They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit. I agree with you, Stanislav_J. That is why they decided to cut and run. They were hoping for a nice, quiet settlement that no one would notice. They have a very big problem with this issue, as ALL of their cases are based upon this illegal investigation. It has already gotten the curiosity of Oregon's Attorney General.
Well, I guess it's because Ray wants us to know who the targets of the RIAA attack dogs are, and also to point out that some of the people they accuse often don't know anything about piracy, sometimes don't have P2P software and even occasionally don't own computers. This illustrates how shoddy the investigative work leading up to these lawsuits is, and how they continue to push on with their attacks even against innocent but defenseless defendants, forcing them to settle for what often appears to be extortion money. Plus it is relevant that their victims are almost always defenseless.
Plus it is relevant what impact the RIAA's terror tactics is having on every day people.
How is it that the RIAA is always allowed to withdraw from a case, in order to avoid setting a disadvantageous precedent, without consequences? Does the casino let you take your chips of the table in the middle of the game because the hand is going badly for you? You can fold your hand, but you cannot withdraw without consequences (i.e. loosing your chips). The difference here is that the accused is forced to play the legal game by the accuser (i.e. the RIAA) and so there should be no privilege for the accuser to withdraw without consequences. Perhaps, for the benefit us laypeople, you can explain this one for us. Thank you. The defendants have neither the money nor the stomach for going to war with a multinational cartel of 4 huge record companies.
What I want is for the truth to get out there, and I want this reign of terror to end. The most important single factor in almost all of these cases is the huge economic imbalance in each and every case. In an ideal world that would not be relevant to the outcome, but is there anyone out there who thinks we are in an ideal world?......
Emotion is relevant in some decisions, and irrelevant in others.
For example, it is irrelevant in the decision of whether the RIAA should be allowed to use unlicensed PIs. It is irrelevant to the question of whether Rhonda Crain is guilty of violating the RIAA's members copyrights. There's no "emotion" in this equation: no license = evidence upon which case is based is inadmissible = no case.
In response to several questions that have been raised:
1. The case is now closed, counterclaims and all.
2. I have a hunch MediaSentry is not licensed anywhere.
3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings.
the response is to the original grant of the search request.. that was illegally granted without right to challenge. The AG's response is that the RIAA didn't have legal standing to ASK for the searches.. and that the judge had no legal right to grant the subpoena to the school in the first place under state law. The RIAA already did an end run around the rules. The AG is stepping in and saying the rules were never followed in the first place. Well spoken, mabhatter654...
Ray, I've known a lot of attorneys over the years, worked for a few, hired a few, have lawyers in my family (you might even have heard of one of them), number them among my friends... and the ones that have delved into this business to any degree are uniformly aghast at the RIAA's activities. I mean, regardless of whether they agree with what the RIAA is trying to do, the lack of professionalism and disrespect for the courts just leaves them shaking their heads.
I've read most of what you've written on your blog, and of course have spent too much time here on Slashdot, but as an engineer I know my understanding of what is going on here is shallow at best. I just don't have the background to fully grasp why, from a legal perspective, their tactics are so wrong. However, those I know who do have such knowledge of the law take a very dim view of these proceedings. Frankly, the RIAA's legal staff seems to have garnered about as much respect among real attorneys as the mob.
That tells me a lot. When these lawyers lose the RIAA as a client, they're going to have a hard time finding honest work. Every real lawyer I know has had the same reaction you're describing. They are a laughingstock in the profession of which they pretend to be members.
Did you actually read the RAs? Oh, of course not, this is/.
Had you read them, you would have seen that the issue is that the University has raised new issues at a point in the process where new issues are not permitted, because it wouldn't give the RIAA proper opportunity to reply to them. What the RIAA is asking is that either the new issues are struck down without consideration or they be given the right of reply.
The RIAA seems to do some pretty dreadful things, but this one looks perfectly reasonable to me. From my experience federal judges are not overly concerned with technicalities such as those raised in the RIAA's surreply. If the AG's request for discovery is reasonable, the point that it might have been better form to make the request in the form of a cross-motion, rather than in a reply memorandum, is a time-waster. It could as well be argued that it was properly raised in the reply memorandum, since it was simply in response to the strange things the RIAA said in its opposition papers.
As to the substance, I don't think a reasonable lawyer or judge would contest the self-evident proposition that the AG is entitled to answers to the very simple and rudimentary questions he has asked, or to the deposition he has requested of an apparently unlicensed investigator upon whose findings -- apparently inadmissible in evidence -- the RIAA's entire case is based.
Was fairly unpleasant wasn't it? I thought it made as much sense as the RIAA's typical legal arguments. Or if you've ever seen Cary Sherman's or Mitch Bainwol's answers to interviewer's questions, there's quite a resonance.
Now that SCO is essentially done for... why doesn't PJ work her magic on the RIAA? I can't help but think that her constant vigil and simple-get-the-truth-out interpretations of activity in the SCO case helped keep the good guys motivated.
Help the world, Groklaw... you're our only hope! I second that motion. Groklaw is fantastic.
PJ has covered the RIAA stuff, but if she now plunged into it as she did the SCO case, that would just be unbelievable.
What, SCO suing the RIAA for stealing the business practice of suing? Actually Direct TV should be suing the RIAA for the theft of their litigation model of sending extortion letters, followed up by lawsuits, to everyone they could locate who had ever bought a smart card writer. Evidence of any actual crime wasn't necessary since defending yourself was far more expensive than just forking over several thousand dollars. And I don't think anyone ever stopped them. Actually the ones who should really feel aggrieved are the Mafia. They're the ones that deserve to have a business method patent for "extortion". The Mafia should be suing the Mafiaa for infringing on the tactics which it perfected. Probably the only reason we haven't seen such a lawsuit is that they're too closely connected, with interlocking directorates and the the like.
He wasn't "wiped", just modded down to oblivion. Apparently a lot of other people felt the same way, and some of them had mod points. Sometimes I wish Slashdot could implement some kind of semantic filter that would keep that kind of crap from getting posted. Ah well. Gotta take the good with the bad, I guess. Actually I thought he was a cut above most of the people I deal with from the RIAA.
No one here (except Ray of course) seems to be getting the Oregon AG's point. The plaintiffs were allowed to issue a subpoena to the University that said essentially "for each of these IP addresses we want you to identify the infringer ". That is, the University must decide who is responsible for the alleged deeds, not just provide a linkage between IP address and a user. They reply essentially "we can't prove the plaintiffs case for them, so the subpoena should be quashed". Now the plaintiffs -- the arrogant bastards that they are -- can't admit they are wrong. They could simply reissue the subpoena to say essentially "what user (provide a name) was assigned this IP address at this time and date". But instead, they throw irrelevant tantrums about procedure. I expect the judge will simply narrow the scope of the subpoena, but I hope he plays along and lets the AG have her discovery.
Regards,
Art The way I see it, Art:
1. The RIAA just wants the name and address of the person to whom the internet access account is addressed, who is "John Doe".
2. The RIAA assumes, without benefit of any evidence for the assumption, that that person committed a copyright infringement, and alleges that, and will sue that person once it gets his or her name and address.
3. The Attorney General correctly recognized that, contrary to the RIAA's careless pleading and careless affidavits, the RIAA's evidence does NOT show that that person committed a copyright infringement.
4. The Attorney General correctly recognizes that the university has a duty to protect the privacy of its students, except where the RIAA could produce evidence that the student committed a copyright infringement.
5. Since the RIAA doesn't have any such evidence (and indeed has admitted that its "investigation" does not reveal what individual committed the alleged infringement), the only way the school could determine whether the John Doe in question committed a copyright infringement is to conduct a detailed investigation, including interviews and forensic examinations, which it has no legal duty to do (and which might be in breach of its duties to the students).
6. If the RIAA rephrased the subpoena to call for the names and addresses of the persons to whom the internet access account was assigned, without any reference to their being infringers, the objection would be the same: the RIAA has no legal basis for getting that person's identity, since it has no evidence that person committed any copyright infringement.
The fact that people haven't been discussing these issues doesn't mean they're not "getting the Oregon AG's point", because this particular article wasn't so much about the AG's objection to the RIAA's subpoena, as it was about the AG's taking the affirmative, and deciding to seek some "discovery" of its own into how the RIAA comes to be bringing this shakedown in the first place.
Good lawyers conduct discovery amicably with little or no running to the judge unless there is a general, reasonable dispute. Judges hate to have their time wasted, and when it happens, both sides tend to lose something. Shady lawyers with shady clients who have something to hide---those are the ones that object to every reasonable discovery request. I know one like this. He is pretty much hated by every lawyer in the city. I suggest that he seek employment at Holmes Roberts & Owen. He would fit in well with their corporate culture. Tell him to send his resume to Richard L. Gabriel, Esq.
As a side note, I have decided to contribute my tax return $$'s to EFF and several similar ongoing efforts we all benefit from.
I call on all/.'ers to make a small, similar effort. If we have the numbers and power to reduce servers to a molten ruin (the/. effect!), then there are enough of us to throw $5-10 bucks at the grunts on the front line- come on y'all, let's show the world the mighty power that is/.!!!
Yeah, a little over the top, but this IS a pep talk! Thanks, rts.
The best ways to contribute financially to the anti-RIAA fight, at the moment, are the Expert Witness Defense fund, the Marie Lindor Defense Fund, and the Jammie Thomas Defense Fund. Links to all 3 are here. Contributions to the Expert Witness Defense Fund are tax deductible.
However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys. So it's true, they live in their own little world without a connection to reality? It sure seems that way sometimes.
Do they have a different version of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Oregon under which "sur-replies" to motions are permitted? Good question. No they do not.
However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.
The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).
I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster. Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.
I object to this motion on the grounds that it may allow the defense to finally prove that I'm a heinous bitch. I know I full well deserve to be modded down for this but...
The Copyright Act makes distribution of copies and phonorecords unlawful, and defines copies and phonorecords as tangible objects that are impossible to send over the Internet. Online distribution isn't possible. What is possible is online performance and display and reproduction, but all forms of infringement require the infringement to actually occur. An almost infringement is no infringement at all, and doesn't violate the law. If you keep saying radical things like, with no support other than (a) decades of case law, (b) the words of the statute, and (c) unanimity among legal scholars, the RIAA will get mad at you for spoiling their fun.
Just wanted to remind folks of what is involved when an infringement of the distribution right is alleged. Just clarifying. Not disagreeing or agreeing with anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus it is relevant what impact the RIAA's terror tactics is having on every day people.
What I want is for the truth to get out there, and I want this reign of terror to end. The most important single factor in almost all of these cases is the huge economic imbalance in each and every case. In an ideal world that would not be relevant to the outcome, but is there anyone out there who thinks we are in an ideal world?......
Raise your hands.
I don't see any hands.
In response to several questions that have been raised:
1. The case is now closed, counterclaims and all.
2. I have a hunch MediaSentry is not licensed anywhere.
3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings.
As to the substance, I don't think a reasonable lawyer or judge would contest the self-evident proposition that the AG is entitled to answers to the very simple and rudimentary questions he has asked, or to the deposition he has requested of an apparently unlicensed investigator upon whose findings -- apparently inadmissible in evidence -- the RIAA's entire case is based.
PJ has covered the RIAA stuff, but if she now plunged into it as she did the SCO case, that would just be unbelievable.
1. The RIAA just wants the name and address of the person to whom the internet access account is addressed, who is "John Doe".
2. The RIAA assumes, without benefit of any evidence for the assumption, that that person committed a copyright infringement, and alleges that, and will sue that person once it gets his or her name and address.
3. The Attorney General correctly recognized that, contrary to the RIAA's careless pleading and careless affidavits, the RIAA's evidence does NOT show that that person committed a copyright infringement.
4. The Attorney General correctly recognizes that the university has a duty to protect the privacy of its students, except where the RIAA could produce evidence that the student committed a copyright infringement.
5. Since the RIAA doesn't have any such evidence (and indeed has admitted that its "investigation" does not reveal what individual committed the alleged infringement), the only way the school could determine whether the John Doe in question committed a copyright infringement is to conduct a detailed investigation, including interviews and forensic examinations, which it has no legal duty to do (and which might be in breach of its duties to the students).
6. If the RIAA rephrased the subpoena to call for the names and addresses of the persons to whom the internet access account was assigned, without any reference to their being infringers, the objection would be the same: the RIAA has no legal basis for getting that person's identity, since it has no evidence that person committed any copyright infringement.
The fact that people haven't been discussing these issues doesn't mean they're not "getting the Oregon AG's point", because this particular article wasn't so much about the AG's objection to the RIAA's subpoena, as it was about the AG's taking the affirmative, and deciding to seek some "discovery" of its own into how the RIAA comes to be bringing this shakedown in the first place.
The best ways to contribute financially to the anti-RIAA fight, at the moment, are the Expert Witness Defense fund, the Marie Lindor Defense Fund, and the Jammie Thomas Defense Fund. Links to all 3 are here. Contributions to the Expert Witness Defense Fund are tax deductible.
It's the 'motion to strike'. The motion to strike the reply memo means 'please do not read it in connection with the motion'.
Apparently you're not the only one. Note that moderation has been more "informative" than "funny".
However, it is a little know fact that the RIAA lawyers do have a parallel universe law library, in which are housed alternative versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Code of Professional Responsibility for attorneys.
The case law in this parallel universe law library consists chiefly of (a) ex parte cases (i.e. cases where the other party was never notified of the proceedings), (b) default cases (i.e. cases where the other party may or may not have been notified, but never managed to show up), and (c) pro se cases (i.e. cases where the other party could not afford an attorney).
I assume that the existence of this parallel universe law library is a reason why the American Association of Law Libraries has participated in amicus curiae briefs opposing the RIAA's tactics. See, e.g., the amicus curiae brief in Capitol v. Foster. Because, you see, rather than employ law librarians, the RIAA's library employs baboons.
:)
Good one.
Just wanted to remind folks of what is involved when an infringement of the distribution right is alleged. Just clarifying. Not disagreeing or agreeing with anything.