Slashdot Log In
RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Dec 15, 2008 08:48 PM
from the play-nice-now dept.
from the play-nice-now dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of its 'ex parte' cases seeking the names and addresses of 'John Does,' this one targeting students at the University of Southern California, the RIAA obtained an order granting discovery — but with a wrinkle. The judge's order (PDF) specified that the information obtained could not be used for any purpose other than obtaining injunctions against the students. Apparently the RIAA lawyers have ignored, or failed to understand, that limitation, as an LA lawyer has reported that the RIAA is busy calling up the USC students and their families and demanding monetary settlements."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
RIAA strikes again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
And when has that ever stopped them?
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it simply, NO. The judge put a very narrow restriction on the information. Any other use is a violation of that restriction. Judges take a dim view of being ignored.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but can he give them a slap on the wrist (i.e. a fine)? Or can he actually give them a solid kicking (a 7-figure+ fine and organise some sort of professional sanctions against the lawyers) and actually end the cases? Because the RIAA isn't suing people for the money, they're suing people to try and scare the public at large and if they can go "look, we can get your names on a 'no-sue' basis, ignore that, sucessfully sue you anyway and it'll only cost us a moderate fine" then they're come out clearly on top. Infact if the message that they can carry illegal lawsuits all the way through even after being called on it gets out, it'll play right into their hands.
To play devil* for a moment, using the old information-wants-to-be-free argument, once someone knows who it is that they need to sue how can you conscionably tell them that they can't actually sue them because you only told them the name so they could use it for something else?
*the devil is the RIAA's advocate.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Invalidate the copyright? You must be thinking of trademarks. You can't invalidate a copyright by lack of defending it (or in this case, bad faith). If someone reproduces a book I've written for 10 years and I don't do anything, I can still sue them at anytime even if I was previously aware of the violation. You can't 'lose' a copyright.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Laches only applies to "equitable relief", ie, compensation. Basically, you can't let someone sell your stuff for 10 years (knowingly) and them hit them for all the money they've made distributing it since they started. However, it will not in any way invalidate your copyright. You can still stop them from redistributing your works, you just can't go after them for a zillion dollars.
Parent
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's FAR better when Slashdot headlines are like this one - too many jump to conclusions that the articles don't support.
It's unfortunate that Slashdot is resorting to sensational headlines to attract viewers. For me, when I find out that the headline and summary were wrong (always pointed out in the comments when so - don't even have to RTA :) ) I get quite annoyed. If the story actually matters, then there's no need to exaggerate with a sensational headline. If one finds him or her self tempted to exaggerate the headline, perhaps the story is not that interesting or important!
Sometimes corrections are posted, but the damage is already done.
For this specific case, as others pointed out, NYCL is being safe (and fair) in his wording. Even if it was made official by the judge ruling that they're violating the order, your proposed title would still not be the best. It would then be "Judge Finds RIAA in Violation of California Court Order" or something like that.
This is what Slashdot should be. We gladly get the news here a day or two after digg or wherever, because the editors are (supposed to be) here to ensure that we get the best news and that the facts are straight in the summary.
This ideal has, unfortunately, been slipping away recently. The exception is usually stories from NYCL, because he puts a lot of effort into making sure he gets everything right. In order to improve things, ideally we should all step up and start submitting better stuff. The problem is that many of us don't have time to prowl for stories - Slashdot aggregates all the best stuff for us already, and provides all kinds of insight and references through the comments, and that's why we like it. So I do appreciate those who put time into submitting stuff, I really do, because otherwise I'd have to find it myself. I just regret that it seems to be losing the focus it once had of news for nerds and stuff that matters. Too much focus on entertainment - that's done better on other sites already, we don't need it here.
Thanks for reading my rant!
Parent
Re:This is an inaccurate article title (Score:5, Informative)
NYCL is a L (from NYC), and therefore is going to be careful what he says.
Unlike the L's the RIAA uses.
Parent
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
...Or legalized racketeering.
Parent
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
The suggestion was to have the infringing person(s) pay a fee in lieu of legal action. The definition of racketeering approximately is; Paying someone to not undertake an economically damaging course of action to you and/or your business. That's a nice credit score you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it...
Parent
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, an opt-in fee to benefit the artists sounds like a good compromise, though I think it's safe to say that's not going to happen. It will be a mandatory fee, collected by the universities and deposited into the coffers of Sony BMG, EMI, Warner and Universal without them having to lift a finger. Artists will never see a dime, labels will have a new printing press for cash and students all across America will get screwed.
It's a sad state of affairs when the pessimistic view is synonymous with the realistic.
Parent
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:5, Funny)
You misunderstand. The "artists" are defined by the RIAA as "those who have made an art of suing people."
Parent
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Insightful)
Free?
I'm Canadian. I pay a levy on all blank media to pay for the possibility that those materials might be used - at some point - to hold copyrighted materials.
I've paid for the content, and I am damn well going to get my money's worth. It is NOT my responsibility to make sure that the money I paid is going to the right hands. I've paid; it's done.
Parent
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Insightful)
Blank media includes hard drives. You have to put those files somewhere.
Parent
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
Protip for those of us a bit south of canada
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut. Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Parent
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
Never buy music CDs. The MAFIAA gets a cut.
True.
Always buy "data" CDs. They're the same physical thing.
Partly False. They have a header on them so that standalone CD recorders, like the Pioneer PDR-609 [pioneerelectronics.com] can recognize them, those recorders will not record on regular DATA CD-Rs.
Otherwise though, they are pretty much the same.
Parent
Re:who cares about laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a country where the congress can reject a bill (auto bailouts for example) just to see the president go ahead and do it anyhow.
I hope he does, so I can enjoy watching the Republicans who voted against the Detroit bailout bitch about the president ignoring Congress. You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.
Parent
Re:who cares about laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us. Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.
Parent
Re:Just stop stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
this business of suing people has become so lucrative...
I don't think so. According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Parent
Re:What's that in RIAA math? (Score:5, Funny)
According to my math, they're losing money hand over fist.
Yeah, but what does the RIAA math say?
I don't know. They're not very good at math, or law.
Parent