the first slashdot story on ATCA (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/01/135216&from=rss)
    it would seem that maybe someone behind the curtains at *AA understands there could be problems in the courts and is approaching this from a different angle - ie. get the law changed.

    If and when that happens in favour of the *AA, will cases like this matter or continue to be of any real significance or interest?