Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena Vs. Students 266
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it. That is about to change. In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a case targeting students at the Albany Campus of the State University of New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has decided to put things on hold while it takes a careful look at what transpired in the lower court. The way it came to this is that a few 'John Does' filed a broad-based challenge to a number of the RIAA's procedures, citing the defendant's constitutional rights, the insufficiency of the complaint, the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, improper misjoinder of the defendants, and the RIAA's illegal procurement of its 'evidence' through the use of an unlicensed investigator, MediaSentry. The lower court judges gave short shrift to 'John Doe #3,' but he promptly filed an appeal, and asked for a stay of the subpoena and lower court proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success. The Appeals Court disagreed and granted the motion, freezing the subpoena and putting the entire case on hold until the appeal is finally determined. As one commentator said, 'this news has been a long time coming, but is welcomed.'"
This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it possible for the RIAA to drop the case in order to stop these proceedings? I know that's a tactic they've used in the past when things didn't go their way. Hopefully, they won't be able to just say "oops, our bad" and stop any investigation into their tactics.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Is it possible for the RIAA to drop the case in order to stop these proceedings? I know that's a tactic they've used in the past when things didn't go their way. Hopefully, they won't be able to just say "oops, our bad" and stop any investigation into their tactics.
Yes it is possible for it to try that gambit. But it is also possible for the Court to retain jurisdiction over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Will there be a full appeal with oral arguments?
Yes!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
Not to my knowledge. You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we allowed to record those proceedings?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're just going to have come on down to the courthouse to see Mr. Altman in action.
Bad idea.
The chances of it ending in assault charges are just too high.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome. Do you know if the 2nd Circuit has mp3s available of oral arguments? My quick google search didn't find any. I know other circuits have them available.
No, but you can torrent them. Just be careful that the CSJA (Court System Judges of America) doesn't sue you for copyright infringement. I hear they've got a good legal team...
Re: (Score:2)
Here's hoping that they can't successfully weasel their way out of this. I'd like to see a court strike down their obvious abuses of the legal system.
Re:This is big (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. The people illegally copying copyrighted works are simply performing an illegal act. They are not asking for the assistance of the judicial system as they do so. (They just rely on it not reaching them.) That's not abuse: That's just ignoring the system.
The RIAA is actively using the assistance of the judicial system to further quasi-legal (at best) ends. That's abuse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please reply with: Your credit card, social security number, date of birth, medications that you are (or should be taking) and
everything you have ever written, photographed, performed or created, either at work or for your own enjoyment.
Do you really believe that crap? I understand that denial is an important human psychologic defense mechanism, but can't you understand that "sharing" is just theft? And yes,
Re:This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
the RIAA have a nearly unlimited amount of money to throw at this issue.
Actually, they don't. These are not large companies in the scheme of things (unless you believe that Sony would throw it's core business over the side to protect its media properties), and the RIAA likely only has "millions" to work with. Grassroots opposition and donations from Slashdotters and others who know enough to care can make a real difference here.
The courts aren't vulnerable to being bought the way that politicians are, so it's not a simple matter of whoever writes the biggest check wins - the opposition to the RIAA just needs enough money to stay in the game, not to outspend the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, even if the court doesn't retain jurisdiction over this particular matter (and allows the RIAA to dismiss should it try to do so), the RIAA will presumably face the some potential problem in any new cases brought within the Second Circuit. This could be a far bigger problem than facing scepticism from district court judges.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I will be very surprised if they don't try that 'gambit' anyway.
And let's hope that the court decides to retain jurisdiction.
See, I'm trying to take the long view here.
I am not actually anti-copyright; I am opposed to the way current IP laws are unjustly skewed against the customers, heavily in the Big Corp. favor.
IMHO, we need some serious IP law reform, copyright in particular. The whole purpose of copyright has been twisted, defiled, and corrupted beyond recognition.
As long as the RIAA can get away with
Re:This is big (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
If the appellate court forces the RIAA to use the ordinary subpoena process instead of 'ex-parte' with joinder then will that not substantially alter the cost equation for the RIAA?
Yes, if they had been following the law, it would have cost them more. In fact, if they had been following the law, they wouldn't have even been able to file the lawsuits. But it is not about costing them money, or preventing them from bringing lawsuits to enforce their copyrights. The important thing is that the law be followed, and not bent to suit the whims of large corporations just because they can afford to hire a large number of unscrupulous lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
The important thing is that the law be followed, and not bent to suit the whims of large corporations just because they can afford to hire a large number of unscrupulous lawyers.
Yes! Precisely. If we do not have equal justice and equal access to a fair legal system then what are we left with? Probably not the sort of country that our founding fathers envisioned, that's for sure.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Re:This is big (Score:5, Informative)
More than one court has already noted this. In 2004 the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin, TX) sua sponte (meaning without being asked to do so by either party) dismissed four separate cases totaling 254 defendants (Fonovisa vs Does 1-41, Atlantic vs Does 1-151, Elektra vs Does 1-11, UMG vs Does 1-51) and told the RIAA to refile against each defendant individually.
Moreover there are practical reasons supporting severing the claims against the defendants. The filing fees for the recent four cases totaled $600, whereas filing fees for 254 separate cases would have been $38,100. . .Because these four suits are in actuality 254 separate lawsuits, the Court sua sponte will dismiss without prejudice all but the first defendant in each case. . .In addition, Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience.
It appears that they RIAA has not followed that order in other cases since 2004. How much weight would this order have at the to Appeals court in this case? Some, little, jurisdiction issues? NYCL?
Speaking from the point of view of an appellate court, it would tip us off that the plaintiffs' lawyers have been cavalier about following the law. And we might direct the lower court to order the RIAA to show cause why it was not in contempt of that order.
Re: (Score:2)
The fear campaign can be just as effective by using the courts the _correct_ way. However, you are quite correct the profitable part of their scheme will be over.
Re:This is big (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think we'll ever be out of the woods.
If the Second Circuit rules as I believe it will, this will mark the end of these abusive litigations by the RIAA.
After this, the RIAA will have to go to court only with proper, scientifically verifiable, legally obtained evidence showing that the person they're suing actually committed copyright infringement, and will have to have proper legal theories and pleadings.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At first I read "If the Second Amendment ..." and I thought to myself, "What could possibly involve the RIAA and a right to bear arms... Oh. Oh... I see."
It's almost a pity it isn't true...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... Imagine a swat team entering a house, pointing gun on "pirate"'s head and handcuffing him for "stealing". Yup...
Now, imagine the people jailed for allowing this. Wouldn't that be a sight?
Re: (Score:2)
After this, the RIAA will have to go to court only with proper, scientifically verifiable, legally obtained evidence showing that the person they're suing actually committed copyright infringement, and will have to have proper legal theories and pleadings.
What decision of the Circuit Court would affect RIAA and its principals in terms of preventing this behaviour in the future?
Where their litigation within the law fails, they shall no doubt "rent seek" (to borrow the term from Ann Krueger).
Re: (Score:2)
If the Does' appeal is successful, then the RIAA MO becomes a liability. Any future defendants can hold the ruling out there and the case will get dropped. If karma has anything to do with it they would get bent over AND taken out behind the wood shed. They could still bring lawsuits, they will just have to change the status quo to get anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is big (Score:4, Informative)
Last time I saw rain fall on parched earth, the rain just sat on top. Almost in disbelief that the rain had actually fallen, the earth rejected it. What water is absorbed does so slowly, leading to flooding with the same amount of water that would be easily absorbed had the earth not been so parched.
Seems to me that if one follows your analogy too closely, one might conclude that a single court case of sanity might precede several courts being resistant to the change, perhaps even angrily so, at least for a time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If their primary purpose is "to frighten large numbers of ordinary citizens", maybe Homeland Security should have jurisdiction here...
It's about time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Funny)
is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?
I really wish we could stop comparing the RIAA to the Mafia. It's an insult to the hard working men like Tony Soprano that strive to provide needed services like gambling, loan-sharking and prostitution to equate them with an organization that does nothing but sue college students and old people ;)
On a more serious note, it's still a stupid comparison. If you wind up on Tony Soprano's bad side you are going to get beaten up or in the worst case scenario murdered. The worst case scenario from a RIAA lawsuit is that you wind up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy != murder, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
if you owe mr. soprano some money, and the riaa forces you into bankruptcy, what do you do ?
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree ... lawsuits are the modern equivalent of physical violence, and taking all of someone's assets is the modern murder. Just because we now have a system that allows pillaging and plundering without bloodshed doesn't decrease the devastation that this causes to people and their families.
Lastly, people who lose it all often end it all, completing the 'murder'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would really surprise me if these lawsuits have not led to at least one death, and I would suspect several, given the age group mostly sued and their general psychological solidity.
Eivind.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a sign that the judicial system is finally going to start to treat the RIAA like the mobsters they mimic?
That I don't know. But it certainly is a sign that the Second Circuit judges consider the issues raised by John Doe #3 in the lower court to be serious and important.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or at least their law clerks do...
Common Sense wins this round (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to steal someone's sig, at least get it right.
as one commentor said (Score:4, Funny)
404 not found
Re:as one commentor said (Score:4, Informative)
It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with suing college students is that one of them could be the child of the dean of the school of law or some other highly placed or very capable individual. Most of them will be destitute students, but sue enough of them and you are going to sue someone not in your best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could live near Harvard and endear a tenured law professor to their cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they knew from the start it wouldn't last forever, but they probably thought that they could scare enough people by the time it blew up in their faces that it didn't matter.
Unfortunately, given the number of people who believe that copyright infringement is theft and believe that you can get sued for downloading, their fear campaign seems to be working.
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it.
Wait, I am missing something. In the US doesn't the prosecution have to have a defendent before they can start preceedings? They can investigate all they like but you can't prosecute without a defendent. What someone is going to knock on my door one day and say "BTW you have been found guilty of murder, your trial happened last month, your getting the chair"??
The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success.
I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I enjoyed this one... "Your honor, don't grant the appeal, they have no chance of winning. It would be silly to even honor their request. BTW, if you do what we say they WILL have no chance of winning and that makes us right, so you need to do as we say because we are right and you would not want to be on the side of wrong, because we are right."
This is basically the lawyer-to-english translation of the RIAA legal strategy.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
2. Under American law you are required to give notice, and an opportunity to be heard, PRIOR to the court granting your motion. This has not occurred in the RIAA cases. It has been an ongoing flagrant violation of American law.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Under American law you are required to give notice, and an opportunity to be heard, PRIOR to the court granting your motion. This has not occurred in the RIAA cases. It has been an ongoing flagrant violation of American law.
What does that mean for past cases that were not settled out of court? Do they get reheard? Do their verdicts get overturned?
It seems to me that if a court is found to have not followed the letter of the law, some action regarding those involved should be taken. It could be a slap on the wrist for the Judge presiding the case, perhaps the lawyers on either side.
Re: (Score:2)
Do their verdicts get overturned?
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
Re:NO CHANCE!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)
What verdicts? I don't recall the RIAA ever winning a single case. Well, one, but that verdict has already been set aside by the judge.
They've never won a contested case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but they were ALREADY heard in court and judged, that's how they got a judge to make the ISP give out names.
The game is to sue "jon doe" at 192.168.0.1 for $250k infringement in civil court, and because they can't find all the names, it's just between the lawyers and the judge! Then they take the summary judgment (which legally is very, very bad) to debtor's court to get your name and address, then call you up to settle. If you don't settle, then they wave the full judgment in front of you. I
t's legally mo
The RIAA Lawyer continued, stating (Score:5, Funny)
your appeal has no chance of success
make your time ...
HA HA HA HA
For great justice indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
That aside, you've misunderstood the RIAA strategy. They file John Doe claims so they can subpoena records from the ISPs that identify who the defendants are. Once they know who the defendant is, they can proceed with a normal case. The RIAA bends the rules in multiple ways in the course of doing this, but the dodgy part is not the John Doe claim itself, but other details in how they go about it.
Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:2, Insightful)
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not stealing though, it's breach of contract.
Re: (Score:2)
EULAs are eulasless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't stealing, as stealing means something was taken. In the case of downloading, it's copied not removed from the source.
Taking a CD from a shop is stealing and a criminal act. Downloading a CD is infringement of copyright and therefore a civil matter.
All your analogies involve removing a physical item and that constitutes theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the court has been fairly consitantly saying that recieving copyright-infringed goods is not illegal. It's the copier/distributor (aka the uploader) who is breaking the law, not the person who recieves the goods (aka the downloader).
Lately the courts have been saying you can download whatever you want, because copyright law makes no statements about recieving copied goods. It's a copyright restrcition, not a receiveright restriction. You certainly don't have the right to make copies of that work
Re:Give those Pirates What they Deserve! (Score:5, Insightful)
(a) The pirates deserve to be slammed for STEALING (Yes I said it, because that's what it is!)!
(b) The pirates ALSO deserve all the due process and constitutional protection that the US has to offer--and the RIAA assiduously tries to ignore! You can't slam the thieves until the thieves get a FULL and FAIR day in court.
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
Assuming we're still talking about digital piracy here, it is NOT stealing, it is infringing. The two have separate legal meanings that have to do with a scarce good being taken away from another person/entity. Copying music does not take that original away, ergo it cannot be stealing, it is infringing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unauthorized copying is not stealing because nothing was taken away from the original owner.
Distorting the accusation is, by itself, violating due process and the constitutional protection the accused deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
The Pirates deserve to be hammered, but only after every last one of their constitutional rights is respected!
By calling them pirates, you are presuming them guilty. Nice fail.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's stealing then why don't they have them arrested for theft?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're trolling.
I have stolen your car if I take it from your driveway, even if I give it back later. Why do you care? Because then you don't have a car.
What if there was a way to get your car, but with you still having it, and use both simultaneously? That's a copy - and unless you're some kind of prick, it doesn't bother you. You get your car, with no changes, and so do I.
It's infringing because I don't have a legal right to make that copy.
These people may or may not be infringing, but as there is
Confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the exact statutes you're working with. Since they technically do nothing except monitor public information, it's not illegal anywhere I am aware of. Now, the question is "Is the evidence acquired suitable for presentation in court?" Since MediaSentry (Or whatever their name is this week) isn't licensed, has no oversite, and doesn't use standardized & validated procedures to obtain it's information, the answer should be no.
Ess
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably one of those cases where they can do whatever they like, but if objected to their data can't be used in a legal proceeding. (In general, you can use any data you want in a legal proceeding. Unless the other side has a valid objection.)
So they aren't doing anything criminally liable (so the police can't get involved) and the RIAA is basically only using them in their first stage (before they are allowing the defendants to get involved), and the result is that there is no one in position to ca
Let me be the first to ask... (Score:2)
What do 'short shrift' and 'misjoinder' mean, in english?
And before someone gets smart and says 'let me google that for you,' I already have.. it still doesn't make sense to me:
A little help, lawyery or IANAL-y friends?
Re:Let me be the first to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
"Misjoinder" is a legal term. In this case what it refers to is the fact that the RIAA sued 16 "John Does" in a single case, even though the federal rules clearly required them to bring 16 separate cases, and even though in 2004 they were ordered by two federal judges to cease and desist from that practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short shrift means quick rejection, but it is not a legal term.
Interpretation Non-Lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
This is the first time an appeals court has examined whether or not having a court hearing without the presence of the defendant (ex parte preceding) is permissible given such little evidence, no real damages incurred by the plaintiff (insufficiency of complaint), whether or not the given court is even the right place to hear the complaint (lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants), whether or not lumping all of these defendants together as a collective group is legitimate (improper misjoinder of the defendants), and whether or not it's complete BS that the RIAA is using a private group to invade individual's privacy to obtain information (illegal procurement of evidence).
That last description may be a little biased.
Plaintiff's footnote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that you note this.
Such an argument is a slimy one. Lawyers argue precedent. Precedent is formed in our appellate courts--not our trial courts. It's very bad form (and not particularly helpful to the judge) to argue precedent from the behavior of other trial courts.
Re:Plaintiff's footnote (Score:5, Informative)
In the Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, they state in footnote 1, "Defendants rely on the same arguments Mr. Beckerman has raised and lost in other cases." Strangely enough, they fail to cite the actual cases in which these arguments have been "raised and lost." Are there actual legal precedents in which Mr. Beckerman's arguments have been found lacking, or are the RIAA lawyers just blatantly lying?
There are some motions we have made which we have lost in the lower courts, however we prevailed on the portion of our motions which was directed to the "making available" theory, and most other lawyers have prevailed on the misjoinder issue.
In the appeals court, all of that is basically academic. The appeals court is here to give the district courts direction, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that you have a record of losing before exactly TWO judges - one Magistrate and one Real judge
I haven't lost any "cases". I said I lost some "motions". I lost 3 motions on the John Doe procedural issues. In the named defendant cases, I made 4 dismissal motions, each based on 2 different topics: (a) the making available issue and (b) the specificity issue as to downloading & distributing. Here is the track record:
-Elektra v. Santangelo: judge denied motion as to (b), didn't say how she was ruling as to (a);
-Maverick v. Goldshteyn: judge denied (b), deferred (a) until after discovery on the groun
Go UAlbany! (Score:2)
Lies, damn lies, statistic, and RIAA motions. (Score:2)
It is not clear that every copy made of copyrighted material violates copyright laws. For example, if I make a backup copy of a disk, store it on a network drive, and then transfer it back to my computer, have I violated copyright laws?
SUNY maintains logs that match IP addresses with their users' computer hardware.
SUNY maintains logs that match IP addresses to MAC layer addresses. It is well known that t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They'd have to prove that you changed the MAC address - And the only way to prove that against ISP logs went away when the unique processor serial number that started in the Pentium 3 line disappeared because of privacy concerns.
Re:John Doe #3. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry for the tyopes, I'm posting this from my balckbrery.
I tried to insert a beer tehre, but the olny thing taht hapepned is i got beer all ovre my laptpo.
Perhpas it would have bene better to use $BEVERAGE insteda fo giving bad instrutcions?
Re:John Doe #3. (Score:5, Funny)
>>Sorry for the tyopes, I'm posting this from my balckbrery.
Obama, don't you have country to run or something?
Iterrogative pronouns (Score:4, Insightful)
nsuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
How about "who?"
Re: (Score:2)
nsuficiency of the complaint? It seems to me it states clearly what/when.
How about "who?"
The who is the whole point of the case, they don't know who they are so they bring a suit to find out.
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
Troll alert.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because I am willing to play the Devil's Advocate (in all the sense of the word in this case) doesn't mean my question is invalid. And labelling me a troll is as ad hominem as the attacks that were made against you. Aren't the points I make valid or at the very least wrong but answer-worthy?
I'm genuinely wondering what the problem is. I agree with the misjoinder, it should have been 16 separate cases, but the rest of the arguments the Does make are not sens
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlicensed investigator?
An unlicensed investigator is not allowed to investigate at all. You can ask a friend to check what your wife is doing when you're not at home, you can ask a licensed investigator, but if you hire an unlicensed investigator, he or she is breaking the law. In other words, the so-called "evidence" was found by someone who was breaking the law in doing so. That on its own is not the problem, if the evidence can be checked independently of how it was found. If an unlicensed investigator finds physical evidence, calls the police and the police checks the physical evidence, that's fine. But here, the evidence is the investigator saying "I downloaded this music from this computer". Since the investigator was already breaking the law, clearly anything he or she says cannot be trusted.
Hiring unlicensed investigators also means that the person suing cannot be trusted. In a civil court case, the judge goes by the weight of the evidence. If I can show that I am sued by a person who used illegal means to find evidence, that makes it more likely that the same person will be lying about other things as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlicensed investigator?
An unlicensed investigator is not allowed to investigate at all. You can ask a friend to check what your wife is doing when you're not at home, you can ask a licensed investigator, but if you hire an unlicensed investigator, he or she is breaking the law. In other words, the so-called "evidence" was found by someone who was breaking the law in doing so. That on its own is not the problem, if the evidence can be checked independently of how it was found. If an unlicensed investigator finds physical evidence, calls the police and the police checks the physical evidence, that's fine. But here, the evidence is the investigator saying "I downloaded this music from this computer". Since the investigator was already breaking the law, clearly anything he or she says cannot be trusted. Hiring unlicensed investigators also means that the person suing cannot be trusted. In a civil court case, the judge goes by the weight of the evidence. If I can show that I am sued by a person who used illegal means to find evidence, that makes it more likely that the same person will be lying about other things as well.
Absolutely, and Mediasentry's evidence should be thoroughly examined and disputed, but rejecting it out of hand because the person is unlicensed is wrong IMO.
How about you bring suit based on your friend reporting whatever. Should the judge basically say "your friend is not a license investigator, you thereby have no argument whatsoever"? I realize the weakness of the analogy, but shouldn't the validity of the argument be discussed rather than dismissed without examining?
Re:Isn't RIAA's request reasonable? (Score:4, Informative)
How about you bring suit based on your friend reporting whatever. Should the judge basically say "your friend is not a license investigator, you thereby have no argument whatsoever"? I realize the weakness of the analogy, but shouldn't the validity of the argument be discussed rather than dismissed without examining?
There is a difference. My friend is not a licensed investigator, but he can have a look around things if I ask him to, as long as he is not investigating for hire. Perfectly legal. If he goes to court, the judge can ask him questions to find out whether he is a reliable witness, and his evidence would be treated accordingly. The unlicensed investigator, on the other hand, has already broken the law just by taking money for investigating when he didn't have a license. We don't even need to examine what he says in court, he can't be trusted anyway.
You also miss that this unlicensed, illegal investigators testimony is used to breach the privacy of presumably innocent people. You have to have a very good reason to do that. For example, if my friend, he is just an ordinary and presumably honest person, claims that he saw you stealing something, then this may be enough for the police to get a search warrant and then breach your privacy. If that unlicensed, illegal investigator claims that he saw you stealing a car, then this is most likely not enough for the police to get a search warrant. And what the RIAA wanted was the equivalent of a search warrant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think that you mean "impermissible evidence" not "illegal evidence". And yes, it does apply to civil parties. If Bob breaks into my house and steals the daily diary in which I lay out my plan to defame him, he still can't use it in court. First of all, if he shows up in court with it, he'll be arrested for theft or receiving stolen property. Secondly, allowing him
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However...
I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.
You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlicensed investigator? It's a civil trial, "illegal evidence" applies only to criminal cases, and by government agents, not by civil parties.
Yes, but remember, the RIAA and MPAA keep calling it "stealing" which is not a civil offense. Meanwhile, if it actually was classified as "stealing" and "theft" then said investigatory practices wouldn't be allowed in the first place.
I totally agree about everything you say, this is one of my pet peeves too. However this is a civil lawsuit in this case, and they're calling it "copyright infringement" in the suit.
Whatever PR spin they put on the thing, or the bullshit they tried to pull in other cases (or even in this one, actually, just read their opposition to the quashing here: http://beckermanlegal.com/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/arista_does1-16_081014RIAAOppos.pdf [beckermanlegal.com] ), this doesn't invalidate my point...