Oregon Judge Says RIAA Made 'Honest Mistake,' Allows Subpoena

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Arista v. Does 1-17, the RIAA's case targeting students at the University of Oregon, the Oregon Attorney General's motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena — pending for about a year — has reached a perplexing conclusion. The Court agreed with the University that the subpoena, as worded, imposed an undue burden on the University by requiring it to produce 'sufficient information to identify alleged infringers,' which would have required the University to 'conduct an investigation,' but then allowed the RIAA to subpoena the identities of 'persons associated by dorm room occupancy or username with the 17 IP addresses listed' even though those people may be completely innocent. In his 8-page decision (PDF), the Judge also 'presumed' the RIAA lawyers' misrepresentations were an 'honest mistake,' made no reference at all to the fact, pointed out by the Attorney General, that the RIAA investigators (Safenet, formerly MediaSentry) were not licensed, rejected all of the AG's privacy arguments under both state and federal law, and rejected the AG's request for discovery into the RIAA's investigative tactics."

Comments

Honest?

[Gewalt]

The words "honest" and "RIAA" don't even belong in the same sentence. /sigh

Re:Honest?

[BlackSabbath]

I'm sorry Ray, but just how does an outside observer not draw the conclusion that the legal system is inherently corrupted? I know you can't answer the question (at least not publicly) and I and many others support your valiant efforts. However, its hard as someone from outside the US to not see your country as just the world's biggest banana republic. Where the law has the appearance of granite and the firmness of quicksand. A legal system whose flexibility is only ever exercised to the favour of power, never the other way. As an amateur student of early American history and the founding of your nation, I just find the underlying hypocrisy galling and the fall of the republic utterly disheartening.

Re:Honest?

[causality]

I'm sorry Ray, but just how does an outside observer not draw the conclusion that the legal system is inherently corrupted? I know you can't answer the question (at least not publicly) and I and many others support your valiant efforts. However, its hard as someone from outside the US to not see your country as just the world's biggest banana republic. Where the law has the appearance of granite and the firmness of quicksand. A legal system whose flexibility is only ever exercised to the favour of power, never the other way. As an amateur student of early American history and the founding of your nation, I just find the underlying hypocrisy galling and the fall of the republic utterly disheartening.

I was just going to make a quick post in which I would say something like "this seriously makes me wonder just how difficult it is to impeach a judge," then I saw your comment. I can say that from inside the US it also looks like the world's biggest banana republic. Nothing is as it should be and this is only becoming more true as time passes.

The reason why I refer to the general public with terms like "sheep" or "sheeple" or "bovine idiots" is because they accept this without question. No threat to their money, their liberty, or their well-being is ever sufficient to prompt them to think critically and stop accepting the party line(s) at face value. All it takes is for the talking heads on CNN or Fox News to frame a phony debate in the form of a false dichotomy and they buy it, so long as the phony debate is nuanced and there's lots of chatter about it. The truth is, if there were any real philosophical differences between the two parties concerning the role of government, it would not take 9 months of campaigning to point them out.

WIth the exception of a very few, no one with any real media presence points out that the only disagreement between the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate is how to carry out the expansion of the size and power of government. One candidate wants to expand the size and authority of government for reasons A, B, C while the other candidate wants to expand the size and power of government for reasons D, E, F and that's the basis of the election. There is no mention of whether it should be expanded, whether what we are doing now is remotely sustainable and whether continuing down the same path is going to help or harm the country.

What you point out about the legal system is unfortunately just a symptom of a much deeper problem. The real problem is that the media and the economy have become increasingly centralized over the last century and the number of people controlling both could probably all be seated comfortably in a relatively small room. For example, when the news outlets first started talking about the idea of bailing out Bear Stearns, I knew without doubt that it was going to happen, that the false debate and "controversy" only served the purpose of providing the appearance of legitimate dissention because without it, the people might actually wake up and realize that all is not as it seems. Americans need to seriously ask themselves whether they have ever once seen a major decision like this that a) was hyped up in the media and given lots of coverage and b) went against the desires of a monied interest. The sad thing is that not only do most Americans not understand these things, most of them seem like they don't want to understand -- apparently the latest celebrity gossip or sports scores or artificially hectic lifestyles (the new status symbol) are much more important to them. While I think that these people deserve what's coming, it saddens me that many who do not share their willful ignorance are going to suffer as well because everything is global now; there is no more "small and local". I hope that those outside the USA realize that no matter how you feel about Americans, the soverignty of the USA is just about the only thing that is currently standing in the way of a one-world government or a system of 2-3 global factions in the "but Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" sense and that the USA is not being run by people who act like they want to maintain that soverignty.

Re:Honest?

[causality]

The difference between you and me is that I can't afford the luxury of getting 'disheartened'. But I do get angry. And an illogical, indefensible decision like this one ticks me off.

The way you discourage illogical, indefensible decisions like this is to (with due process of course) impose sanctions against such judges and/or conduct independent investigations into whether there is anything that remotely looks like the judge is receiving money or other favors from the RIAA. If this is possible at all, it should be easy considering that this will not be the first time that the RIAA's tactics have (I'll be nice and say) been questionable. You then follow up by conducting an investigation into the RIAA's tactics, including whether or not the likes of MediaSentry are in fact breaking the law by acting like unlicensed private investigators (why is this not a completely separate issue from the lawsuit at hand?) because as those in power so enjoy telling us, "they shouldn't care if they have nothing to hide".

I felt that way when I first saw this summary but I am certainly not a lawyer and so I do not feel that I am qualified (without doing lots of research at any rate) to say whether this judge's actions are illogical or indefensible in the context of legal proceedings, in the sense that many perfectly legal practices are complete unenlightened bullshit to me, but now that a lawyer such as yourself has cleared that up for me the rest seems quite simple. Yes I know that as someone who does not understand the nuances of law as you do, I very well may be coming off like a complete armchair amateur so if you point that out, I'll understand, but either way I am grateful for people like you who can be a part of the system without also being blind to things about it that probably need to change. I wish that insiders with your honesty were not the small minority that they seem to be.

Illegal joinder

[l2718]

Several years ago a New Mexico Judge (IIRC) instructed the RIAA to bring further suits against individual defendants rather than join several in one action. For example, there is no accusation here that the various students acted in concert to infringe copyrights -- whatever each of them allegedly did, it was done on an individual basis. Did the University raise this issue with the judge? Does the ruling address it?

Easy defense

[clang_jangle]

The Court...allowed the RIAA to subpoena the identities of 'persons associated by dorm room occupancy or username with the 17 IP addresses listed' even though those people may be completely innocent.

Sounds like the defense will have it easy. IANAL, but I'd expect the moment of being served on this one is probably a good time to file the countersuit.

Is it just me....

[whoever57]

or is it hard to believe that this and other judges are highly influenced by their own prejudices, to the point that they issue rulings that are legally unsound?

Well, this raises an interesting question...

[bigstrat2003]

How much did this judge get paid for his decision? Because there's no way an honest man could've come to such a conclusion.

Re:Well, this raises an interesting question...

[billcopc]

the penalty for bribery is very severe.

Sure, how many judges do you know that have been tried and found guilty of accepting bribes ? One, two maybe ? Oh, is it zero ? Right, because no judge would dare inconvenience one of their own, especially when the tide of corruption is unstoppable, why bother with such a damaging case ?

It's the kind of thing that puts your career to sleep, much like that young hotshot cop who thinks he's going to clean up the force. Next thing you know, he's doing traffic in some dead boring district because nobody wants him snooping around.

"Honest Mistake"

[m509272]

These clowns have started how many lawsuits? There's no such thing as an "honest mistake" at this point in the game. Can the judge be honestly this clueless??

The only question remaining is ...

[Jerry]

how much did it take to lubricate the Judge?

Re:The only question remaining is ...

[TubeSteak]

how much did it take to lubricate the Judge?

Roughly 1/5th of a gallon of Single Malt Whiskey

Re:Appeal?

[MrNaz]

"it seems like the judge has decided that, whatever the law says, this matter is a waste of their time"

Never attribute to laziness (or anything else for that matter) what can adequately be explained by a bribe, particularly when an organization like the RIAA is involved.

Re:Appeal?

[nomadic]

Never attribute to laziness (or anything else for that matter) what can adequately be explained by a bribe, particularly when an organization like the RIAA is involved.

I've always wondered, every time a story comes up about a judge making a ruling we don't like, there are inevitably several accusations of bribery. You all don't actually believe it, right? I assumed everyone is just venting, but anyone who literally believes the RIAA bribed a federal judge in order to get a ruling they wanted on a discovery order, do you? I mean, in the history of American jurisprudence there have been judges who have bribed, but anyone that thinks this is common is way off base.

As a practical matter, if a federal judge was that greedy, why would he or she be a federal judge? They could make many times what they're making now in the private sector.