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."

Comments

RIAA strikes again

[chadenright]

So, how many countersuits would it take to wipe RIAA off the face of the planet?

Re:RIAA strikes again

[Bios_Hakr]

I've wondered why no one has tried to "poison the well" with suits yet. You could create a GIF of a 7-legged spider and then let someone else violate your copyright. Use the RIAA's tactics to locate the infringers. Then, with lawyers on both sides working together, take the cases as far as possible. Get a local circuit court to make a ruling. Appeal to the next court. Wash, rinse, and repeat until you have set a firm legal precedent.

It seems whenever the RIAA is about to get a ruling against them, they drop the case to stop a precedent from being set. But by using their tactics in an outside case, you can set the precedent for them in a way they can't stop.

And if you have lawyers working both sides, you could play the case to come out on whatever side you wanted.

Hell, you could probably get law students to do it for little to no cost.

Devil's Advocate

[TheSpoom]

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?

Faint hope at end of article

[Bearhouse]

"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.

Re:who cares about laws?

[Uberbah]

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.

RIAA burning its' bridges

[redelm]

... and not just with customers, but now with judges/courts too. It's a "going out of business" move.

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.

Has the judicial system has been complicit so far?

[AaronLawrence]

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.

Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law

[multisync]

What if you never buy any blank media?

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.