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."
Ray Beckerman (NYCL) has graciously hosted a fully illustrated PDF of the plaintiff's brief for class action certification (the documents in question) on his site. Now, I'm not a lawyer but that's got a whole lot of lengthy legalese that no human could understand.
The documents are sealed in a plastic box, but you can buy them for only $15.95 at your local record store.
If you copy them, we'll sue you. And there's no refunds if you don't like the documents.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Oh fuck. It was bad enough when we had rank-and-file nerds asking for legal advice on slashdot.
Now we have a 'house lawyer', so to speak, and he's asking for legal information on slashdot.
The apocalypse is upon us! Run for the hills!*
IANAL. Even if I were a lawyer, I'd not be YOUR lawyer. This is not legal advice. By reading this footnote, you are agreeing to not hold Red Flayer liable for any damages sustained while running for the hills. For that matter, please walk, don't run -- and make sure to look both ways before crossing the street.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
The first google search result for "sealed court case duration". [url]http://www.leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_RGSRCR.html[/url] - " (c) Sealing of entire court file prohibited. Under no circumstances shall the court seal an entire court file. An order entered under these rules must, at a minimum, require that the following information is available for public viewing on court indices: (i) the case number(s) or docket code(s) or number(s); (ii) the date that the action was commenced; (iii) the names of the parties, counsel of record, and the assigned judge; (iv) the notation âoecase sealedâ; (v) the case type and cause(s) of action, which may be obtained from the Civil Cover Sheet; (vi) the order to seal and written findings supporting the order; and (vii) the identity of the party or other person who filed the motion to seal. 6. Scope and duration of order. If the court enters an order sealing or redacting a court record, the court shall use the least restrictive means and duration."
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
RIAA Lawyer: Your Honor, we need to disclose our trade secrets to you, in private.
Judge: Okay, step into my chambers. Now, what's this big secret of yours?
RIAA Lawyer: (points)
Judge: Well that looks like a briefcase full of hundreds, a kilo of Peruvian Marching Powder, and a coupon book for 'Escorts R Us.'
RIAA Lawyer: Sssshhh! That's a trade secret!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From the linked pdf on NYCL's blog, it appears that the reasons cited for dismissing the case amount to a twisted interpretation of the Noerr Pennington doctrine roughly translated to:
1. IP addresses are fair game for probable cause because a previous case involving DirecTV successfully used the Noerr Pennington directive to challenge class action against people supposedly infringing on their signals by buying smart card readers.
2. Media Sentry not holding state investigative licenses is irrelevant because the information they gathered was publicly available.
3. That allegations of the impropriety of accessing publicly shared folders has no basis in law.
4. That any objection to the numerous 'Doe suites filed is countered by the successfulness of such proceedings. Also that such proceedings are not against the law.
5. That the case against Ms Andersen herself was not "objectively baseless" despite failure to link Ms Andersen to the accused infringing Kazaa user name due to flaws in the investigative process.
- IANAL
Still, pretty weak arguments imho. Certainly shouldn't be enough to dismiss the case.
As to the whole sealed shenanigans.. I guess we have to wait and see.
Are you by chance a Vogon?
IANAL, but I do read a heck of a lot.
My guess is the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. I expect that Anderson tried to define "all recipients of demand letters" as a class, and RIAA argued that that can not constitute a class because it has immunity under Noerr-Pennington, per Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc. 1684 (2006):
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2006/02/14/0455036.pdf
Probably, the specific interpretation of BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516, 525 (2002). The argument would be that if the lawsuit was able to impose RICO liability on RIAA for sending the demand letter, then it would burden RIAA's ability to settle legal claims short of filing a lawsuit. RICO specifically provides for private enforcement and treble damages.
This is all predicated on the demand letters being specifically for no more than treble actual damages, so it may not apply if RIAA was asking for statutory damages (which they were). There is also some question as to whether the demand letters were objectively baseless and thus fall within the doctrine's sham exception. So I see at least two ways to fight a dismissal on direct.
-- Terry
Transparency inspires confidence. Secrecy inspires revolutions.
I similar set of events occurred during the big tobacco lawsuits. Some testimony was sealed and later opened, some remains sealed. Some of the former was from the tobacco comany researcher Dr. Jeffery Wigand. His story is the basis for the movie "The Insider". NYT has an archive of articles from throughout the course of the suits at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/jeffrey_wigand/index.html
Some of the latter was from another tobacco company researcher named Pele, who worked out the biochemical mechanism of nicotine addiction. After his employer quashed news of the results, he leaked the details to a news magazine (either Time or Newsweek, I forget which), Subsequently all his testimony and work was sealed, he was fired and prevented from working in that field any more.
After these and similar testimonies that were greatly damaging to the companies' claims, the lawsuits suddenly sped up and concluded with the companies paying out US$280Bn. It was speculated that had the testimony been public and the suits based on the claims therein (ie. they themselves had the proof of nicotine addiction, something they'd denied existed), the companies would have been fined a great deal more, or possibly forced to sell out.
We can only hope that what's been sealed and discussed is so damaging to the RIAA that the judge is telling them to defend against it would require perjury, and he's giving them a chance to back off, settle before it gets a lot worse for them, and go lick their wounds.
One thing you can be sure of, and happened in the tobacco suits, if the companies lose and are fined, the amount they pay out will be made up by price increases. All buyers will end up paying the fine. And once they've covered the cost of the fines, they'll leave the price where it was moved up to, and rake in even more.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
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.