Slashdot Mirror
RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."
So, how many countersuits would it take to wipe RIAA off the face of the planet?
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here... Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone" (as opposed to settle since they now can't sue them for anything other than injunctive relief) for a fee?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
How come I'm dying of not surprise?
/. articles for more references) They also like to apply US law to Canada. Guess what RIAA and MPAA, US law is not Canadian law.
Might be because the RIAA keeps functioning illegally, slanders and purposely lies.
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization? They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.
To support my accusation, look at the article this it attached to.
Also look at the many claims they make about Canada and Piracy. Just pull up the studies they done that "support" their position. Problem is you will find their own data does not support their claim.(See previous
Suing people with out computers for distributing files.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
"Last week, Warner Music Group proposed a voluntary blanket licensing scheme for universities. The proposal would add a fee to student tuition to permit music file sharing in schools."
And then, via another link;
"The rest of the details are still to be determined, including whether it would be a mandatory fee for all students, or an opt-in fee (complete with continued lawsuits for those who fail to pay?). It's also not clear what the fee would be, although those familiar with the talks suggest less than $5 per student per month... "
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.
Couldn't somebody get state engineering licensing board to go after some of the so called RIAA investigators? After all, these are technical matters and if the cases were about bridges falling then one would be required to have a PE license to testify as to the technical matters.
I remember reading that Apple's optical drives don't conform...
So they simply don't stamp the official logo on them.
This is why we have Linux and CD/DVD recorders in our PCs. We have all the software necessary to rip any media to any format desired.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I was just reading NYCL's article on this whole situation
http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenselessHTMLVERSION.htm
and it seems to me that the RIAA lawyes have come up with a scheme that brazenly uses the legal system to threaten people (nothing new there) but ALSO that the legal system has tacitly gone along with it. The "old boys club" of judges has decided that it's OK for these dirty pirating scum to be hammered through their courts, because they are so sneaky that there is no other way.
To the older generation, copyright infringement like this seems very wrong and the fact that the internet allows it to be done anonymously, with no easy trackdown, also seems wrong and perverted.
So basically they have allowed the RIAA to jam some wedges into the court system and use it to get those naughty infringers.
If they were not at least partially comfortable with the RIAA doing this, surely, they would have close it down long ago, because the whole process is surpremely dodgy.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Bingo. You could just store everything on hard drives, which are not taxed as CD-Rs and cassette tapes are.
While we're at it, what if you pay for the music you download?
What if you use your blank media to store you own "intellectual property?"
What if you like to make backup copies of the CDs you purchase,and don't think you should have to pay an additional tax for the privilege of doing something that should be considered fair dealing?
What if you are an artist who produces mash-ups of popular culture (like Andy Warhol liked to do) and also consider that fair dealing?
What if you are in a band who's music is traded a lot online, but you don't get commercial airplay and you sell your CDs at gigs, so the sales aren't recorded by Soundscan?
What if you are an archivist, a student or a journalist, and are trying to research or preserve our shared culture?
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
1. The order is not an appealable order.
2. The RIAA has asked the Judge for permission to appeal.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This whole thing just goes to show that a:) the lawyers suing on behalf of the record companies don't give a flat fuck about anything the judges have to say; and 2:) in this case specifically, to have quite literally told this specific judge to fuck off and die. They'll do what they want.
You are now beginning to witness the folding of American law and justice. This is where someone in a movie once said that in the future, they abolished all lawyers. Hmmm; could there be some credence to that thinking..??!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.