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."
Face it, you fucktards.
You are not entitled to everything for free just because of the internet.
So, how many countersuits would it take to wipe RIAA off the face of the planet?
I'm Sparticus!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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
The article's title should read: "RIAA Violating a Court Order in California".
**insert favorite profound quotation here**
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
Racketeering
n : engaging in a racket
Racket Rack"et, n.
1. A scheme, dodge, trick, or the like; something taking
place considered as exciting, trying, unusual, or the
like; also, such occurrence considered as an ordeal; as,
to work a racket; to stand upon the racket. [Slang]
[Webster 1913 Suppl.]
2. an organized illegal activity, such as illegal gambling,
bootlegging, or extortion.
So the RIAA/MPAA are engaged in racketeering. Clearly they don't mind violating the orders of the judge. The point is: if you were contacted by these clowns, or went to school where these clowns are shaking people down, would you ever ever buy from anyone, anything related to their clients? Its a simple way to lose 10000-45000 potential customers at one go. Are they really surprised the recorded music business is dying?
I hohohope they get nailed for this real hard. Merry Christmas.
But aren't those the RIAA execs' kids?
The probability that there is a violation is 1.0 Harassing phone calls and threats of lawsuits are not injunctions... nor do injunctions include the former. I know the world is becoming ridiculously politically correct (IT'S MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS!!!!! I'll wish you a Happy Hanukkah and a Delightful Kwanza too if you want), but call a pig a pig.
This isn't really a protection racket. It's more like a civil version of what police and prosecutors have done for years: "We have no real evidence, but if you confess to the crime, you'll spend less time in prison than if it goes to a trial by jury."
Just stop sharing copyrighted works against the wishes of their creators and owners. And — woo-hoo — no calls from RIAA, no demands, no problems. Their hated lawyers lose their jobs, and everyone is happy enjoying the music.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Priceless! "Yes, I saw you waving me over, Officer, it's just that this is the only way I know how to drive."
There are serious pitfalls ahead of people who respond in set patterns to everything.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
...the RIAA will keep on ripping off artists and producing bland, over-compressed, payola-driven crap instead of music.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
http://www.beforethemusicdies.com/
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
No sig today...
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.
you grow a pair and say "RIAA *IS* violating a court order in California?"
Otherwise... you might as well say they *might* not be. Oh, sensationalism for the sake of controversy! Worse than Entertainment Tonight!
Were these (potentially infringing) calls recorded? And did the defendants in question respond as I hope I would with a short but firm "Fsck you. And your mother."?
> I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say? Because I know their movies never make a profit (so they never have to pay out gross OR net points they specify in the movie contracts, even when sued over it), so I can't imagine that their math here would be any less crazy.
Perhaps they see themselves reducing losses from piracy by eleventy billion dollars for every million dollars they spend suing people?
I'm a little tired of hearing about the mafiaa is trampling on people, and violating laws, and court orders, etc. It's not new or newswothy, the only thing new is the method they're using to do it. Until someone actually does something about it, they'll just keep going in the name of protecting their dying industry.
Personally, I'd love to see each of those law breaking, judge ignoring lawyers arrested, put in cute little pink jumpsuits, and thrown in jail.
Of course, that's the *nice* side of me speaking. I think my *honest* side would rather see them horse-whipped...in public...on TV...in prime time.
If you are still reading, NYCL, could the RIAA's actions be considered contempt of court? Judges don't seem to appreciate that a whole lot...
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Demanding Money,
making unsolicited phone calls for unproven debt,
making threats to property and freedom,
preventing a citizen from doing his duty,
deliberate ignorance of court orders,
The injured party can pursue a civil case ex-parte, get a default judgement in Court for compensation, wait until the time limit passes for RIAA to pay (of course the court will send a letter to the RIAA local collection office and it will be ignored), approach the court again for redressal.
The judge will ask what i want the court to do: I request the judge declare RIAA insolvent for failing to pay its debt.
I go to RIAA, alone, paste the notice on RIAA's front door and ask the sheriff to seal the gates.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
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.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8) - US Copyright Office
A musical or video recording is neither a writing nor a discovery. It was never the intent of the framers to extend copyright to these things and the practice should be abolished by law.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment...
When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected.
So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions?
I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
So you would view any out of court settlement as legally sanctioned racketeering? Because most potential civil suits are settled out of court.
A judge reading NYCL's comments on /.?
That would be one informed judge, the kind that the RIAA would hate.
(Hey, maybe that judge would know the difference between a MAC address and a IP address)
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Ray, I've always been curious about something and was wondering if you could comment... When you post comments (and blog, for that matter) you generally seem to post your opinion, as well as humor and even attacks on "the bad guy" without holding too much back. You appear to be somewhat more restrained when discussing cases which you are personally involved in - and appear to be most restrained in cases in which you are being directly attacked (ie the RIAA lawsuit). This is all as I would expect from a professional -- if anything, you appear more open than I would have expected. So: Are you ever concerned that comments made here will come back to bite you? Where do you draw the line? Are you ever concerned that, for example, a judge may read your comments here (or on your blog) and that may influence their decisions? I have always enjoyed your sense of humor (sometimes self-deprecating, sometimes biting sarcasm, etc) and would not like to see that stop - I was just curious if you ever write something and think "No, I better not post that - that'll come back to haunt me."
Yes I've had to think about those types of questions. I think about them before I write them. The area that's required the most restraint is that I can't talk about my litigation ideas until they have been memorialized in publicly filed litigation documents. No I don't worry about judges reading my arguments, because my arguments here are the same as the arguments I make in my litigation documents. And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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
Duluth, Minnesota - After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages.
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
Normally Slashdot headlines are overly sensational and overstate matters when actually no firm conclusion can be drawn from the article, which is bad. (Still with you here.) In this case a firm conclusion can be drawn from the article but the headline suggests there is room for doubt, which is good because it compensates for the former. (You lost me.)
Why stop there? My dream is: "RIAA jailed for contempt of court".
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
...because they can't read.
OK, that was the funniest thing I've read on /. possibly ever.
There were CDR drives packaged as stereo components that would only use "music" CDRs. Not sure if they're still made, I don't imagine they sold well.
Although it's still (c) you, you can't persue infringement cases from it.
So what's the difference between that and losing the copyrights?
Nil.
And since patents and copyrights are given by government, they can be taken away by government. Or not enforced by government (see Chuck Dickens for an example of the latter).
Why don't just stop listening to their music and watch their movies? Its your free choice.
There are so many options for entertainment. If I were living in the USA, I would just not listen/watch the crap RIAA controls.
Now that would "help the artists" so they would stop cooperating with such organisations.
First, the manufacturers in this country stripped the PE of most of its use by buy the law which exempts themselves from requiring their engineers be registered, even if it involves health and safety of the public. But it's better...
The California board (and many others, I suspect) can't lay a finger on a non-PE practicing professional engineering! Why? Because they are not PEs, and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the board. You may laugh, but I recall that was the result of one such complaint which was lodged against a non-PE practicing engineering (structural, iirc). The AG may prosecute such a case, but it has to be high enough profile for that office to take on, which it typically isn't.
Now, one might argue that their expert witnesses must be PEs if the scope of the content falls within the breadth of PE licensure, but I believe that there are some legislative details which must exist to press that condition. It is the case in some states, but I don't follow that too closely. (dis: I am a PE, and I do expert witness work for architectural/building related cases for less than 5% of my practice).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...of copyright law (or any law) in the collective possession of Slashdotters is truly impressive.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
wow. what a grown up and mature attitude.
judges must assume you are eleven years old.
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Was that supposed to be an attempt at trolling?
I mean, not only is trolling itself boring, but you actually managed to totally botch it?
Congratulations. I am very happy indeed that I don't know you personally.
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The RIAA doesn't make movies, that would be the MPAA. I've heard an odd case here and there, but haven't noticed them rampaging from case to case the way the RIAA has. Seems the MPAA is more likely to go after you if you bring a video camera into a movie theater...
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.
Hey, I'd much rather act 11 years old for my entire life then act 60 years old for my entire life. :)
George Bush MAY be an idiot;
Congress MAY be bought and paid for;
Your mother MAY have put out;
OJ MAY be a murderer;
BuggyWhip makers MAY be pissed;
Dick Cheney MAY be an asshole;
Slashdot MAY be entertaining.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Same fag.
wow. what a grown up and mature attitude. judges must assume you are eleven years old.
Shouldn't you be off filing a lawsuit or something?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
#1 Not withstanding our right to privacy
#2 Not withstanding our right to the rule-of-law
Some of the most agregious cases in this genre involve totally innocent and helpless americans attacked by ogre companies.
Simply refusing to do untoward acts is NOT enough to protect you from this systematic defilement of justice.
And that's a REALLY BIG AND BAD problem.
just my 2 cents worth, :)
And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
It's a good thing that the truth is as absolute defense . . .
Of course the courts agree with the RIAA. Moral judgment always comes before.. the police arrest, the DA prosecutes, the jury finds guilty... etc. The public believes that if you don't pay money you're stealing, and that companies owning and controlling culture is natural.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
...is contempt of court a criminal offense?
They use the law to suit them and ignore it when that suits them, hoping to get away with questionable tactics in both cases.
It's time to seize the whole outfit, and their "hired" investigation company (my money says it's a spin off, or has been bought in majority after the fact), determine how much of what they're doing illegally they knew was illegal, prosecute, dissolve, and distribute the sold assets among the victims.
And the 'subscriber' companies (ie. those who formed and own the RIAA) shouldn't get off free either. Corporation as artificial entities serve to protect its members from direct prosecution. Fine. Put the artificial entity in artificial jail (receivership), force the subscribers to maintain their relationship, and let them suffer the consequences proportionally to the extent they 'subscribe'.
When the law says "or caused to" second parties can be held responsible. When negligence can be counted, "we didn't know" doesn't fly. They've got so much money invested in so much technology and legal effort, they've either got no cause to pretend ignorance or they're too incompetent to continue operating.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
This is twice you've said he deserves to die. So man up and do it or shut up about it.
For real. I've got the balls to take EA to court. Some Iraqi has the balls to toss his shoes at the President of the USA. Theaveng needs to get off his ass and do something instead of talking.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Didn't anyone else see that Motown Records, the company on the order, was ordered not to disclose any names that they got from USC, so RIAA isn't in breach but Motown Records.
And I don't worry about the RIAA lawyers reading them, because they can't read.
Good one. :-)
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The last time I saw one was in the late 90's. There might have been some sort of revenue sharing with the labels, but I'd imagine it was just your standard diamond-encrusted wires sold to credulous audiophiles.
Ray, let me be among the many who say thanks for your work against the RIAA, and thanks for contributing so greatly to Slashdot. You're the best thing to happen to this site in five years.
Thanks, sootman. Very much appreciated.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful