Slashdot Log In
Judge Deals Blow to RIAA
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jun 20, 2007 07:27 PM
from the glad-that's-all-worked-out dept.
from the glad-that's-all-worked-out dept.
jcgam69 writes "A federal judge in New Mexico has put the brakes on the RIAA's lawsuit train, at least in the US District Court for New Mexico. The case in question is part of the RIAA's campaign against file-sharing on college campuses and names "Does 1-16," who allegedly engaged in copyright infringement using the University of New Mexico's network. In a ruling issued last month but disclosed today by file-sharing attorney Ray Beckerman, Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia denied the RIAA's motion to engage in discovery. This means that the RIAA will not be able to easily get subpoenas to obtain identifying information from the University."
Related Stories
[+]
Judge Says No to RIAA Subpoena Request 154 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For at least the second time, a federal judge has dealt the RIAA's campaign against college students a blow by refusing an ex parte motion by the RIAA for a subpoena against college students. In Newport News, Virginia, Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., denied the RIAA's motion for information about students at the College of William and Mary. The Court denied the motion outright, saying it was unauthorized by law. (pdf) Last month it was reported that a New Mexico judge had denied a similar motion directed against University of New Mexico students on the ground that it should not have been made ex parte."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Yeah well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah well... (Score:5, Informative)
No, they did not.
California decriminalized [norml.org] pot, it it still illegal. Cannabis is still a Federal schedule I controlled substance [usdoj.gov].
" Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation." - www.norml.org
Parent
Re:Yeah well... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah well... (Score:5, Funny)
Is irregodwin a word?
Parent
Re:Yeah well... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yeah well... (Score:5, Funny)
This further supports my theory that all it takes to be modded insightful on /. is to quote from or even link to Wikipedia. Several GP posts were all marked offtopic, even though all were related to the topic of poor usage. But parent tosses in a Wikipedia quote or reference, and blam! Not only is it abruptly on topic, it instantly insightful!
Oops. I meant "instant Insightful [wikipedia.org]!".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"He's such a looser. his bloog is pointless."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah well... (Score:5, Funny)
So what do you think about people who correct someone for correcting someone?
Parent
It'll be interesting to see (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine that they'll probably appeal until they get their way, but that won't be cheap for anybody. The best thing that the RIAA could do for themselves is actually follow the procedural rules, as in the long term a witch hunt only lasts as long as there are angry villagers to burn the resulting witch.
Re:It'll be interesting to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, maybe in another 5 years or so, someone will sue their ISP for selling the information and the ISP will claim they own it, just look at the Terms Of Service and then the person suing will claim they signed up before those terms came into effect, and then the ISP will point out the part in the terms of service that have always been there that says they may update the terms whenever they feel like it.
Of course, the RIAA will recover this as just another cost in the lawsuit.
Parent
Witch hunts last until they're unprofitable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, witch hunts (at least the "Spanish Inquisition" kind) worked by targeting the deep-pocketed serfs and, once they were convicted, splitting their assets between the church's witch hunters and the local governmental nobles. (That's why they didn't get going very well in England - where the swag would all go to the King.)
Similarly the RIAA witchhunt will continue until either the RIAA can't profit from it or the courts (the "governmental nobles") stop allowing it.
(Remember, too, that the RIAA can profit from it by dunning its members, even if it's not making money off the accused. The members may go along with that, thinking that the witch hunt is profiting THEM some other way - such as by diverting some fraction of music users from "pirated-content" downloaders to purchasers.)
Parent
Re:Witch hunts last until they're unprofitable. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually they went after both.
Serfs often had other assets: houses, tools, money, jewelry. Also, serfs weren't just interchangeable workers, ala migrant farmhands. Serfdom was a two-way obligation. Serfs typically (depending on country's rules, of course) had an inherited right to farm a PARTICULAR chunk of land for a cut of the profits.
If the serf (or his ancestors) had put in a lot of work on the land (like by putting in deep wells, constructing good buildings, treating the soil right, etc.) he would improve its value, both to the lord and to himself. The serf could become very well-to-do if his land produced lots of crops, the plants were hardier and resisted plant diseases, his wells didn't run dry while everybody else's did, his animals survived bad weather, etc.
Of course when there was a bad year and everybody else's wells ran dry or crops failed and mistreated, starved, and overcrowded animals got sick, while Mr Hardworking Serf's crops, livestock, and wells did just hunky-dory, it could easily be used to start rumors of witchcraft.
Once the pesky serf was eliminated, not only were his liquid assets divied up, but the Lord was free of his obligation to let the serf continue farming this particularly good hunk of land. The lord could then add it to his personal estate, farm it with his household staff and get ALL the profits, make a new serfdom arrangement on better-for-the-lord terms with another family, etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It'll be interesting to see (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:It'll be interesting to see (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nothing more than racketeering on their part. Shakedowns for money from people who can ill-afford to defend themselves from the illegal manner in which the RIAA tries to get information, much less from the baseless charges that stem from IP addresses and somehow having a share on the internet that has copyrighted material unprotected (yes, there are exceptions, but the "big wide net" technique should be, and thankfully has, been curtailed.) They don't WANT you to go to court... they want to get rulings regarding you without you even knowing, which smells EXACTLY like shady tactics. It's about time a judge told them to FOAD. They aren't law enforcement @ the RIAA. If they've got proof... bring it... let the person you're accusing get his/her day in court and go from there. (funny that is how our legal system is supposed to work...) If not, go away and please, for the love of pete....shut up. Stop clogging the already burdened legal system with yet more ill-advised and often unsubstantiated claims of infringement. It's not stopping, deterring, or otherwise curtailing the actual IP infringement in countries around the world (China, Russia, etc.) and it's not going to. We've got too many people suing over tainted peanut butter to clog the bloody system with this nonsense.
If they suspect someone of wholesale infringement... gather the information through law-enforcement as any other entity would and stop trying to short-circuit the system and get payouts from people like you're their bookie. I mean that big blue stupid disclaimer at the front of EVERY STINKING MOVIE they MAKE tells us the FBI investigates this sort of crap...
I have lost all faith that this will ever get better... and it seems that the *AA's are intent on destroying themselves rather than acknowledge some infringement exists, but that the vast majority are not guilty... and that we cannot simultaneously violate our own labor laws buying goods from China on the one hand while at the same time scolding them about IP protection. It's Ri-goddanged-diculous.. (sanitized for your protection.) We can't have it both ways... we can't stop it with a technological solution (it's a moral problem... Just like his Steveness said...) and we sure can't have inflated loss claims and dire threats of a non-essential industry going under due to "theft of IP." (sorry, they don't make pacemakers, nuclear weapons, or medicines.. so why are they trying to align themselves on that level?)
It's enough to make you puke.
"ARRRRRRR!" (you knew it was coming... it's funny... laugh. heh)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Illegal trespassing upon a computer system ("hacking" or "cracking")
2. Doctoring the screenshot
So how is it that this "evidence" is even allowed?
You missed:
3. Public file sharing.
Re:Big *yawn* (Score:4, Informative)
Photoshop.
I can whip up a 'screenshot' showing an IP at RIAA headquarters looking at kiddy porn on a few hours. It's absolutely crazy that a printout of an alledged screenshot can stand as evidence on Court.
Parent
Instead of lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead the labels can put more effort into a more generous licensing model, pay artists slightly more, and release tracks as MP3 in iTunes.
They could also try to identify real talent (Nor Ashlee) and promote them free of cost until the artist wants to sign an agreement.
The labels should wake up to the reality that paying lawyers shitload of money does not mean they win every lawsuit.
Spend on the money on identifying new lines of operations, and promoting music (schools concerts, etc) and STOP insisting on getting paid each time i sing a tune in the bathroom.
Labels: The more your RIAA goons try to restrict us, the more customers you are losing to emusic.
You're making a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, there is no difference between the RIAA and the record labels. They are the same. The RIAA is essentially a beard for the record labels so that you say "those bastards at the RIAA, they're suing the children". Meanwhile, the lawsuits are the creation of the record labels completely.
To put it another way, the RIAA won't sneeze without specific instructions from the record labels.
Parent
Wait... what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This seems like it could be a major crack in the RIAA's cases all over the country.
Maybe this will speed up the process of the end of these lawsuits.
(Okay, okay, I'm done..
Costs Us more than ISPs when their users get bit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike ISPs, which have either knuckled under or put up a very weak defense of their users, the university-as-ISP decided to put some effort into defending its students' interests against the RIAA.
For-profit ISPs have little to lose (beyond their own inconvenience) in handing over logs, and each customer represents a very small revenue stream. Bean counters might decide that failing to defend them costs the ISP little, while defending them costs more than they can ever recoup from that customer's fees.
Universities have a lot invested in each student and receive a lot from each in the form of tutition and various grant monies, along with other rewards from their success. And they have a lot to lose in other intangibles (such as security of their papers, reputation when recruiting students, staff, and faculty, etc.) So letting students swing in the wind is not just a bad idea academic-freedom wise, it's bad financially as well. (Doubly so if the RIAA's target is a faculty member, staffer, or administrator. Letting one of those get hit, or even distracted, by an RIAA suit comes right out of the University's "intellectual capital".)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
... finally a judge that is requiring the RIAA to follow the law and due process.
One more nail in the RIAA's coffin - the question is what type of backlash can others (music buyers, other "potential infringers", artists, etc) expect now that it is getting harder and harder for the RIAA to conduct "Business As Usual"?
Curious phrasing (Score:5, Interesting)
1. nobody attended the court to hear the motion being ruled upon
2. nobody read the court filings after the ruling
3. nobody bothered to get a transcript of the trial to see what happened.
In other words, the trial wasn't all that important to [news organizations].
And why wait a month to 'disclose' the ruling?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(And yes, they do have a media team. It actually may be the most successful part of this operation so far in terms of money earned (via sales from deterred infringers). If one could call any of it a success....)
Re:Curious phrasing (Score:5, Informative)
The judge rejected it, realizing that there was no reason in the world for the motion to be ex parte rather than on notice.
I.e., the judge was looking out for people who weren't even aware the case was going on... he was doing exactly what a judge is supposed to be doing in such a situation.
Since the judge ordered the RIAA to confer with the University of New Mexico, that's how the order came to their attention.
Parent
Re:Curious phrasing (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
why a blow to RIAA? (Score:5, Informative)
The issue in question is the abuse of the discovery process by the MAFIAA -- they use subpoenas to get identities without the people involved knowing about it; they then then proceed to racket the people directly by offering them a 'cheap' settlement without giving the people a chance to mount defense.
The ruling only says that MAFIAA has to work out a process with the university to allow people to contest the subpoenas before their identities are revealed. This seems only fair, and it is not a blow, but a remedy instead.
If someone is caught violating the law, defend themselves, lose and are found guilty -- or decide to settle out -- things still work as intended, only they get a chance to be informed and contest charges.
Of course and as usual, the MAFIAA has the audacity to say informing people about the subpoenas is doing 'irreparable harm' to them. Yep, sure it does, since it would require them pony up some proof instead of racket.
To which the judge notes that RIAA will not suffer 'irreparable harm' because of that, since if they can produce proof they can still sue for damages and collect.
So, i don't see any victims in this ruling.
Sure it is (Score:5, Insightful)
A big part of that is easy discovery. They need to be able to just hand the court a list of John Doe suits with IPs and demand that ISPs hand over subscriber info with no argument. If they have to actually go through the proper proceedings it may become quickly not worth their time, especially since they are likely going to need to get better evidence beforehand.
These are not solid lawsuits we are talking here, hence why they've never actually won a suit (at least not that I am aware of). They've bullied plenty of people in to settling, and dropped suits that went to trial, but they've never actually argued in court and won. They'd do it, if it was a strong, legit case but it isn't.
Hence this IS a blow to them.
Parent
Well, it's a start (Score:4, Insightful)
The Uni did show spine. Now if the ISPs would... (Score:5, Insightful)
AIUI that's exactly what the University did, which is what got this decision from the court.
If the ISPs had shown similar spine the RIAA would have hit this wall long ago.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's nice to see a judge applying some common sense to these RIAA fishing expeditions. You know what would be nicer? If the universities showed some spine. Something along the lines of: "Our students pay $x thousand per year to attend our institution. They entrust us with their future, their physical well-being, and every single piece of personal information they have. We have an obligation not to allow every scum-sucker who wants a piece of them to abuse that unique relationship." (As a public institution, UNM could also add something like, "The citizens of the great state of New Mexico do not allocate a substantial portion of their money to us so that ..." etc.) Honestly, if universities didn't knuckle under as easily as they do, most of these cases would probably never make it to court -- or if they did, it would be the RIAA vs. universities instead of individual students, which would at least be something closer to a fair fight.
Daniel, you are absolutely right that the universities need to show some spine.
But I have a hunch that the University of New Mexico is doing just that.
6th Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:6th Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
They don't just do normal John Doe suits. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, even once they have someone's identity, they've been known to play tricks with John Doe suits. I believe that, in the case of Mr. Merchant, he retained a lawyer and they offered to make his hard drive available, but only to outside counsel. The RIAA withdrew that lawsuit before they filed an answer in court (you can do that, it's a free pass to get out of court) and filed another John Doe suit in an attempt to get his hard drive directly, where they could have in-house people fish through it at will. By virtue of that being a John Doe suit, they meant to keep his lawyer out of the courtroom, preventing the counsel they knew he had from responding to their dirty tactics.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that although John Doe suits are perfectly normal, the way the RIAA uses them is not. They use pretty much any trick they think they can get away with, however dirty, even if it's contrary to the law. And when they pull these tricks, they try to make sure that no one is able to object.
To be honest, it tempts *me* to do things that I sincerely doubt are well supported by any laws at all. For example, can you file amicus briefs in random John Doe suits pointing out that Texas case? I have no idea, and incredibly dubious, but it might be worth the price of a stamp, especially because I could ask that the judge give those facts judicial notice even if the amicus itself was thrown in the trash... The other trick might be doing so anonymously. Can you even file an amicus anonymously? I haven't the foggiest. But I'm pretty sure I could just not sign my name. And I'm also pretty sure I could sign it "John Doe" out of an abundant sense of irony
Of course, these things being done ex parte also makes it pretty hard for me to find out about them before they're over...
Parent
A warning to Ray Beckerman, Esq. (Score:4, Funny)
Yo, Ray! Stop sharing those files, you rascal!
Re:A warning to Ray Beckerman, Esq. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The Real Story (Score:5, Funny)
Judge Garcia: WHAT?!? We'll see about that...
Re:The Real Story (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is that people understand laws concerning stealing apples and speeding. They make sense. When I steal an apple, I take something away from the store. When I'm speeding, I might not be able to stop my car in time to avoid the death of a person. Laws like this make sense and they are generally supported by the people. More or less, when you look at speeding and how many people don't care, but still, those laws are being upheld by the majority simply because they can understand and support those laws.
Copyright laws are very hard to understand by most people. And even harder to uphold once you understand them. It's easy to follow the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I'm not depriving anyone of it, because it's still there" logic. Abstract ideas like the devaluation of goods by eliminating an artificial shortage are hard to explain. And make no sense (I mean, try to explain why it's good for an economy or an individual when there's a shortage, now try to explain why it's supposedly good when you create that shortage artificially).
And laws that don't have at least the support of a sizable portion of the population have no chance to be upheld by the majority. Especially if said majority is used to the situation before the creation of the law and sees no benefit in its creation. For reference, see prohibition.
Parent
Re:The Real Story (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reminded of an illustration that I once heard (perhaps read here on slashdot - can't recall) about software. Imagine if you paid (calm down FSF dudes, it's an illustration.) for say, an eclipse plug-in. I say that merely because I'm looking at the copy of Flex Builder 2 that I got yesterday, but perhaps it's better if we think of more expensive development tools. Anyways, for arguments sake you buy some development tool for $1000, you don't need it, but you'd rather not write all your Java in vi. (I'd call you a wuss, and go on about Real Programmers writing in blood and such, but I digress...) So, this non-essential tool that you've bought set you back a paycheck and you're gloating to your geek friend Bob making sure to milk the pricetag as much as possible hoping he'll be envious and you won't feel like a fool for having paid so much. Then Bob tells you that he's been using the same tool for a month and he downloaded it for free. You feel like a fool and suddenly your uber-expensive purchase has been devalued (I think this is marginal value, or utility value in marketing speak, but I don't know) since it's not a rare item. Bob and Steve are developing using it and are telling all their friends who are also downloading copies and now this software has absolutely no value to you.
I'm skipping a good chunk of details and the illustration doesn't hold up when comparing tools to entertainment, but I think the bottom line still carries fairly well.
That's the best I understand it, and that's so foreign to anyone who doesn't work with software on a daily basis. My mom would go "yeah, so...". Anyways, just my $.02.
Parent
Re:The Real Story (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see it so much as devaluation, I see payment as some kind of commendation. I like your software/music/movie/whatever, and there's no other way for me to really show it (aside of the cheap "wow, good stuff" letter) than throwing a few bucks your way.
I also don't see the "bragging value" of a piece of software you bought, especially not if it's development software. I don't care if you're developing on some dated GNU C++ compiler or the ultimate enterprize team-enabled and all-plugins-included edition of the latest VCC, what I care about is what you create with it.
By the standard that there's someone who can get something for free, you must never buy anything or pay for anything. Not for your haircut, not for your oil change, not for unclogging your sink. All that and more can be had for free. Does it devalue the service? I don't think so.
Paying for something is to me more a sign that the payer thinks the receiver of the payment is "worthy" of it. That he "earned" it. And that decision should be in the customer's hand, not the seller's.
Parent
Re:The Real Story (Score:4, Insightful)
But the RIAA have this habit of dropping cases very quickly once they discover it's not going to be an easy win.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OMG! What a scandal!! (Score:5, Funny)
(Yes, this is probably the worst mis-read headline ever! Muhahaha!)
Re:Or, everyone could stop breaking the law too. . (Score:5, Funny)
will break
paragraphs
Parent
Re:Or, everyone could stop breaking the law too. . (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Or, everyone could stop breaking the law too. . (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we object to its mission. Or perhaps just its tactics. Either way, the objection needs to be evaluated on its own regardless of the tactics of file sharers.
Oh, if they want to play in the technical arena, they have every right to be creative. They'll lose, of course -- which is why they don't want to play in that court exclusively anymore. When they start playing in the LEGAL arena, their "creativity" is something else entirely -- it's promotion and institutionalization of injustice.
Like most RIAA apologists, you've got the order backwards. The Draconian and strange moves on the industry's part which really make it hard for everyone -- Serial Copy Management System (which killed DAT) and the DMCA -- came BEFORE Napster. Ante hoc ergo non propter hoc.
As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) have the power to make things crimes -- and they do, no question about it -- their complaining about criminal behavior is simply a demand for obedience.
Parent
Re:Or, everyone could stop breaking the law too. . (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who? The law? The law also said some time ago that I may buy and sell people of black skin color, that I may shoot native americans on sight, that I must not sell, own or drink liquor and many other things that I wouldn't consider too legal (or relevant) today. If you move out of the US (there are parts of the US legal system that I'm not too sure of, so let's continue with old Europe), there were laws concerning torture and how to apply it legally, homosexuality was illegal and it was (and afaik still is in the UK) high treason to burn paper money. Not to mention that according to a still existing law, the male population between the ages of 14 and 60 have to gather after mass under the observation of the clergy to fire arrows into the countryside, using a bow. I don't even own one anymore!
There've always been pointless, senseless or outright insane laws, there've always been laws that had little to no support in the general population and there have always been laws that we, looking back from our vantage point of today, deem horrible. Yet still, they existed and were valid, often also executed.
In a free country, laws rely on the support of the population for them. Laws that are not supported by the majority require a dictatorship and vast resources to be controlled to be forced upon the subjects. Many countries already fell over their laws, and the fact that their subjects did not support the laws and thus required an incredible amount of resources to be wasted on their enforcement.
Copyright laws in their current state fit into this.
Our current copyright laws enjoy no general support. Laws are generally far more successful if they do. If you know a murderer, would you turn him in? Even if it was your best buddy? He killed a human being! If you see someone shoot someone else, would you call the cops? I'm fairly sure, the majority of people would answer yes in all cases. Murder is something we do care about, something we generally consider a crime and something we want the culprit to do time (or get killed in return) for.
Now how about illegal file trading. Would you turn your buddy in? Hell, would you turn a stranger in? Do you care?
Parent