RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California 339
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."
RIAA strikes again (Score:5, Interesting)
Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here... Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone" (as opposed to settle since they now can't sue them for anything other than injunctive relief) for a fee?
Shock and Alarm! (Score:2, Interesting)
Might be because the RIAA keeps functioning illegally, slanders and purposely lies.
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization? They are a monopoly that for decades has abused the artists they are supposed to protect and villainized their customers.
To support my accusation, look at the article this it attached to.
Also look at the many claims they make about Canada and Piracy. Just pull up the studies they done that "support" their position. Problem is you will find their own data does not support their claim.(See previous
Suing people with out computers for distributing files.
Re:Shock and Alarm! (Score:2, Interesting)
When is the US Department of Justice going to do something about this criminal organization?
January 21 is my guess.
Faint hope at end of article (Score:4, Interesting)
"Last week, Warner Music Group proposed a voluntary blanket licensing scheme for universities. The proposal would add a fee to student tuition to permit music file sharing in schools."
And then, via another link;
"The rest of the details are still to be determined, including whether it would be a mandatory fee for all students, or an opt-in fee (complete with continued lawsuits for those who fail to pay?). It's also not clear what the fee would be, although those familiar with the talks suggest less than $5 per student per month... "
Sounds more like a pragmatic solution and better than criminalizing your potential customers via dubious legal processes, such as this one.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't the RIAA use the information, once granted, to call the students and offer to "leave them alone"
Which begs the question of, why do they need to call them to announce they are doing nothing? Besides, such an action could be used in future lawsuits to demonstrate a lack of good faith effort to enforce their copyright, which would invalidate the copyright in turn. It is not in RIAA's best interests, legally, to do this. Ignorance can be bliss in the world of civil litigation.
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.
Re:Faint hope at end of article (Score:3, Interesting)
And actually I've always found the credit reporting agencies guilty of that too. They're like pay us 10 bucks a month and we won't state untrue negative things about you based on other people's actions. I think this is only legal because those agencies are specifically and specially regulated. It's still criminal to me, though.
RIAA Doesn't Use Professional Engineers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RIAA strikes again (Score:3, Interesting)
I've wondered why no one has tried to "poison the well" with suits yet. You could create a GIF of a 7-legged spider and then let someone else violate your copyright. Use the RIAA's tactics to locate the infringers. Then, with lawyers on both sides working together, take the cases as far as possible. Get a local circuit court to make a ruling. Appeal to the next court. Wash, rinse, and repeat until you have set a firm legal precedent.
It seems whenever the RIAA is about to get a ruling against them, they drop the case to stop a precedent from being set. But by using their tactics in an outside case, you can set the precedent for them in a way they can't stop.
And if you have lawyers working both sides, you could play the case to come out on whatever side you wanted.
Hell, you could probably get law students to do it for little to no cost.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:2, Interesting)
So they simply don't stamp the official logo on them.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:2, Interesting)
This is why we have Linux and CD/DVD recorders in our PCs. We have all the software necessary to rip any media to any format desired.
RIAA burning its' bridges (Score:4, Interesting)
Defense attornies should have this violation at their fingertips and cite when motioning to limit discovery. Since it is substantially the same plaintiff (and may be the same attornies), the judge will have to consider the malfeasance, and probably is adequate justification for granting the motion to limit discovery rather than add conditions.
Of course, the RIAA can go to appeal, but for that to be successful, they will have to thoroughly purge themselves of their contempt cited. Judges (even appellate) do not tolerate being ignored.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgive me if this has been asked previously: Where does the distinction lie? Can I, as an Alaskan, drive through Canada, purchase said blank media for the purpose of holding copyrighted materials? Am I allowed to transport it outside of Canada, assuming I keep it and don't resell it, or am I obligated to leave it at the border?
Yes, my understanding is that you're allowed to transport it across the border. It's a pretty rare commodity, though, made exclusively in Canada, so when asked "anything to declare", you're under a legal obligation to declare all firearms, produce, and pre-formatted copyright-enabled electronic media. I drive up to Canada for ALL my media. The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.
Has the judicial system has been complicit so far? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was just reading NYCL's article on this whole situation
http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/080729LargeRecordingCompaniesVsTheDefenselessHTMLVERSION.htm [beckermanlegal.com]
and it seems to me that the RIAA lawyes have come up with a scheme that brazenly uses the legal system to threaten people (nothing new there) but ALSO that the legal system has tacitly gone along with it. The "old boys club" of judges has decided that it's OK for these dirty pirating scum to be hammered through their courts, because they are so sneaky that there is no other way.
To the older generation, copyright infringement like this seems very wrong and the fact that the internet allows it to be done anonymously, with no easy trackdown, also seems wrong and perverted.
So basically they have allowed the RIAA to jam some wedges into the court system and use it to get those naughty infringers.
If they were not at least partially comfortable with the RIAA doing this, surely, they would have close it down long ago, because the whole process is surpremely dodgy.
Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score:4, Interesting)
Bingo. You could just store everything on hard drives, which are not taxed as CD-Rs and cassette tapes are.
While we're at it, what if you pay for the music you download?
What if you use your blank media to store you own "intellectual property?"
What if you like to make backup copies of the CDs you purchase,and don't think you should have to pay an additional tax for the privilege of doing something that should be considered fair dealing?
What if you are an artist who produces mash-ups of popular culture (like Andy Warhol liked to do) and also consider that fair dealing?
What if you are in a band who's music is traded a lot online, but you don't get commercial airplay and you sell your CDs at gigs, so the sales aren't recorded by Soundscan?
What if you are an archivist, a student or a journalist, and are trying to research or preserve our shared culture?
The only "right" the Canadian blank media tax grants is the right to make copies of the media you already own, and only for personal use. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn they can't just do this without paying extra for it.
Re:No - Google "statutory damages" (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge has since figured out that something was fishy about certain legal arguments RIAA used, however. RIAA hasn't appealed yet, AFAIK.
1. The order is not an appealable order.
2. The RIAA has asked the Judge for permission to appeal.
Just goes to show... (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole thing just goes to show that a:) the lawyers suing on behalf of the record companies don't give a flat fuck about anything the judges have to say; and 2:) in this case specifically, to have quite literally told this specific judge to fuck off and die. They'll do what they want.
You are now beginning to witness the folding of American law and justice. This is where someone in a movie once said that in the future, they abolished all lawyers. Hmmm; could there be some credence to that thinking..??!!