Record Labels Disobey Court Order On How Student Info Can Be Used

from the this-is-a-surprise? dept

Tue, Dec 16th 2008 1:48pm — Mike Masnick

Ray Beckermann points us to the news that in a lawsuit involving various record labels against some USC students, the record labels asked the court to help identify the students -- which the court granted on the condition that the only use of the student info would be to seek injunctive relief (i.e., get them to stop file sharing) rather than monetary relief. However, as LAist is reporting, it only took a few months for the record labels to, instead, demand money via a typical pre-settlement letter, that demands thousands of dollars to get the RIAA and labels to not sue you. This certainly appears to be contempt of court, going in direct contrast to the judge's order.

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: court order, injunctive relief, riaa, usc

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steve R. (profile), 16 Dec 2008 @ 1:57pm

Our Court System is Obstructing Free Enterprise
An unappreciated trend is copyright law has been the ability of corporations to assume police powers. Regretfully, the court systems seem reluctant to forgo their desire to obstruct free enterprise. Artistic achievements will blossom when the RIAA is freed of the impediment of due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Witty Nickname, 16 Dec 2008 @ 2:36pm

Someone breaks the law for more convenience. This is the kind of thing you should love Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:19pm
  
  Re:
  How come we're getting all the useless trolls now? Did the RIAA add this site to it's PR troll list?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 2:55pm

I haven't RTFA, but what's the judge going to do? If you fine them, they simply pass the cost onto the next round of sue-ee's. You can't prevent them from suing people - that's the American way to make money. The only way to get their attention is to STOP listening to music, stop downloading music, and stop going to concerts. Continuing to feed them and tell them 'No' is almost as frivilous as the lawsuits themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:43pm
  
  Re:
  You can't prevent them from suing people - that's the American way to make money.
  
  Perhaps this is the way for gluttonous, lazy Americans who wish to abuse the legal system, but not for anyone with a decent set of morals and integrity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Justin, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think that the RIAA has already proven that this does not describe them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:02pm

An angry judge can do a _LOT_ to penalize the RIAA. When it comes to issuing contempt penalties, it's limited almost purely by the imagination of the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:37pm

It would be good to see the American people file a class-action suit against the RIAA for wasting our tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits, especially in the midst of this economic crisis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Xiera, 17 Dec 2008 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  "It would be good to see the American people file a class-action suit against the RIAA for wasting our tax dollars on frivolous lawsuits, especially in the midst of this economic crisis."
  
  Indeed, any lawyers here want to take this one up?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:37pm

Mr. Beckerman's obvious delight aside, the judge in this case is Judge Manuel L. Real of the Federal District Court, Central District of California. Judge Real has a rather unusual history as a jurist, such as, for example, hearings in Congress two years ago to debate articles of impeachment, and more recently a reversal of a decision he rendered with an order that he be removed from the case and another judge assigned (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/06-1275.pdf). Removal is an extreme and highly unusual measure, reserved for only the most egregious of conduct.

That said, I have substantial doubts that the limitation contained in his order is even enforceable should a contempt proceeding be held. It is anomalous to issue a discovery order pertaining solely to injunctive relief, which is an equitable remedy, while at the same time denying the application of that order to the very remedy specifically provided by federal statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re:
  Mr. Beckerman's obvious delight aside ... blah blah blah ...
  
  So, you're saying that the judge can not hold them in contempt ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 8:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A judge can hold anyone in contempt, but the more important legal question is can a contempt determination hold up on appeal? Given the content of the order, it seems likely that such a determination would be overturned on appeal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2008 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  Uh...huh. Regardless it's contempt to not do as the judge says.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kilgore Trout, 16 Dec 2008 @ 3:42pm

Meh
The RIAA bought and paid for the law fair and square, they should have the right to determine how it's enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon2, 16 Dec 2008 @ 11:15pm

clearly contempt
As the Supreme Court and the appeals courts have on numerous occasions held, nobody is free to ignore a court order, and contempt is only one available remedy. And, courts absolutely have the power to hold a hearing, and based on all the evidence, label the party a vexatious litigant and forbid them from filing anything else in that court without the express permission of a designated judge. Among other things.

Moreover, being granted the power to get discovery provided that the litigation will be confined to the issue of injunctive relief binds the hands of the court. The RIAA accepted this condition, rather than challenge it, and now it is openly flaunting the order. That could also lead to dismissal with prejudice of the action, and of any other subsequent action against that party. It had a number of alternatives, from a motion to reconsideration, to a request for permission to take an interlocutory appeal, to going directly to the appeals court to apply for an order of mandamus. It did none of those things, but instead agreed. It should not now be permitted, especially after violating the terms of the order, to be heard to complain about the propriety of the order.

Contempt decisions are reviewed on appeal by a very lenient standard. Again, court orders must be complied with, no matter how much you disagree with it. There are proper avenues if you want to challenge the original order; in this instance, the RIAA likely voluntarily accepted it as a condition of taking discovery. It's no different than a litigant agreeing to waive certain rights to pursue certain claims, or to refrain from certain things, as a condition of being able to proceed to the next stage in a litigation. At that point, it's pretty much a dead letter, the waiver, if voluntary and based on an informed decision, cannot later be easily withdrawn.

I hope they get slammed right through the wall, and that the relevant documents are circulated to every federal judge in the U.S. who is presiding over one or more of these suits. And just to inflict more pain, the court should order that a senior executive for each label, and the head of the RIAA, appear personally in court for the hearing and be ordered to show cause why they should not be personally sanctioned for permitting this clear breach of fundamental rules of court. With an opportunity for the defendant also to appear, and address the court on the devastating personal impact the case has had on her or him. I've seen it done in other cases, and it can serve as a true reality check in some instances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2008 @ 8:07am
  
  Re: clearly contempt
  "Moreover, being granted the power to get discovery provided that the litigation will be confined to the issue of injunctive relief binds the hands of the court."
  
  Commenting merely to note that this is not an evidentiary matter but one of law (i.e., the content of the order), and such matters are considered de novo and without deference.
  
  Personally, I have never seen a discovery order limited to injuctive relief (discretionary on the part of a court) until now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gene, 17 Dec 2008 @ 6:36am

riaa and directv
Directv and the RIAA have sued many they knew were innocent. Where people were innocent, the suits were a fraud. Law enforcement should have stepped in to stop innocent people from being sued. Those innocent people need to do what Justice did. Law enforcement ignored justice in these suits. People need to ignore justice the next time they are a juror or a witness. Jury nullification will ignore Justice the next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another mike, 17 Dec 2008 @ 12:12pm

headlines and misdemeanors
From the headline of the article, I thought RIAA had sent the student info over to the marketing department to be signed up for all their spam lists.

I wouldn't put it past them to still try that. "Youze betters pay up or else wheeze gonna flood yer inbox, see?"

Has spam gotten so bad that that's really the first thing I thought of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RecordOnlineGuide, 22 Dec 2008 @ 3:03pm

Try these sites if you want to waste some more time and money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RecordOnlineGuide.blogspot.com, 22 Dec 2008 @ 3:05pm

Sheesh....
publicly available information does NOT mean FREE. I've been in a business for years that requires me to pull public records
[ link to this | view in chronology ]