Slashdot Mirror
Papers Sealed In Class Action Against RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, the Oregon class action brought by Tanya Anderson against the RIAA, MediaSentry, and others, the plaintiff's motion for class action certification has been sealed by the Court. Also, the Court conducted an 'in camera' conference with the defendants' attorneys — meaning the Judge met with the defendants' attorneys alone — in connection with a discovery motion, and the record of that conference has been sealed as well. The RIAA has made a motion to dismiss the class action; that has not been sealed. In case you're wondering what's going on here, so am I."
When dealing with any *AA, you really can't go wrong assuming the worst.
Why are they allowed to get all aspects of a court hearing "sealed"? This makes no sense, I realize they don't want the records made public, but why is the court going along with it?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It's just the normal procedure when the US court system is faced to the fact that some big croporation appears to have acted illegally.
Unfortunately, as with ACTA, that argument is sometimes made by people who aren't joking.
In IP cases, often times, one of the parties may wish to explain something to the judge which is a trade secret, and which they don't want disclosed to the other side. Normally, you'd get a confidentiality order from the judge to make the other side keep it secret, but sometimes, the party wants to explain the nature of things so the judge can issue a meaningful order. Sort of, in order to understand why we want to keep A confidential, you need to know B, which we *really* want to keep confidential, and is not the subject of this suit.
An example might be where you are litigating on some IP identified by a code name, and in discovery, the other party turns up some other code names. You need to explain (in camera) to the judge why you don't need to produce the other stuff. The judge makes the call that it really isn't relevant, and you go on your merry way.
maybe there's a clue in that the defendants want the case dismissed based on the Noerr Pennington doctrine.
But are there any plausible and non-nefarious explanations for this turn of events? I mean, is meeting with the defendant's attorneys privately, sealing the record of what went on there, and then sealing the plaintiff's motion a relatively normal thing? Or is it as weird and skeezy as it sounds?
To me it sounds "weird and skeezy".
But what do I know?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Mods; this is not a troll.
Parent post is the best example I've ever seen of a post that should be modded Informative.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Transparency inspires confidence. Secrecy inspires revolutions.
To me it's clear that the RIAA is trying to get people to pay a premium, not for creativity but for the opportunity of making money off other people's creativity. Too much is at stake so they'll take out the big guns.
I think AllofMp3 had the perfect business model and they obviously had the price right.
Crossing fingers.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
It's gone now. If someone wants to post a mirror, make sure it's outside of the US.
I don't know that they should be completely open. I think in certain cases such as violent crimes or cases of abuse where the victim is a child and even perhaps certain fraud cases there may be good reasons to seal documents and proceedings.
In criminal cases victims may not come forward unless their privacy can be assured. I think voluntary parties should have a much higher bar to meet when requesting things be sealed then involuntary ones, especially when involuntary parties are found to be not liable or not guilty.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
...prices increases... and rake in even more.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of elasticity of demand? If they raise the price high enough, then it becomes feasible for me to start a private club wherein 20 people contribute to the purchase of a CD and we all get a backup copy. The RIAA litigation model can do nothing against this form of sharing, and if everyone did it, then net profits would go down, not up. Do you seriously expect that if the RIAA raised the minimum price of a CD to $100, that they would make MORE money? I believe they are already well past the optimum price point for their product, and that _lowering_ the price to under $10 would in fact improve their net income. How many songs has Apple sold at this (lower) price point?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There are two possibilities, that I can think of to posit:
1. The Judge has serious concerns with the RIAA's behaviour, has advised them in chambers that such behaviour won't work with her (i.e. privately, so as to not embarrass them or make them defensive, or lock them into a particular position), and she has given them some lee-way to govern themselves accordingly;
2. The Judge is not mindful of the RIAA's pattern of behaviour, and is having the wool pulled over her eyes.
I'm doubtful of #2. It is typically the tendency of the bench to assign higher calibre Judges to class actions. As well, the risk of some form of judicial review or appeal on the basis of bias or impropriety given ex parte in camera discussions (not to mention the appearance of impropriety among the Judge's peers), strikes me as something the Judge would be mindful of.
Only two types of experiences come to mind where Judges take counsel ex parte into chambers. One is getting statements without influence (i.e. getting statements of a child where potentially dominating or threatening people are otherwise present), which isn't the case here (is the RIAA showing up in Court to watch their lawyers?). The other is the Judge is talking at counsel.
Knowing the grounds for the RIAA's motion to dismiss the action would lend assistance to any analysis. I'd imagine they're claiming that the proposed representative plaintiffs are unsuitable, there's a lack of jurisdiction, there is a preferable procedure for resolving the dispute, there's no cause of action, the class can't be identified, or the issues aren't common to all members of the proposed class. None of these give rise to the need for ex parte discussions.
I'm sure plaintiff's counsel has their heart in their throat, but based on virtually no information whatsoever, I'm hopeful for a positive outcome.
If RIAA discloses their super-secret methods, the terrorists win!
In what way are the RIAA, MPAA not terrorists? All this stuff is supposedly about scaring people into giving them what they want: $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Seriously, this Star Chamber stuff seems like a cause for great concern.(1) What's next the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA get to waterboard defendants? After all, it's supposedly not torture, and it seems like the natural progression of the corporate welfare state, that is a state dedicated solely to welfare of large corporations regardless of the effect on its citizens--at least on the "proles"
(1) Ironically, the original Star Chamber was set up "to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes." Star Chamber. We may expect that the new Star Chambers will be set up for the opposite purpose: to insure the immunity of the powerful and oppress the rest of us. To paraphrase John W. Campbell, power does not corrupt, if it did, God would be the ultimate in corruption; immunity corrupts, and absolute immunity corrupts absolutely. Politicians and corporations are already virtually immune to meaningful sanctions, woe unto us if they are allowed to become absolutely immune.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
If you have to ask, then the likely answer is no. If only for the fact that you haven't taken your own life to escape.
Now that we've got the obligatory "is it real" crap out of the way, on to the important question:
How much did the MafiAA pay the judge to seal the records? And why would the transcript of talks held between the judge and MafiAA be sealed, if not that they reveal something that ought to make the now MafiAA-paid judge step down?
Is there any possibility that some of the RIAA lawyers have developed a concern that some of their client's activities are in violation of the law, and they need direction from the judge on how to proceed? I'm thinking in terms of their separate roles as defenders of their client, and officers of the court.
Other than finding themselves stuck between a rock and a hard spot concerning client privilege and their own potential culpability as an accessory to a crime, I can't think of anything that would cause this kind of one-sided court seal in a civil case. Of course, IANAL, and I don't know nothing.
Will
one probably has to assume that the proceedings touch 'national security'.
But this is exactly the point the RIAA has been driving at all the time. You've just now grasped their entire motivation! Now, can a judge seal anything he/she wants? Or does something have to meet certain conditions? What sort of allegations in the plaintiff's motion might possibly result in this? Did the RIAA ask for it to be sealed?
I'm ignorant of such matters and I hope someone here, like maybe a lawyer, could explain this. Why are they ever allowed to seal anything? What useful purpose does it serve that outweighs the potential for abuse? I also would like to know whether there is ever any way to challenge a judge's decision to seal a document, especially when the lack of disclosure is so entirely one-sided. It really seems to me that the dangers of anything approaching secret courts (which have been tools of oppression by various dictators) are more severe than anything good that could possibly be accomplished by withholding information in what is otherwise a public process.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The far more interesting question is not "how" but "why". Why is the RIAA so concerned to keep a public trial from being public?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We here on Slashdot may have no love for the RIAA. But in general, defendants shouldn't be forced into exposing sensitive information, like trade secrets or business strategies, as a means to blackmail them into settling.
You mean like the RIAA does in every single one of their cases? Turning over all computer in the house probably with privilege information all over it as well as the only way these defendants have to contact and organize a defense.