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
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.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
But aren't those the RIAA execs' kids?
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
Given the RIAA's history of suing people who don't even have computer and/or an internet connection, I doubt the efficacy of your suggestion.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
...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...
As a fellow Canadian, I couldn't agree more. I have been paying this "tax" for years on every media purchase I've made. My business requires me to purchase recordable media and I know I would save thousands every year if this "tax" did not exist.
I'm almost tempted to "get my monies worth" but I feel I have too much to lose, if I were dragged through court.
I suppose this is how the RIAA/CRIA operate. Preying on those they feel are vulnerable. I'm not even a very big music fan, in fact most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon.
I do believe that if given enough time and political conditioning, they will craft laws for themselves in favour of their business model to the point of absurdity, if they haven't gotten there yet.
Its only a matter of time before they begin to investigate and sue "suspicious purchasers" of recordable media. Read "big purchasers".
In their effort to limit copyright infringement and maximize profits, they have created a generation of would be criminals. Simply because they refuse to adapt their revenue stream and the only outcome is aggravation and financial loss for all who are involved, given enough time.
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.
Protip for those of us a bit south of canada
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut. Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Not according to this: "The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs."
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.
True.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say?
I don't know. They're not very good at math, or law.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Never buy music CDs.
That's a good principle to go by in general these days (indie artists excluded, of course :)
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
How can it be a CD if it doesn't conform to the CD standard published by Phillips?
Oh, the EU is far ahead on this one. You pay the "music tax" for everything that could technically reproduce copyrighted content. Hard drives, USB sticks, fax machines, scanners, printers... if you can somehow, in theory, maybe, possibly copy something with it, you pay the leeches.
And we're not talking about pennies here either. The price for 4GB USB sticks doubled when they were recently included in the fold.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I remember reading that Apple's optical drives don't conform...
So they simply don't stamp the official logo on them.
I think the US should adopt the Commonwealth language. "Demanding Money with Menaces" gets right down to the point, don't you think? Whereas the term "Extortion" sounds like something you measure from the exhaust pipe.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
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.
Actually, such cases are very few. And when they do happen, under the bombastic headline there is a simple explanation — the sued computer-illiterate is the parent/guardian of a tech-savvy minor, who did engage in stealing...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
All blank CD media in Canada are taxed, not just music CD-R's.
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
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 Canadian blank media tax does not apply to hard drives, just to the following:
I don't care why you're posting AC
Nope. It's just bullshit on the packaging. It's the same disc, priced much higher for "audiophiles" and other uninformed newbies. The stuff in the CD-R manual is similar to the "only use genuine EPSON ink cartridges, or you may damage your printer" etc.
... and then they built the supercollider.
May I redirect you to The Pirate Bay's legal department?
Jeez, that amounted to 'Nya-nya, we're in Sweden and you can't get us.' Are they trying to make the --AAs look good with that page?
Never hurts to point out that just because they can buy laws like the DMCA in most countries, they don't have that control everywhere yet. Copyright law is so ridiculously out of whack, only countries with very corrupt governments or very ignorant governments (or both), could possibly still believe that it is in the public's best interest to award practically perpetual monopolies on information.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
...because they can't read.
OK, that was the funniest thing I've read on /. possibly ever.
most of what I listen to is about to lose its protected status soon
Not if Disney has anything to say about it. ;)
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Only on Slashdot can something so easily refuted be modded up to 'informative'.
I live in The Netherlands and know this to be wrong. Wikipedia gives numbers on differences between EU member states. There is no 'one scheme' for the whole of the EU. This is something that falls under the say of sovereign countries themselves. I for one would like to keep it that way.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Also 'Nya-nya, a torrent file is not copyrighted material'
c++;
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.
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
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.
Wouldn't you be amazed to know we had this right years before the Righteous Inquisition Army of Autocrats demanded to be given a cut on all CD-Rs and hard drives sales?
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Which supports the theory that many here have put forward that this isn't about money or even copyrights at all. It's about control. It used to be that the only way to become even a moderately successful musician was to get a contract from a Big Recording Label. Since the labels had their pick of artists, they could dictate the terms. On the consumer front, you had to buy the music that the big labels decided would be on the shelves. Indie bands were around, but were a tiny niche. And any time the label came up with a new format (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, CD), you needed to buy your collection all over again.
Computers and the Internet have changed all that, though. Nowadays, an artist can upload their music to eMusic, Amie Street, or a whole bunch of other sites to sell it. They could even sell it on their own website. Indie labels (offering artists better terms) are becoming more popular. Portable music players and the MP3 format mean that your music will play on your music player for some time to come.
The big labels don't like this and are trying to stop it at all costs. They tried to get the courts to declare that MP3 players were illegal (the Diamond Lawsuit). When that failed, they tried to keep music offline (Napster). When that didn't work, they worked with Apple on iTunes with the requirement that DRM be built in. When iTunes got too powerful, they allowed DRM to be ditched to come up with iTunes competitors (e.g. Amazon MP3). In each case, reality forces them back a notch, but they're still fighting back. If they had their wildest dreams granted, all online music would be made illegal, ripping CDs would be illegal, used CDs would be illegal, and portable music players would be illegal. Unless the RIAA finds a magic genie, though, it's not going to happen.
In addition, the lawsuits are also a diversion of blame. Sales are down and the labels need someone to blame. Should they blame the poor economy or the increased competition for consumers' entertainment dollar from DVDs, video games, etc? Should they blame themselves for putting out garbage music and seeking out bands purely on the basis that they sound similar to a band that had a hit? Or should they blame Evil Internet Pirates? Obviously, they've chosen Door #3 and are attempting to pin all of their financial woes on Evil Internet Pirates. It's much easier than blaming yourself or recognizing that sales were up during a boom time and now it is a bust time.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
I have the internet wired directly to my brain...
...and is that media blank?
This [ ] left intentionally [ ]