Oregon Attorney General Fighting Back Against RIAA Lawsuits
from the messed-with-the-wrong-attorney-general dept
Over the summer, we wrote about a lawsuit someone had filed against the RIAA in Oregon, claiming that the RIAA's investigation tactics were illegal, since the firm it used to sniff out unauthorized users, MediaSentry, was not a licensed investigator in Oregon. This seemed like a relatively weak claim (or at least one focused on the letter of the law more than the spirit). However, it appears that argument has caught the attention of Oregon's Attorney General who already is unhappy with the RIAA. You may recall that earlier this month, the Attorney General stood up to the RIAA after it tried to get the University of Oregon to identify students. It was surprising to see the AG get involved in such an issue, but clearly, he believes the RIAA is going too far. The RIAA responded to his filing, opposing the motion, of course. And now the Attorney General has responded, not just about this particular issue, but slamming the RIAA on a number of fronts, suggesting that the RIAA may be in a bit more hot water than it believed. He repeats the argument that the RIAA's investigation techniques are illegal and then goes on to slam the evidence the RIAA has, how it's gathered, how it uses these cases to squeeze money out of unsophisticated people and many other points about these RIAA cases. The response then points out why this is an important matter for the Attorney General to take a stand on and how it would like to get some answers from the RIAA:"Because Plaintiffs routinely obtain ex parte discovery in their John Doe infringement suits, as they themselves have pointed out, their factual assertions supporting their good cause argument are never challenged by an adverse party and their investigative methods remain free of scrutiny. They often settle their cases quickly before defendants obtain legal representation and begin to conduct discovery.... While the University is not a party to the case, Plaintiffs' subpoena affects the university's rights and obligations. Plaintiffs may be spying on students who use the University's computer system and may be accessing much more than IP addresses. The University seeks the Court's permission to serve the attached interrogatories on Plaintiffs and conduct telephonic depositions of the individuals who investigated the seventeen John Does named in this lawsuit to determine 1) what their investigative practices are and 2) whether they have any additional information with which to identify the John Does."It looks like the RIAA may have messed with the wrong university in the wrong state.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, investigations, lawsuits, oregon
Companies: mediasentry, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This case and one other...
Another related case in Binghamton, NY is Interscope v. Kimmel where the RIAA is facing dismissal with prejudice for filing the same claim too many times. The defendants lawyer made some rather valid points in his response pointing out why the John Doe lawsuits count towards the "two-dismissal" rule.
Between these two cases, it's starting to look like the litigation house of cards is showing some weakness.
For those not as familiar, here is a snippet from the initial motion to dismiss about the rule:
Rule 41(a)(1) provides that “a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.” This provision, which is an exception to the general rule that a dismissal by notice is without prejudice, is known as the “two dismissal rule.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This case and one other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This case and one other...
> plaintiff has to pay legal fees, or can in
> turn be sued for something?
No, it just means the lawsuit can never be refiled. The court is saying it will be prejudiced against any further attempts to file the claim in the future.
When a court dismisses a suit WITHOUT prejudice it is basically saying, "You have failed to provide enough evidence to make a prima facie case here but if you come up with more or better evidence in the future, you can re-file and be heard."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This case and one other...
Still... at least you have a chance. I believe the best example is the case in Oklahoma that the RIAA actually dismissed with prejudice and then got hit for costs. They fought the costs and the final award was somewhere around 60%-70% of the initial request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
BTW - Mike; "but clearly, he believes the RIAA is going to far." - "too" maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
too=also
to=direction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Digital Music
Everyone is a victim in this case. The Artists who lose royalties, the students who's rights are violated and an already overburdened court system.
And to think - just two decades ago - students were perfectly happy with copying cassette tapes and taping off the radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Digital Music
FYI, radio is dumbed down quality "because of piracy", its not until that law was released that the "HD radio" came around, which is still garbage.
The only victim is the consumer. Who wants to deal with this crap? HD DVD vs Bluray battle, companies saying they refuse to allow certain morality of their media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Digital Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Digital Music
People download music because it's that version that can be played on their computer, transferred to their MP3 player and burned to a CD to play in their car. They are also only downloading the 1 or 2 good songs on a CD of 14+ songs.
People are looking for good music with the flexibility to play it where they want. People are more than willing to pay for that (over 1 BILLION iTunes tracks sold anyone?).
As for cassette tapes, they were happy with that because that was convenient and easy. When CD's came along, they became MORE convenient (e.g. skipping tracks). Now that MP3's are here to stay, those are the preferred format. Give the consumers a quality product in a convenient form and they will gladly pay you for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free Digital Music
- Most people would pay for the music if it could be used wherever they want without having to REPURCHASE it. The record labels are merely using DRM as a means to force you to buy the same good over and over, under the false pretense of 'anti-piracy', because it worked really well for them when CDs came out.
"Everyone is a victim in this case. The Artists who lose royalties, the students who's rights are violated and an already overburdened court system."
- The Artists get a very very minuscule amount of the money generated from Album sales. Granted, this can still easily be a few million but the majority of money Artists make is from other means. Tours (which generate much of their revenue and advertise for new albums), clothing lines, (cologne, purses, shoes, full business suits) and other products that they can use to turn their image into a Brand.
- The RIAA represents the recording industry, not the music industry. It is highly likely that the Artist doesn't receive ANY money from the lawsuits though this is one facet I haven't checked to verify, just merely a suspicion.
- Yes, the RIAA wants to violate the rights of the customer base of the people it represents. They're looking at the judiciary as a system to get what they want, rather than to get compensation. In the US looking at the contents of an E-Mail you are not privy to would be considered a violation of rights of privacy. Essentially, they're doing the same thing. Only difference is if they were a legal body they could claim probable cause. But they AREN'T a federal/state level government agency. They AREN'T ALLOWED to do that, but they have been. If a UPS package was vibrating, yes the bomb squad could detonate it or w.e to get rid of it. Same merits, if someone opens a package at UPS they get fired because its illegal for them to do so.
- A good portion of the lawsuits filed by the RIAA are not even against a party that is guilty of the crime. You have cases of people without computers being sued for downloading music, cases of mistaken identity because someone read an IP address wrong, and even worse given the ease of which an IP address is to 'spoof' you still aren't guaranteed that you nabbed the right person, but they don't bother getting any other evidence.
The RIAA's behavior shows utter disrespect for the spirit and letter of the law. The fact that its taken years for an Attorney General to get the backbone to do his/her job is more than a little upsetting. I'm glad Oregon's is doing his, and standing up for his state (remember, in America the People are given sovereignty and since the Attorney General represents the State he is well within his power to provide defense for 'the People of Oregon', not just the government agencies/administration when someone sues them) and I hope people rally around this.
The RIAA's tactics are immoral and illegal. At this point there is (or very nearly) enough evidence of their behavior to justify racketeering charges in some states. Furthermore, the punishments they have been getting exacted on the defendants violate the defendant's rights (freedom from excessive bails, freedom from excessive fines, no punishment greater than the crime, etc. Check your State/Federal constitutions).
If I walked into a store and shoplifted a physical copy of a CD I'd be better off than if I downloaded the same CD, possibly and probably deleting 98% of the tracks, and then got sued by the RIAA.
The reason for this is because the RIAA points out vaguely how P2P technology works and so you are not getting punished for the CD you downloaded, but also for the mass reproduction and distribution of that selfsame CD! Why is this a problem? Most of these people are ignorant of the way the P2P program works otherwise they would have TURNED OFF the uploading of the content (called "leaching") and SHOULD be able to get the more appropriate punishment (misdemeanor if even that) without worry of the excess.
The RIAA should be having to prove INTENT to share. Because the programs do it by default, a defendant in an RIAA case may not be aware of the uploading. Instead, the RIAA either gets their large settlements, or even larger winnings thanks to an incompetent judge (how I WISH/HOPE that qualified as bad standing) and ignorant juries.
And no, you can't say "well if they downloaded it, they'd obviously feel the need/desire to upload it". For one, most people are selfish and don't care if someone else downloads it. Once they get what they want they'll probably uninstall the program and never run it again. For two, that's the top of a slippery slope you can not recover from. By same extension that is as if saying "well they stole that car/broke into that house/did drugs/some other crime, so they don't respect the law, so they could murder someone, so we'll give them the death penalty like they did murder someone".
A bit extreame but you get the point. It'd open a nasty doorway no self respecting citizen of ANY country would want open.
So in short, being punished for downloading: Fine by me, you get what you sow. Being punished for imagined crimes at exponential punishment levels: Get the hell out of my country if your going to abuse the laws like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free Digital Music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another university for RIAA to "avoid"
None of this semester's 1400 (?) college subpoenas went to Harvard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From an Oregonian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly ..
Hopefully he will take notice and join Oregon in the ranks of respected people of government (which is a horribly small category these days).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Honestly ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to start burning down the house..
They need to put expiration dates on any new "laws" that come to be.. Next thing you know, "they" will be saying we can't go to Mars for some reason..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
open murder conspiracy in portland oregon
p.s. the address where this ocured is 8800 se causey loop n-205 clackamas OR 97086, the whole neaberhood there has heard of this and the authorities used a warrant to kick out the tenants above shawnas apartment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]