I think they're just saying, "Don't steal our content." Not so. They're suing anybody who they believe has a FastTrack p2p file sharing program on their computer and has what appear to be copyrighted song files -- even if the files were lawfully obtained. I.e., it's a war against p2p file sharing. Period.
If record labels have enough evidence to get courts to issue subpoenas (they could easily gather this much evidence), and have a court-issued subpoena, I hardly call that "hardly no evidence". Correct. What they have cannot be characterized as "hardly no evidence".
The reason the judges have signed orders authorizing the subpoenas is because the proceedings are ex parte -- there is no opposition, no one even knows it is going on. I.e., the judges have been hoodwinked. Occasionally, though, some judges see through it.
The right of creators to control their creations -- selling it, giving it away, burning it, etc. is sacred and any legal action they take to enforce it is perfectly Ok. Sorry, mi, but you really have lost perspective.
1. What is "sacred" is fairness and decency and humanity and compassion and love of one's fellow man. That is the only good legacy the human species brings into this world. If you think property rights are "sacred" you have a real problem with your perspective.
2. If you think the creators of this music feel that the record companies are appropriate guardians of what should be done with their creations, you live in a reality which is entirely of your own 'creation'.
3. The RIAA goes way beyond any "legal action". If I thought what they were doing was legal, I wouldn't even be defending these cases.
4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that their actions were "legal", something's being legal doesn't make it right. Sometimes it can be immoral to try to crush other human beings in enforcing one's "legal" rights.
So step back, and remember -- before whatever traumatic thing happened to one of your photographs or something that makes you so upset about copyright infringement that you've started to think of property rights as 'sacred' and to think that anything done in defense of them is perfectly ok -- that you were a human being first.
That's not what they RIAA is suing "the children" for. You know it, I know it. The charge is not "listening to pop music", but "copyright infringement". That's illegal and not much different from "real" stealing -- something, children were prosecuted (including chopping-off hands in some countries) for since forever. mi.....
Do yourself a favor.
Step back and take a good look at what you're saying.
They did have probably cause that this guy was the file sharer they were looking for. It was the IP address of his computer, in his house, that they were looking for. Nope. Wrong.
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West
District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
February 6, 2007
Capitol v. Foster 2007 WL 1028532 Nice going, civilizedINTENSITY. The truth will set us free.
Then why is there virtually no judge willing to put a stop to this at the initial John Doe ex parte stage? 1. Because the cases are ex parte. I.e., there's no one there to point out to the judge what the law is.
So now the RIAA can just sue anyone who happens to be in the vicinity of illegal file sharing and blame the defendent when they don't rat out the real offender? That's their philosophy in a nutshell.
Thing is, you're relying on some Moderator having moderated it as 'off topic', which (a) might or might not happen, and (b) if it happens, might or might not be accurate.
Actually, existing law -- were it applied -- would stop the John Doe cases easily. Under existing law, (a) the proceedings would not be ex parte but would be on notice, and (b) the plaintiffs could not get the John Doe's identity unless they had -evidence -in a form that would be admissible at trial -sufficient to establish each and every element of -a legally sufficient claim for copyright infringement.
So, is it more of a cost-cutting measure or is it because they know it's easier to slip one faulty lawsuit past the courts than trying to slip 27 past? It's a cost-cutting measure.
Perhaps Mr. Beckerman can provide us with an update on the one(s) he previously informed us of as being in the works in Oregon regarding RICO [slashdot.org] and class action. [slashdot.org] It's all on my blog.
Well according to procedures, that is how it is supposed to be. If 200 people have wronged you, you can bring 200 lawsuits if the people had nothing to do with each other. It is a lot cheaper for the RIAA to file for one lawsuit and tack on 200 John Does. And this is not the first time the RIAA has been told not to lump all the defendants together. A federal court told the RIAA in Fonovisa vs Does 1-41 (2004) that they may not file all unrelated John Does together. Yes, that is "how it is supposed to be". In a society of laws, that is. The RIAA lawyers think they are above the law.
Getting called out on it BY THE JUDGE is really bad. Parties accuse each other of Rule 11 violations quite frequently, and judges usually ignore these claims--after all, your job is to think outside the box to advocate for your client and this usually pisses off the other side. But for a judge, even a magistrate judge, to say that there may be a Rule 11 violation is out of the ordinary. Wowie. You got that right.
So, if I'm reading this properly, the RIAA would be forced to do one of two things:
1 - Sue the batches of people as a group. This wouldn't stand long as it would be easy to prove that their alleged wrongdoings weren't connected in nature.
2 - Submit the John Doe suits separately. This would backfire as judges wouldn't be too happy to see a giant stack of individual lawsuits being added to their docket. The RIAA would quickly see their lawsuits getting tossed out by judges and perhaps even fines issued for wasting the court's time.
NewYorkCountryLawyer, if you're reading this, can you verify whether I'm reading this right? What it would mean is that instead of bringing one "John Doe" suit to get the names and addresses of the 27 people, they would have to bring 27 different "John Doe" suits.
Whenever a lawyer applies for admission to something, such as a new court, he or she is asked if he or she has ever been subject to sanctions. It's a real bad thing to have happen to you if you're a lawyer and want to continue being one. The firm's malpractice carriers won't be happy, the firm's management won't be happy, and the lawyer who gets sanctioned will be real unhappy.
As an employee of a major public university who handles such complaints, the vast majority of the "stop it!" type simple take-down requests are bittorrent related. These "pre-subpoena" notices are almost all Limewire/Gnutella, likely because they can say, "you had eleventy hundred songs in your shared folder @ $750/song, please settle" versus the single file at a time model used by torrents. I have never seen a single proceeding brought by the RIAA which did not involve "Limewire/Gnutella" or other similar Fast Track client. I have never yet seen a single case based on BitTorrent.
The question is not about passing on letters to the students. The RIAA is bringing a formal court proceeding against MIT "John Does", seeking an ex parte order to get their confidential information. It will try to get the order, and the subpoena, before the students or MIT even know the proceeding has been brought. MIT will then receive a court order directing it to turn over the information. The RIAA, once it gets the information from MIT, will then withdraw the case, leaving no opportunity for an appeal.
He should definitely let his counsel know about Recording Industry vs The People [blogspot.com] which is a wonderful source of briefs, documents from related cases, decisions, and other strategies and tactics used by others defending cases against the RIAA and the music labels. Perhaps NewYorkCountryLawyer [slashdot.org] or his firm can help him out if can scrape together a few bucks to pay their fees. Thanks, Codebuster. Actually I was hoping some of theselawyers, who are already up in Cambridge, could jump in.
You did indeed say "distribute" not "make available". But this article is about "making available". The RIAA hasn't proved that distribution to an unauthorized party has occurred.......
.....holding the RIAA to the same standards as everyone else will stop this RIAA crusade and inquisition against their own customers from getting out of hand any more than it already has. Well spoken, bzipitidoo.
The lawsuit is Atlantic v. Howell, not RIAA v. Howell, I wish people would stop using the acronym RIAA, it hides the real villans. What would you suggest as an alternative? Listing the 6 or 7 rotating plaintiffs in each case?
Slashdot Mirror
I would characterize it as "no evidence at all". They have zero evidence that the defendant infringed their copyright. They have admitted under oath that their "investigation" does not detect any individual doing anything.
The reason the judges have signed orders authorizing the subpoenas is because the proceedings are ex parte -- there is no opposition, no one even knows it is going on. I.e., the judges have been hoodwinked. Occasionally, though, some judges see through it.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. You seem to show up on every RIAA litigation thread, seeking to fan the flames of disinterest.
And there's nothing in the affidavits about them having licenses, which would normally be included if they had a license.
Yes and some more good comments just went online as well there. The 'regulars' who comment on my blog are really quite a good group of thinkers.
1. What is "sacred" is fairness and decency and humanity and compassion and love of one's fellow man. That is the only good legacy the human species brings into this world. If you think property rights are "sacred" you have a real problem with your perspective.
2. If you think the creators of this music feel that the record companies are appropriate guardians of what should be done with their creations, you live in a reality which is entirely of your own 'creation'.
3. The RIAA goes way beyond any "legal action". If I thought what they were doing was legal, I wouldn't even be defending these cases.
4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that their actions were "legal", something's being legal doesn't make it right. Sometimes it can be immoral to try to crush other human beings in enforcing one's "legal" rights.
So step back, and remember -- before whatever traumatic thing happened to one of your photographs or something that makes you so upset about copyright infringement that you've started to think of property rights as 'sacred' and to think that anything done in defense of them is perfectly ok -- that you were a human being first.
Do yourself a favor.
Step back and take a good look at what you're saying.
I think you're losing perspective.
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West
District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
February 6, 2007
Capitol v. Foster 2007 WL 1028532 Nice going, civilizedINTENSITY. The truth will set us free.
2. This judge did.
Thing is, you're relying on some Moderator having moderated it as 'off topic', which (a) might or might not happen, and (b) if it happens, might or might not be accurate.
Yes, in my opinion they have been violating the court order in Fonovisa v. Does 1-41 since November, 2004.
Actually, existing law -- were it applied -- would stop the John Doe cases easily. Under existing law, (a) the proceedings would not be ex parte but would be on notice, and (b) the plaintiffs could not get the John Doe's identity unless they had
-evidence
-in a form that would be admissible at trial
-sufficient to establish each and every element of
-a legally sufficient claim for copyright infringement.
The RIAA has none of the above.
Wowie, indeed.
Whenever a lawyer applies for admission to something, such as a new court, he or she is asked if he or she has ever been subject to sanctions. It's a real bad thing to have happen to you if you're a lawyer and want to continue being one. The firm's malpractice carriers won't be happy, the firm's management won't be happy, and the lawyer who gets sanctioned will be real unhappy.
The question is not about passing on letters to the students. The RIAA is bringing a formal court proceeding against MIT "John Does", seeking an ex parte order to get their confidential information. It will try to get the order, and the subpoena, before the students or MIT even know the proceeding has been brought. MIT will then receive a court order directing it to turn over the information. The RIAA, once it gets the information from MIT, will then withdraw the case, leaving no opportunity for an appeal.
Yes the title is wrong. And the article is wrong in about 10 other ways. But there is a class action pending. No class has been certified yet.
.....holding the RIAA to the same standards as everyone else will stop this RIAA crusade and inquisition against their own customers from getting out of hand any more than it already has. Well spoken, bzipitidoo.