Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

U. Maine Law Students Trying To Shut RIAA Down 229

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U. Maine Law Students Trying To Shut RIAA Down

Comments Filter:
  • by adpsimpson ( 956630 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @08:23AM (#22939318)

    When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.

    Similarly here, these students seem to have a deparment which values them enough to give them something interesting AND useful to work on.

    Good on them all.

  • by cplusplus ( 782679 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @08:41AM (#22939414) Journal
    It seems like we see a new RIAA related story every day.
  • by pipatron ( 966506 ) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @08:51AM (#22939468) Homepage

    If you cant afford the music you cant have it.

    Answer #1: Why not?

    Answer #2: Since it's now free, everyone can afford it.

    Answer #3: These days, you can have the music even if you can't afford it. Since they're at college to learn, they'd better spend their money on books.

  • Re:Hidden subject (Score:1, Interesting)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @09:12AM (#22939602) Journal

    I don't see where a porn star has to have a lot of education. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer more for what he knows than for what he does.
    Bollocks. Like an MD, you pay your lawyer for his membership in an exclusive, government enforced monopoly.
  • Re:Hidden subject (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @09:14AM (#22939620) Homepage Journal
    Thanks, Morgan. Hope you get modded up for providing all that useful information.
  • by mbrod ( 19122 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @09:33AM (#22939774) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA is creating a whole generation of enemies by going after College students. Their demise can't happen soon enough.
  • by sexybomber ( 740588 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @09:34AM (#22939780)
    I don't know which is more disturbing: the fact that I would fully expect the record companies to stoop that low or the fact that such a ploy might actually work.
  • by mlwmohawk ( 801821 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @09:56AM (#22939966)
    Using a cantenna, the "smart" students should aim the directional wifi to their dorms and surf on the library IP address. That would be funny. Then the university would HAVE to defend itself against this nonsense instead of throwing its students under the wheels.
  • That's ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evolvearth ( 1187169 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @10:23AM (#22940178)
    The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.

    The problem businessmen have is that they can't figure out the solution to this problem. Perhaps by exposing a band to a wide market, they could collect x amount of dollars from the concerts they performed, as they're supposedly responsible for popularzing the band to begin with. So the contract would spell that out for as long as the band is signed up with a particular record label. Recording music would simply be to advertise for the band rather than a major means of profit. You simply can't reproduce live performances--it's a different experience. Start making shit that can't be downloaded! Add extra shit to those hard copy of albums to make them worthwhile to buy: extra art, neat case, raffle tickets to win apparel, dogtags with band member names on it, et cetera. It's time to be creative. The artist at this point seems to be supported, so now I want my art for free and I'll worry about the artist when necessary. After all, isn't art's main purpose to be enjoyed by both the creator and his of her fans? As long as the artist isn't broke, I'm not going to feel guilty for not supporting the business of uncreative suits.
  • by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @10:28AM (#22940220) Homepage
    *snort* Yeah, I could actually see that happening here. The nearby law school (less then two blocks away) is trying to get a new building, only they're not doing so well at raising the money through the various means (fundraisers, getting the state to kick in some bucks, alumni donations). I could easily see them taking that path...
  • Re:FERPA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by steelfood ( 895457 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @10:35AM (#22940284)
    So the real culprit is the judge who signs an ex parte order instead of requiring proper notice of motions, as the law requires.

    You can blame the judge, but I usually like to presume ignorance until I know otherwise. Rather, I'd blame the lawyers of the RIAA, for not informing the judge of this particular law (which they're not obligated to do, but is a matter of ethics), and for the schools for not appealing based upon this.

    IANAL (which makes me either really foolish or really bold to argue with you ;) ), but it just seems like judgment made in ignorance of a law that would affect the judgment would be grounds for appeals.
  • by Technician ( 215283 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @10:41AM (#22940316)
    When I was studying Engineering, the most interesting case studies were the real life cases - actual original research and current theories.

    I wonder if many of the engineering students have figured out that an Ubuntu Live CD and a USB hard drive leave no fingerprints on a computer. There are no deleted files. They never existed. DHCP with temporary leases and an editable MAC addresses finish out the playing card. Some networks will allow www through their proxy but not the campus network without a login. ;-)

    Not logged in, a new MAC address and DHCP lease, + no HD writes = no cache, history, or deletions evidence. Find a good place to stash that USB drive. That's the online privacy game at it's finest.

  • by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @10:45AM (#22940370)
    which is why these things need to be done quickly, before this generation becomes used to the way things are.
  • by MarkvW ( 1037596 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @11:30AM (#22940716)
    Lawyers are very much like football coaches in at least one respect. When one thing works, everybody copies it to death. If the RIAA gets slammed for abusive discovery processes in Maine, other lawyers will try to play the same game elsewhere. Rule 11 means that the abusive litigant (or their lawyer) has to pay money - - sometimes LOTS of money. Rule 11 sanctions have the power to strike fear into the heart of lawyers. The RIAA will have to change their game if they lose. I can't imagine Congress wading in to help them because the procedural rules represent a careful balancing of competing considerations--twisting them up to help one particular kind of litigant in one particular kind of case would really upset the applecart.
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @11:54AM (#22940904)

    a pre-action discovery proceeding [which is not authorized under the Federal Rules] masquerading as a copyright infringement proceeding.

    You'd think the judge could put a stop to that -- or better yet a new Federal Rule -- mandating that any identities discovered could only be utilized in the current case. That way, if the plaintiffs lost, or never went to trial in the first place, that information couldn't be misused otherwise.

    There was a non-RIAA non-Copyright case a couple years ago where a company sued to obtain the identity of a blogger, critical to that company, and believed to be an employee. While that company had no possibility of winning their case under the First Amendment, once they forced the internet site to cough up sufficient identifying information, they dropped their case and simply fired the employee. That should have never been allowed, and side-steps the whole intent that anonymous persons can be forced to be identified by the courts in virtually any case, no matter how lame, because it's necessary for the administration of justice to identify these defendants.

    The whole idea that this will all come out in the wash so to speak, meaning at the actual trial exonerating innocent defendants and punishing overreaching plaintiffs totally misses the point of the damage already being done by the time identities have been revealed under the most flimsy of pretenses.

    There should be an argument made that because the RIAA cannot win at trial with the illegally gathered evidence they already have, then identities shouldn't be revealed in the first place. Of course the RIAA will throw back the Jamie Thomas case were stupid juries, a less than bright defendant, and outright wrong jury instructions show that anything is possible if you throw enough b.s. at it.

    Of course, my idea will only work if the penalties for actually misusing identity information outside of the trial itself are very VERY severe!

  • Re:That's ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rsub_kc ( 1266388 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @12:34PM (#22941312)

    The only reason why we pay for art is to support the artist. If we see that the artist is either high on the hog or that the artist isn't making very much from the recorded music, then there is less incentive to buy. Artists will always make money from concerts and various things like t-shirts and such, so they people we're really supporting are the ones who are popularizing their music globally. Basically, it is the businessmen who we aren't supporting through downloads.

    Current music industry trends don't pay artists for CD sells. As you mention, the artists get paid from concerts and other sells. The CD monies (minus very small cuts to the artists) go to the music company, which is why the business men are getting in the way. Think music artist are living high on the hog? Look into music industry executive salaries http://www.statssheet.com/articles/article6671.html/ [statssheet.com]...that's the real reason big music hates file sharing!

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @01:08PM (#22941622)
    The hippies got tired of being poor. The hippies got property and money and became the system they were fighting.

    I got tired of being poor at about 31. It was fun til then. But as my buds took off, it became lonely/mostly losers. When they all go off for a $600 trip and you can't afford it, you change friends or get with the program. In my case, I was in college all along but it put a real fire under my ass to finish and get a "real job" tm.

    Now I have the house, car, etc.. Fight to keep my taxes low... work a regular 40 (and after a recent promotion often voluntarily a regular 43-45).
  • Re:Hidden subject (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @01:34PM (#22941916)
    What I question is the need to obfuscate the simplest legal document to the point it "requires" a lawyer to interpret. What should be a one page paper telling you what the law is turns into a sixty-five page essay trying to address every possible nuance of where and when the law would apply. That is what a judge and jury is for.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @02:20PM (#22942432)
    are you really that stupid or are you just trying to play some limp version of devil's advocate?
  • by monxrtr ( 1105563 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @05:18PM (#22944578)
    I don't know about that anymore. You are starting to talk huge political downside if you start directly publicly advocating for the RIAA now (except perhaps in a few Hollywood districts). You have tons of pissed off students and tons of pissed off academic administrators who have let it be known they are very unhappy with the heavy handed RIAA techniques and threats to academic freedom. I'd say in at least 80% of political districts advocating for the RIAA would be akin to advocating for Big Tobacco. Judges don't like to be hoodwinked and humiliated either.

    More and more this whole issue is threatening to blow up, and no doubt there will be massive political collateral damage if it does. Just ask the Republican Party how the Ron Paul supporters did with barely any organization and time in the political primary process. It will be a hell of a lot more targeted, organized, and effective the next time four years from now.

    But let them buy all the unconstitutional laws they want. Those exact same laws can be confiscated and used against them (1 million or 10 million people can be copyright trolls for very little expense, and it could pay, just like it pays for patent trolls), and when the tide of public opinion turns, it will turn hard (they are a cast full of sleazy and greedy lawyers, executives, and overpaid artists with almost no redeeming sympathetic propaganda figures). Their propaganda campaigns arouse contempt. And an Anti-Copyright Abuse Political Action Committee might be able to raise Ron Paul amounts of money to run targeted negative ads against a list of the 20 worst bought Congressmen, and possibly defeat 50-75% of them. I could see such targeting swinging election results a good 5-10% in those districts, well enough to cause effective change. And it's an issue that can slice without regard to political party affiliation. You have a huge untapped younger voter base that is mobilizing, that would certainly go out and vote to defeat pro-RIAA candidates. And Senators up for re-election would be even easier State-wide targets.

    The game is up, and everyone knows it. The RIAA is going to start sustaining a more and more egregious reputation even in sell out DC city, especially as legal abuse losses start mounting. Congressmen aren't politically stupid. Don't think they haven't noticed the rising up of student legal groups and independent academic institution mobilization. Don't think they didn't notice Comcast bend over just now on targeted throttling (even under an alleged anti-"piracy" justification).

    And keep not buying or buying less music. Why should you care about any artists? Did any of those artists give the slightest damn when bribes stole away from you the contemporary limited bargain return of the advancement of arts into the public domain, even as you gave up your First Amendment free speech rights to copy and were forced to welfare subsidize their campaign of artificial monopoly scarcity greed and abuse through the resources of your government? They are all greedy fucks, wanting to milk you continuously for stuff that is 30 and 40 years old. Starve the bastards.
  • Trolling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray AT beckermanlegal DOT com> on Wednesday April 02, 2008 @07:08PM (#22945926) Homepage Journal
    I notice that one form of trolling which takes place, every time we have a post on a litigation event in the RIAA cases, is that someone starts some thread about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, whether the money goes to the artists, etc.

    I wish folks with moderation points would mod those posts as "off-topic".

    It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the litigations, which are not about whether it's okay to take people's content without paying for it, but about whether morons with a lot of money in the bank and a bunch of unscrupulous lawyers have the right to be suing (a) innocent people for no reason at all, and (b) people who may have committed copyright infringement for excessive sums of money.

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...