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**
"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?
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.
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
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.
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."
Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us. Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
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?
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.
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
stop stealing and law-suits will stop.
Only after you stop murdering your children, and by "murder" I mean fail to pay them additional allowance for not crapping their pants.
Having paid off our congress to continuously extend copyright far beyond its intended utility does not give them even a sliver of moral credibility. The works in question did not spring from a vacuum. They are the fruits of our common culture. Reasonable recompense adequate to encourage the works' creation is all they are due (just as it says in the Constitution) and complete control for two lifetimes is not reasonable. The fact that it's the law does not make it automagically right.
Seriously, you still call copyright infringement "stealing" despite having it explained to you hundreds of times exactly why it isn't in any way related to stealing? You're an idiot.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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
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
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.
You make the RIAA look like the good guys.
Even I can't pull that one off.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful