RSSRIAA ignores direct order from LA judge
By Angela Gunn | Published December 18, 2008, 9:53 AM
A federal judge in Los Angeles could be less than pleased with lawyers for the Recording Industry Association of America after the group did something it was specifically instructed not to do.
The RIAA is currently working to line up cases against University of Southern California students accused of illegal file-sharing. On October 7, District Court judge Manuel L. Real gave Motown Record Company (the lead in the case) permission to subpoena USC to get the name of a student, whom the complaint named only as "John Doe."
In the ruling on the ex parte discovery motion (PDF available here), Real said that the information thus received was ordered by the court "to be used for the sole purpose of obtaining injunctive relief pursuant to the complaint filed herein protecting plaintiff's right under the Copyright Act."
In other words, the judge made a point of saying that the record companies can use the information to build their case, not for, as they say, "monetary relief" or "extrajudicial settlements." RIAA's lawsuits often never manifest, as music-industry reps use the name and contact information gathered by ex parte discovery to convince alleged downloaders to simply hand over some money if they don't want to be dragged through the courts.
However, the LAist blog has reported that USC students are now getting calls and letters from the record companies proposing some of those notorious four-figure "settlements" for making this case go away -- well before any actual suit is, obviously, filed, and in apparently contravention of the judge's instructions.
At press time no statement has been released by Judge Real or the court as to what happens when a plaintiff ignores specific language in a ruling -- particular when it's a procedure so central to the RIAA's legal strategy over the years. But as a wise Slashdot commenter puts it, "Judges take a dim view of being ignored."
This is the way it oughta be, you dummies ceded your rights to due process 7 years ago, and consolidated same in '04.
If I may quote "Keyser Söze", kiss my pucker!
And, were it in our immediate power we'd subpoena the logs from BN, and find many more "John Does" to nail.
Kindest regards to all!
Score: 0
|Hmmmmmm
Score: 0
|This has nothing to do with copyrights it's about companies. (in this case the RIAA) miss-using information.
I would like to see a complete audit over all these settlements. I would bet money that not 1cent went to a artist who was infringded upon. But like the SEC no one cares about the little guy...
Score: 0
|Sorry for double posting....
Score: 0
|This whole thing with the RIAA wouldn't have ever happened if Metallica wouldn't have got butthurt over what... like 10-15,000 people who downloaded their music in the late 90's. They made MILLIONS each year from touring alone, and they got worried because they lost about $30,000. I mean what the hell, and these musicians are supposed to be here for the masses, instead they sue any one who has the audacity to download ONE of their songs. Let the public burn down the RIAA, who cares for them... I don't.
Score: 0
|Bring 'em Down!!! (the RIAA that is)
Score: 0
|Stories like this make me want to start using file sharing programs. I think an artist should be paid for his/her work, and I can even go so far as thinking the recording company should be paid something for their work. The problem is that they won't stop at that. They've forgotten that we're customers who can choose what and how we buy things. They've forgotten that you court your customers and win their loyalty. Instead, we are treated as an adversary to be harshly controlled when we do part with "their money" from our wallet. They want to control how, where, and on what we listen to their music. They want to disable features on my hard drive so I won't listen to something in a way I shouldn't. They want to make sure that I can only listen to their music on certain devices, devices that don't work with their competitors. In other words, I am guilty until I can prove myself innocent, something I'm not able to do since you can't go to court over something you haven't done.
It's becoming harder and harder to explain to my daughter why she can't just get an mp3 from a friend's CD since Rhapsody won't let her put that song on her player since it only has streaming rights. We subscribe to the download service, and they have the song. You can play it on your computer. But don't you dare try to put it on your player. The record labels didn't give you permission for that. Getting an mp3 from a friend seems so simple. Saying that "it's wrong" sounds pretty hollow in my own ears these days.
I hope the judge hits them where it hurts, in the wallet and maybe with some jail time for the attorneys for contempt of court. They understand legalese and knew what his ruling meant. Someone has to draw a line somewhere.
Score: 0
|Heh, the legal equivalent of waving your balls in someone's face to see how they react.
Score: 0
|LOL.
Score: 0
|Judge got Teabagged
Score: 0
|Man... I really hope the judge sees what a b**ch he was made into by riaa. I also hope all the other judges see how riaa has treated one of thier own. :p
Score: 0
|Oh man I seriously hope that judge somehow is able to get back at the RIAA.
Score: 0
|This why so many people don't view downloading or sharing music as stealing. It's like stealing from the mob who are criminals themselves.
**** them, they will never see a dime from me.
Score: 0
|lol. true.
Score: 0
|Legal crime? I think what RIAA needs is a slap in the face. They need to wake the hell up.
Score: 0
|above the law are they?
This is the protection racket in operation! if sony's payola dealing wasn't bad enough!
RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/arti.../07/04/29/0335224.shtml
"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"
http://www.dailykos.com/...ly/2007/4/24/141326/870
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:
# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI
MPAA:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
Score: 0
|Actually this falls into the area of Extortion as there is no case filed yet.So, one can only come to the conclusion that they are now organized crime. Which we already all new.
Score: 0
|heh- the MAFIAA.....
Score: 0
|New tv show coming spring of 2009...
The Sopranos 2: RIAA
Score: 0
|Wow nothing totes arrogance like the RIAA ignoring a judge's order. I didn't realize that they were above and beyond the law...
Why can't anyone put a damn leash on these guys?
Score: 0
|these are the worst gangsters (riaa) I seen in decades.
First it was the bloods and crips... now its the riaa, Ruthless
Score: 0
|Apparently you never heard of Los Marijuana Smokers, who were driven to their gang hit by the leader's mother.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/...ex.html?eref=rss_latest
Score: 0
|