Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Secretly Tries to Get ISP Subscriber Info

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the always-with-the-plotting-and-planning-are-they dept.

Privacy 127

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In an attempt to change the rules of the game, the RIAA secretly went to a federal district court in Denver with an ex parte application. The goal was to get the judge to rule that the federal Cable Communications Policy Act does not apply to the RIAA's attempts to get subscriber information (pdf) from cable companies. Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else — neither the ISP nor the subscribers — were given notice that this was going on. They were, in effect, asking the Court to rule that the RIAA does not need to get a court order to be able to force an ISP to disclose confidential subscriber information. The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FIST SPORT (-1, Flamebait)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901549)

Colored folk do the darndest [youtube.com] things!

They shouldnt have to get it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18901591)

Because where there is reasonable expectation that the law has been broken, the police should request it and prosecute the leeches who are stealing copyrighted music. The RIAA only has to do this because the authorities cant be bothered to enforce the law, and frsnkly, the ISPS are over the moon about illegal file sharing because it encourages higher usage.
The ISPS should be liable to prosecution if they have been notified of copyright abuse and taken no action. all this "nothing to do with me mate" attitude from an ISP when you tell them they host "getyourfreewarez.com" on their servers is just laughable. They should be proseuted and fined big time.
I'm sick of people being so outraged that those who produce original content might object to people stealing it. if you like some music just buy it, its not rocket science.

Remember folks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18901691)

....do not feed the trolls.

Re:Remember folks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18901939)

anyone who disagrees with you is not automatically a troll. It must be comforting to sit there with bittorrent at maximum downloading everyone elses work, thinking that those poor schmucks who make all this stuff are just 'trolls'. what a nice cloud you live on.

Re:Remember folks.... (1, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902365)

You're not a troll because I disagree with you. You're a troll because of how you say what you say.

Re:Remember folks.... (1, Flamebait)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903095)

That's a pant load.

The poster's tone was a bit testy, but nowhere near troll standards.

He was modded troll because someone didn't like what he said.

Trying to say otherwise is disingenuous and unconvincing.

Re:Remember folks.... (-1, Offtopic)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903171)

Maybe he should have been modded down as "Flamebait" instead. Well, if you or I see it in metamoderation, we can fix it. Don't want AC's karma to take too big of a hit.

I do see a bit of a trolly tone in his message, though. It's that aggressive way of saying "Everything I say or do is correct, and you're also a thief." that Trolls seem to have.

Re:Remember folks.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18903447)

but... the karma... it's so easy...

must resist...

Re:They shouldnt have to get it (5, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901775)

...Have you been living in a cave? Your arguments would be valid...if the RIAA was only suing pirates. Since they're suing people who can't possibly have copyrighted or it would be absurd to say they've pirated anything ever they don't deserve any right to make their job any easier. If the RIAA was a good company who legally went after those who caused it damages and didn't use scare tactics, questionable legality, heavy lobbying, and attempts to get outright illegal things (e.g. pretexting) made legal for them then you'd be valid.

And whose to say that getyourfreewarez.com isn't a joke sight? Or webcomic? By your argument I could tell whatever ISP hosts /. that it's a repository of pirated stuff and they'd be obliged to check it out or just shut it down. Doesn't sound too bad, until you consider how many notices they could be receiving every day. Hey, that would be a new way to do DOS attacks wouldn't it? Send a couple thousand e-mails to the ISP instead of the server and wait for them to pull the plug.

The RIAA is a dirty fighting company who uses scare tactics and outright extortion to put an end to a business which costs them almost nothing and deserve no more aid from our justice system thank you very much.

Monkey see monkey do (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901593)

They're just following the example set by our leader. And we just can't get enough. The abuse is turning us on.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901919)

(Score:0, Offtopic)

Commenting on the similar tactics employed by RIAA and the gov't is off topic?? And the fact that the public is enjoying it? Anyone care to explain how? Or is this yet another drive-by moderation by a drone?

Re:Monkey see monkey do (3, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901989)

It's only vaguely related, and it has the likelihood of starting a flamewar. Basically the moderator said "No hijacking for Bush jokes."

Frankly, I agree. It's old and tired and not really applicable here.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902391)

I'm afraid it is very relevant. We should not allow these abuses, period. The gov't does it, and now others are starting to follow suit. That is very applicable to our present condition. It basically amounts to us granting them too much power and all too willingly. I'm am pointing out that it's a claasic example of abuse of power. It's not a Bush thing. Unlike you people, I'm way beyond Bush. You're making an erroneous assumption. I'm not so flighty to go around yelling that someone so insigificant like Bush is evil incarnate and is controlling our minds. You are simply choosing to remain distracted away from the real problem.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

Hack'n'Slash (3463) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902843)

Your original comment seemed like a "Bush thing" by the way it read:
          "They're just following the example set by our leader"
If you would have put the plural, then they might not have taken it as a direct jab at Bush.
 
(Just my thoughts, I didn't have any issue with the original comment, but could see how they could take it as yet another Bush joke/jab.)

Re:Monkey see monkey do (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903477)

If I had meant "Bush", I would have said "Bush". He's done. We have a new threat with the Hillary steamroller. And if you think the RIAA is bad now, you ain't seen nuthin' till she gets in. I want to head this one off at the pass, before we all spend 8 years pissing and moaning about her. The issue is the power, not the individual who wields it.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

vokyvsd (979677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904569)

If you meant "Hillary" why didn't you say "Hillary?" Like the GP I have no issue with your original post, but please do realize how easy it is for people to misinterpret what you say even without using a word like "leader" and expecting people to get "Hillary Clinton" out of it when she's only a Senator. Also, the "monkey see, monkey do" subject line (even though this refers to the RIAA, not Bush) draws immediate connections to the president because a lot of the fun poked at him on the internet involves likening him to a monkey or chimp.

People can't read your mind; they have to make due with your words.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1, Offtopic)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903057)

I think you missed something here - no one abused any power. Someone tried to, and got checked. Oops, your point is meaningless now.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903563)

Without any penalty to stop them from doing it again and again. No, my point still stands. They will abuse their power as long as we let them without making them suffer the consequences. Time to take away their charter and those of its members. Then we might see results, not until then. Keep the faith, they need you.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903659)

Right. Someone tried to abuse their power. Why? Because the current atmosphere among our lawmakers is that collective and corporate rights trump those of the individual.

Good for the courts shutting them (the RIAA and the current administration) down. But I'm afraid the example has been made and now we are going to see more attempts upon our rights in the future. The courts might not be able to hold off the assaults forever. Particularly if they can be stacked by the administration to provide it with favorable rulings. When this happens, expect commercial interests to hitch some of their initiatives onto the governments coattails.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903463)

I apologize about that last statement. I jumped the gun on submit and meant to take it out.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903657)

I apologize about that last statement.

None needed. I appreciate the thought that you responded in the first place. Most everybody will ignore it and wish I would quit "standing in front of the TV".

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903373)

It's only vaguely related, and it has the likelihood of starting a flamewar. Basically the moderator said "No hijacking for Bush jokes."


Frankly, I agree. It's old and tired and not really applicable here.



Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18904299)

Basically the moderator said "No hijacking for Bush jokes." Frankly, I agree. It's old and tired and not really applicable here.

Well I, for one, welcome our beowolf cluster of old, tired jokes (do they run Linux in Soviet Russia?) that Netcraft confirms are not applicable here!

-mcgrew

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902567)

This (I know it's a bit late) is the last straw. RIAA will never get another dime from me.

I don't know why, but this makes me more sick than anything else i've heard the riaa do.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (5, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903353)

>This (I know it's a bit late) is the last straw. RIAA will never get another dime from me.

I made the controversial decision in 1994 to never buy another RIAA represented product.

Since then I have made a handful of exceptions, in cases where I have personally bought CDs directly from the artist, that is, it went from the songwriter's hand to mine, usually autographed, after his show. I have developed quite a large collection of independently produced and distributed music, and an even larger collection of things that have been released for public consumption by the artists with no intention of monetary gain.

Back in the day, I was a hardcore record collector. I basically started life with a collection of records from the 40s and 50s already handed down to me. I kept it up throughout the whole 60-70s rock era. I collected classical recordings, especially while majoring in music theory at university. For most of my life, buying recordings was one of the major expenses, usually right after rent and food. Since I'm a musician myself and had made a career of it, music purchases weren't merely entertainment expenses, and more than just business expenses. And granted there were lots of freebies. (When you have a lot of records, people give you records, you're making volume trades all the time, plus I worked in public radio, where I got to keep whatever was being thrown away, plus all the good promos.)

Anyway, long story short, I *stopped* buying RIAA-represented music because of the RIAA b.s., and I didn't ever start up again. Instead, I already realized that what was out there beyond the mainstream was far more interesting anyway, and I never looked back. Granted, I was already heavily into alternative and independent stuff to begin with, but the RIAA sent me all the way over.

Thanks RIAA.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903697)

Are you going to stop buying soap, food, gas, etc? Because you will have to if you want to put a serious dent in their all encompassing stock portfolio.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18905107)

This (I know it's a bit late) is the last straw. RIAA will never get another dime from me.

I don't know why, but this makes me more sick than anything else i've heard the riaa do.
Just choose your next path carefully. If you turn to illegitimate downloads of copyrighted material as some kind of 'statement', you're just providing more artillery for their war -- and in their minds, justifying such attempts as these.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18902001)

Whoever modded the above off-topic (now troll) is totally off-base and should lose their mod rights. You do not mod things off-topic because you don't like or agree with what they say. The post is demonstably on-topic and a comment, not a troll.

There has indeed been a severe decline in ethical and moral behavior in at the highest executive levels of government, which has been a signal to the businesses that helped them get there that there are 'new rules' for the 'good old boys'.

Re:Monkey see monkey do (1, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902451)

I appreciate the props. Thanks. Unfortunately, most people will ignore and disparage your message because you posted anonymously.

(Score:1, Insightful)

Most, not all :-)

Re:Monkey see monkey do (0, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903365)

(Score:0, Troll)

I don't give a damn. Troll=Truth! It appears the mods can't handle it without a little makeup first. Well, you can always turn off the lights.

Slashdot front page... (3, Insightful)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901603)

It's not much of a secret anymore

Re:Slashdot front page... (4, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901737)

Au contraire, the surest way to be certain that no one will read the details of a news release is to put it on the front page of slashdot.

After the initial barrage of overlord and soviet russia jokes, they will be pretty much in the clear.

Re:Slashdot front page... (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904385)

Au contraire, the surest way to be certain that no one will read the details of a news release is to put it on the front page of slashdot.
exactly, that's why no one saw the news about how the iPod wasn't worth buying

Re:Slashdot front page... (1)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901769)

It was never a secret to begin with, and that phrase mischaracterizes the whole thing. NYCL did himself and the readers a disservice by employing the same rhetoric the RIAA itself uses.

Re:Slashdot front page... (2, Interesting)

debianlinux (548082) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902045)

Just yesterday I was discussing the current state of affairs with a coworker. I mentioned the NSA/AT&T wiretapping and realized this person hadn't seen or heard the 1st thing about this topic. A topic that has been discussed to death on Slashdot and kept on the front page for a cumulative time of several weeks.

Re:Slashdot front page... (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903845)

1. Of course not, now that they've got their order signed by the judge.

2. This is the first time I've ever seen a news article reporting on the fact that the RIAA got an ex parte order signed. Usually it does remain a secret except to the ISP who eventually learns of it

after it's already been accomplished .

RIAA Government of the People (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901639)

If the government is not allowed to secretly spy on you (before the PATRIOT Act anyway... IANAL), why should the RIAA?

Possibility for abuse aside, at least the government claims to do it save lives, whereas the RIAA is doing it to make (more) money.

Note: This is not a comment on the PATRIOT Act. It is a comment on how the RIAA now has more power than the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local police combined. The only difference being that they can not shoot you.

...not so much (5, Informative)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901725)

This is not a comment on the PATRIOT Act. It is a comment on how the RIAA now has more power than the FBI, CIA, NSA, and local police combined.
I think you're misunderstanding the order. They don't have free reign now. As I understand it, the RIAA can go in with the order, the ISP says, "I don't think so; we're challenging this." And that's how ex parte is played.

Re:...not so much (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901993)

However the RIAA has a tremendously larger budget than most ISPs (ignoring AT&T, Time Warner, etc.) This is just another action that you need lawyers to go to court to resist, and more protection money you have to pay to keep the mafia away. It makes it harder for ISPs who want to do the right thing, to be able to do so and still pay their employees.

Re:...not so much (1)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902815)

the RIAA can go in with the order, the ISP says, "I don't think so; we're challenging this"

Or, more likely, the ISP responds "Okay, you won this round. Along with the requested information, we've enclosed a copy of our new 24-hour-max log retention policy, effective immediately. We look forward to your next ex parte order".

Re:...not so much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18905249)

That's along the lines of what I'd do. Although I'm lazy so I'm like to do
# ln -s -f /dev/null /var/log/messages

Re:...not so much (1)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18905787)

Although I'm lazy so I'm like to do # ln -s -f /dev/null /var/log/messages

But then you can't check the logs yourself if something goes wrong.

Personally, although I don't run an ISP, I have /var/log pointing to /tmp/log, with /tmp mounted as a tmpfs partition; The logs rotate daily and get deleted after one rotation (Thus giving me basically two days to notice if something goes wrong - More than enough).

And as a nice bonus, as the first thing the police/FBI do in a raid nowadays, they unplug your computers. Oops. No more logs, no more temporary files, and since I don't use swap, not even a saved memory state to look through.

Of course, they could probably find more than enough on the "real" FS to send me off to Gitmo (such as my collection of banned media and utilities (no, no kiddie porn, ya sick bastards!) forever, without needing to see my most recent logs. ;-)

Re:...not so much (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903547)

As I understand it, the RIAA can go in with the order, the ISP says, "I don't think so; we're challenging this." And that's how ex parte is played.

ISPs are so large now they could give a flip less about their individual customers. Things aren't like they were back in the early '90s when each subscriber was a bigger slice of the revenue pie. The fact many people are locked between one or two high-speed providers means they have a captive customer base. There's no worry of mass-exodus over privacy issues for anyone. As the megamedia corps buy more and more markets it gets so even moving to another state isn't enough to give someone a different choice.

They'll gladly throw their customer to the wolves rather than go to bat legally for them. Their willingness to pull content whenever someone waves a DMCA notice, even when the company has no claims to the content, should be evidence enough of this.

Re:RIAA Government of the People (1)

Calydor (739835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902403)

The only difference being that they can not shoot you.

Yet.

Re:RIAA Government of the People (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902807)

Yet.

"The RIAA Decision" simply doesn't have the ring as "The Seretech Decision." (background) [wikipedia.org] .

Re:RIAA Government of the People (0, Redundant)

Valtor (34080) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902803)

...The only difference being that they can not shoot you...
You forgot a word. It should read.

The only difference being that they can not shoot you yet.

And at this rate it won't be too long now... :)

Re:RIAA Government of the People (1)

tweak4 (1074671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902891)

The only difference being that they can not shoot you.
Not yet anyway... Give them time.

Re:RIAA Government of the People (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903097)

the government spied on us secretly even before the PATRIOT act.

You don't understand. (5, Funny)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901649)

If you aren't with the RIAA, then you're against them, and that means the pirates have already won. We need to surrender our freedom in order to preserve it. Don't misunderestimate the pirates. They hate us for our freedom. Fortunately they are in their last throes. Down with Oceania.

Re:You don't understand. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18901789)

Government -> 1984

Clever! But how are you posting? I thought most highschools had classes until 2 PM.

Re:You don't understand. (1)

orielbean (936271) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902645)

nonono- we are allies with Oceania. We have always been allies with Oceania. Death to Eastasia!

Re: You don't understand. (0)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902647)

iaasoc minitrue dayorder file ref /. equal crimethink, doubleplus ungood! /. misprint and unupsub iaasoc! miniluv rectify /. full doubleplus good!

No surprise there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18901653)

The RIAA cannot win these cases based on any factual evidence or merit, so they resort to lies and trickery to get what they want.

Ok, so? (2, Insightful)

Skadet (528657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901675)

Alright, so the judge issued the order. But isn't a big part of an ex parte order the fact that affected parties can contest it? ISPs aren't bound to this ruling in any meaningful way, am I right?

Re:Ok, so? (2)

Lockejaw (955650) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901971)

And even if the judge's order stands, what's to stop an ISP from refusing to give the subscriber info to the RIAA anyway? The RIAA says, "You have to," and the ISP says, "Not gonna happen." The RIAA's only way to enforce this is... go to court!
(IANAL)

The goal is again? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901759)

Even if they stopped all file sharing would that revive their crap-tastic industry? The most exciting thing they have going is "American Idol" and even that only appeals to fans of Vegas style crooning.

Re:The goal is again?--Last resort (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18902337)

The last resort in this kind of dilemma is boycott.
In June 2006 someone blogged an interesting suggestion. People were told Not to go to record stores on July 4 between 11 am and 2 pm, buy some DVDs, leave the store, realize that it contains a DRM label, change mind, go back to store and return the item saying the reason.
Apparently, it didn't work last year. But this year, who knows people will follow the suggestion in great numbers?

This kind of action should touch the sensitivity of RIAA, MPAA and the Hollywood establishment.

Re:The goal is again?--Last resort (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902713)

Emphasis mine:

People were told Not to go to record stores on July 4 between 11 am and 2 pm, buy some DVDs, leave the store, realize that it contains a DRM label, change mind, go back to store and return the item...

Apparently, it didn't work last year.
I think I see why... whoever organized that might need to rethink their cunning plan.

Re:The goal is again?--Last resort (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903995)

I think it's time to go to the "Other, Other Operation".

Re:The goal is again?--Last resort (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904031)

whoever organized that might need to rethink their cunning plan."

I think it was Baldrick [wikipedia.org] .

"Baldrick, you wouldn't know a cunning plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked atop a harpsichord singing 'Cunning Plans Are Here Again'".

Re:The goal is again? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902423)

The most exciting thing they have going is "American Idol" and even that only appeals to fans of Vegas style crooning.
How dare you insult Vegas-style crooning that way!

I'd take Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, or even Don Ho over American Idol any day... and they're dead!

Re:The goal is again? (1)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902825)

holy crap. don ho died. why didn't anyone tell me? and it was last week, at that.

Re:The goal is again? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904095)

I guess I should've said "Talented Crooners vs "Untalented Crooners"

"Tiny bubbles...in the wine..."

Ex parte? Big deal (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901765)

When the RIAA requests the information, then is the time for ISPs to challenge whether they have to hand over the info.

Until they are specifically involved in a relevant action, they have no legal standing, and therefore there is no reason to notify them.

Mountains out of molehills again.

"Secretly"? Seriously? This is in the public record, it's not sealed. Or should anyone making any kind of legal motion be required to send out a mass mailing to anyone potentially affected?

I'm all for shutting down the ridiculous tactics of the RIAA, but this hardly qualifies -- the reporting is sensationalistic and misleading. When the RIAA demands information from an ISP, then the ISP can fight back (in court) if they choose to do so -- which is exactly why the judge in question did not rule on the general applicability of the issue, and instead just granted that particular request.

Re:Ex parte? Big deal (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901947)

"Secretly"? Seriously? This is in the public record, it's not sealed. Or should anyone making any kind of legal motion be required to send out a mass mailing to anyone potentially affected?

If you want to change your name, you have to make a public notice in the paper. If a store that sells liquor is changing ownership, they have to put a notice in their window.

Just because something is public doesn't mean it's actually out in the open. Who here goes through each docket of the courts in Denver? I wonder what the reaction would be if no attention was brought to this and suddenly hundreds get affected by this because the ISPs don't give a rats about their users and give the RIAA whatever they want. Bet people would be calling FOUL!!!! then...

Hindsight's 20/20, of course.

Re:Ex parte? Big deal (2, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902127)

I wonder what the reaction would be if no attention was brought to this and suddenly hundreds get affected by this because the ISPs don't give a rats about their users and give the RIAA whatever they want.
This ruling would not change that at all. The RIAA could request info from ISPs before.

The point remains that anyone affected can challenge this in court, when they are affected.

So who, exactly, should have been party to this motion? Every ISP? Every person who uses the internet? What happens when we extrapolate to all ex parte motions?

Bet people would be calling FOUL!!!! then...
Exactly, which is why we have a legal system to adjudicate this. The courts exist so that people can cry foul, and have a legal option for determining if a "foul" actually occurred.

You've got it wrong. (4, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902025)

The entire basis of the court system is the adversarial system.

Once the MafiAA have gotten a court order / judgement, it "can" be overturned, but it's much harder to get a ruling overturned than it is to get one in the first place.

The whole trick with the MafiAA going for a ex parte decision is so they can go behind closed doors, give the judge a long blowjob of lies and deception, pay him off, and get their "judgement" which they'll then use to threaten and abuse even more people - without anyone being able to give the other side of the issue and point out where the MafiAA is full of shit.

Jack Valenti just kicked the bucket. Wouldn't it be nice if the MafiAA lawyers/suits would follow in his footsteps quickly? It's not like they are contributing members of society. They won't be missed and I doubt even their own mothers would cry at their funerals.

Two MafiAA trolls modded this "flamebait." (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903051)

Proving Slashdot's been infiltrated.

Re:Ex parte? Big deal (4, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903745)

You are exactly wrong.

Under our American justice system, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a strong presumption in favor of giving notice prior to the Court's taking action , not after.

It is much harder to get a Court to take action to undo something it has done, then to get it not to take the action in the first place.

Having a couple of days to hurriedly (a) investigate what the case was based on, (b) investigate what the motion for discovery was based on, (c) engage your own witnesses, and experts, and do legal research, and prepare and serve and file papers, is not the same as having an opportunity to meet all that ahead of time.

The honorable and legally correct and professional way to seek this discovery would be to give the university notice prior to making the application, and give the university extra copies of the summons, the complaint, the motion papers, and the court rules, for distribution to the John Does, so that they would all have a meaningful opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and so that their counsel would have a meaningful opportunity to act.

The RIAA doesn't do thing the honorable, correct, or professional... it always opts for the sneakiest, most un-American, most unfair, way of doing everything.

Re:Ex parte? Big deal (0, Troll)

fair_n_hite_451 (712393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903953)

Mod me troll if you want, but I don't see this as being "un-American" in the slightest. Sneaky - check.
Unfair - check.

Un-American when your executive branch engages in this kind of behaviour on a daily basis, then sees their way clear to lying in public about it when they get cound out? That seems to me to make this about as American as you can get.

It's a sad but true commentary on the state of the nation that what was once held up as a utopian ideal (that of "The American Way") has become so corrupted and broken that it now means the exact opposite of what was intended.

Re:Ex parte? Big deal (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18905523)

I'm all for shutting down the ridiculous tactics of the RIAA, but this hardly qualifies -- the reporting is sensationalistic and misleading.
You must be new here...

Don't bother worrying about sensationalism and deception on /. about the MAFIAA; that's pretty much the only media that'll even take a stance against them.

Oh, you wanted the truth? That's a foreign concept to a MAFIAAoso. It would be of no consequence if /. was enlightened about such matters. Commonly-held beliefs will be smeared in mainstream media until the MAFIAA has won. Better to give them a straw man to attack.

Here's a Thought (4, Interesting)

beef623 (998368) | more than 7 years ago | (#18901977)

Let them, but force everyone who is a affiliated with the RIAA to expose their personal information publicly. Make a website where anyone, at any time, can log on and see what any member of the RIAA is looking at online, what email they get and where they shop online. Maybe then they would see how utterly ridiculous this is and would think a little bit before they start reaching for every dollar hanging out of some kid's pocket.

Re:Here's a Thought (4, Insightful)

iperkins (974060) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902603)

Hey, they have registries for sex offenders, why not for *AA attack dogs? I wouldn't want one of either in my neighborhood!

Next Up.. (2, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902071)

..US Government opens prison for political dissidents, on foreign soil to escape constitutional challenge.

Say, on a small island.. just off the coast of Miami..

And this is why (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902205)

I'm far more worried about the RIAA than Google+DoubleClick

Private Property Wins Out (2, Insightful)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902221)

1. I agree the summary is a bit inflamatory.

2. This is to be expected in a society that places privatizing over everything else. Those of you that think the "ownership society" is a good thing, please consider this example carefully. It is the logical outcome of a legal system that emphasizes priviatization. Other than that, I'm not sure why this is so outrageous.

What I'd like to know is why _that_ judge? I mean there had to be some maneuvering to this whole affair. What was the process that got them this privilege?

Where's the problem? (3, Insightful)

Ravensfire (209905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902245)

Okay - I'm trying to find a problem here, and can't.

RIAA has an IP they believe is downloading copyrighted material. This allows them to request that the ISP give them the personal information of the person that was using the IP addresses, according to the logs of the ISP. This request must include the court's order, which specifically mentions that the ISP can move to squash the request.

So the RIAA can take the information they have (the IP), and get the detailed information they need to file a full lawsuit. I think they've been getting burned on their "John Doe" lawsuits, so they're actually trying to get the right info early on.

So where's the problem with this?

-- Ravensfire

Re:Where's the problem? (2, Informative)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902545)

The problem is they don't have to actually prove anything to a court before demanding this information from an ISP. "We think someone using ATT is downloading. Give us all the names, addresses, and connection data for all your subscribers please, so we can find out if they actually are doing anything wrong" is sort of the exact opposite of the way privacy is supposed to be protected. The mere suspicion of generalized wrong-doing does not justify releasing this kind of information to a party that has already proven itself less than meticulous in its respect for legal practice and privacy protection.

Re:Where's the problem? (1)

Ravensfire (209905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904951)

You're putting the RIAA into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.

You can't get detailed information to name a specific person if you don't file a lawsuit. BUT, you can't get that detailed information unless you file a lawsuit.

I feel that if the RIAA can present to a judge the IP address and the evidence the RIAA has that this IP address is probably downloading copyrighted information they probably don't have the rights to, an order should be given.

The alternatives are equally ugly - file a suit that this IP address is being bad. That's pretty universally derided both here and elsewhere (even courts!).

So what do you expect them to do, given they are (and will be) aggressive in defending their copyrights?

-- Ravensfire

Re:Where's the problem? (2, Informative)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904483)

IANAL, but I have worked the abuse desk at an ISP, and therefore, I have fielded my share of RIAA/BSA/MPAA complaints and I have researched subscriber information for several subpoena requests. As I understand the process, you don't have to file suit to get subscriber information; all you have to do is get a court order requesting subscriber information. Consequently, I don't believe that this is a tactic to avoid getting burned by the backlash from the "John Doe" lawsuits -- they already had a method by which they could get subscriber information without exposing themselves to barristry charges, etc.

Court did the right thing... (3, Informative)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902367)

Essentially, the RIAA was asking for a declaratory judgment against the ISPs. But the ISPs aren't even parties to the case. It makes far more sense for the court to provide the limited order than to give some sweeping declaration of the law on an ex parte motion.

They (the RIAA) are really reaching for anything that will make this easier for them. But going after an unknown defendant is never easy.

Hell, it's hard enough to go after a known defendant and collect your money after you've already won a judgment against him.

I wonder what kind of return they are getting on their investment here. If they can't even get a settlement proposal to a defendant before going to a judge, and more of those who do get served are fighting it... I would think the returns will begin to diminish.

Coupled with the good will they are losing (assuming they even factor that in), they may decide this is a lost battle at some point... But that's just rampant speculation. I'm curious if NewYorkCountryLawyer thinks that this insanity will ever end... If not, maybe I should change my area of practice (that would be defending the criminally accused, an area of the law which is almost completely lacking in geekery).

Re:Court did the right thing... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904605)

"It makes far more sense for the court to provide the limited order than to give some sweeping declaration of the law on an ex parte motion."

How did the courts accept a one sided case? Any outcome of this would be crapish.

"[Low returns] Coupled with the good will they are losing (assuming they even factor that in), they may decide this is a lost battle at some point..."

Maybe RIAA aren't on it by the money, and they really belive that lawsuits are an efficient means of fighting piracy. They've already showed how irrational they are sometimes.

Re:Court did the right thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18904733)

In the 90's, the hottest field to study was Computer Science. In the 10's, it'll be IP Law.

It's always easier to skulk about... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902369)

...in the bushes, hoping to catch someone in the act or dig through someone's trash than it is to allow for benefit of the doubt. The RIAA's tactics are not new, but they are certainly not good publicity. They are treating people like MAC/IP addresses, not like potential customers/users. They are putting such an enormous amount of effort into trying to trap the unwary, instead of redirecting that energy toward giving their customers what they want: usable, shareable, transferable music. If they just gave up this futile attempt to reign in every "pirate", they might stop burning valuable public capital before it's too late. I suspect, however, that like the kamikaze pilot, the RIAA is hell bent on its suicidal mission and won't be deterred.

Re:It's always easier to skulk about... (2, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903085)

Their choices do not include abandoning "the futile attempt to reign in every pirate." Their choices are pretty much (a) stop widespread piracy of music or (b) close down. There isn't much of a middle ground.

The people that are uploading music to others aren't "potential customers", they are people that want to destroy the business of selling recorded music. Period. Oh, and by the way, so far it looks like they are winning.

This is a fight to the death, pure and simple. The business model of selling recorded music is headed for obsolesence. Once you enable "usable, sharable, transferable music" there is no more money behind music promotion. This is the only thing that drives the current music industry - promotion, fueled by the money from sales. Why buy when you can share? There is no music industry without promotion.

This does enable a whole different kind of promotion, the sort of word-of-mouth person-to-person sort of promotion. But one that doesn't create big names with big sales - it creates small crowds at concerts. Can individual artists live with this? Probably. But it does mean there is no promotion anymore. And promotion is a multi-billion dollar industry right now that interacts with many parts of people's lives.

Remember when someone stuck photos of (0, Troll)

Lambchops3 (1089151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902523)

Don Rumsfield's house up on the net? While I did not agree with doing that to him....would it be appropriate to do with various RIAA officials? These are the cockroaches that scurry away when someone turns on the light. Well, maybe that is a bit over the top.

On Slashdot it's not 'ex parte' secret.... (1)

likes2comment (1021703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902569)

if 3+ million people know about it.

We need to sue the RIAA. Perhaps with 66 Attorneys? http://www.66attorneys.com/ [66attorneys.com]

Two words for the RIAA (3, Informative)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18902677)

Here are some headlines from Ray Beckerman's blog [blogspot.com] :
  • In New Contested Cases in Brooklyn Federal Court, Defendants Challenge Status of RIAA Cases as "Related"
  • Wolfpack Stands Up to the RIAA; NC State Students to Fight Back (Corrected article)
  • RIAA Subpoenas High School Student for Deposition; Demands He Miss Class; Gives Only 1-Day Notice; in Houston, Texas, case
    • RIAA Drops Case in Which it Pursued High School Student on 24-hours' notice
  • Judge Denies RIAA "Reconsideration" Motion in Capitol v. Foster, Calls Plaintiffs' Counsel "Disingenuous", Motives "Questionable"
  • Battle Rages Over Counterclaims in Atlantic v. Andersen
  • RIAA Goes Into Court "Ex Parte" in Denver, Colorado, Tries to Get Ruling that it Doesn't Need Court Order to Get Subscriber Info from ISP's
    • SONY v. Merchant Heats Up in Fresno; Defendants' Lawyer Attacks RIAA "Ex parte" procedures
  • Defendant Opposes RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Corpus Christi case, Atlantic v. Boggs
  • Ms. Lindor Moves to Exclude RIAA Expert Testimony For Failure to Meet Reliability Standards Under Daubert
I know the record labels were hoping that people they sued would just "roll over" and settle. However, here are the two words that describe the real situation: "game on."

Re:Two words for the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18903425)

And here are the recent accepted articles submitted by Ray:

> RIAA Secretly Tries to Get ISP Subscriber Info (April 25)
Andersen Vs. RIAA Counterclaims Challenged (April 24)
Judge Says RIAA "Disingenuous," Decision Stands (April 24)
Safeguards For RIAA Hard Drive Inspection (April 21)
RIAA Wants Student Deposed On School Day (April 18)
NC State Stands Up to RIAA (April 15)

Just thought it was worth comparing the two.

Re:Two words for the RIAA (1)

davidbrucehughes (451901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904353)

Long before the RIAA began suing their own customers, the music business became an intolerable scam. Any musician with any intelligence went indie, because recording contracts have become little more than indentured servitude agreements. You can easily make a record company $12 million in profit, and wind up owing them $2 million or more. They sell a CD that costs under $1 to produce for $15-20, bribe DJs to play their tasteless crap, and exploit the musicians that make their business possible. If that isn't racketeering, then I don't know what is.

If the RIAA pukes are reading this, take note. Because of their strategy to exploit the artists and public, I long ago vowed never to buy products from RIAA members again. I vowed to self-publish all my music CDs and videos, and I vowed not to support artists that do business with RIAA members. I have maintained that stance for over 10 years, and have no intention to change it.

A lot of musicians are very serious about our opposition to the RIAA and their shady members. Especially since my creativity is not driven by profit motive, I can pull out of their game completely, and I have. Instead, I distribute my tracks online free as loss leaders to other means of exchange. This has worked very well for me and other forward-looking artists.

I encourage all content producers to boycott the RIAA and its members. Establish alternate business models and distribution channels. The network is the audience. Feed it and it will feed you.

DBH

Once the PATRIAAT act becomes law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18903055)

I, for one, will welcome our new music industry overlords.

The decision is possibly good (4, Interesting)

motorsabbath (243336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18903961)

"The Magistrate Judge declined to rule on the issue (pdf), but did give them the ex parte discovery order they were looking for."

One thing the article doesn't mention is that this is actually a good decision by the Magistrate Judge. I'm not a lawyer, but from a friend who is:

"...The RIAA also tried to get the Court to issue a ruling saying that 47 USC 551(c) did not apply to internet providers. That statute says a cable operator shall not disclose personally identifiable information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the subscriber. The Court declined to decide, likely because it wants to wait to see if Qwest will fight it, and that way have lawyers arguing both sides, instead of just the RIAA's lawyers.

They are not "above the law", and the Court issued the order in a way that actually allows the battle to be joined fairly--should Qwest so choose. And I'll bet they will."

Just to clarify. I think.

Re:The decision is possibly good (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904361)

Yes it is very good that the Magistrate was vigilant enough not to let them pull a fast one on the Cable statute.....

And I'm guessing he had something to do with getting the decision published in Internet Law & Regulation [ilrweb.com] , which is where I learned of it.

Oh Shit ! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904411)

A day not passes without learning about yet another Hitlerjugend crap pulled by RIAA lackeys.

Get a load of that. "Laws do not apply to riaa". You americans let them go THAT far to the extent that they are now delusional about they being above the law ?

Only step they can take from this point is hiring small gangs to mark and beat up suspected "copyright infringers".

please, you people are too familiar with class action lawsuits. find some clause in some law to sue the shit out of these morons.

what!?!?! (1)

spaxxor (1078649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904515)

RIAA? Secret? ZOMG!!/sarcasm I always thought it was obvious that the riaa sucked at being private in the least bit

This is getting a bit to easy for the RIAA/MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18904553)

It is my humble opinion that seeking out the downloaders is getting way to easy for the RIAA/MPAA. It seems all they have to do is point and cry "filesharer" and they get your info or at the very least get your ISP to contact you.

I'm sick of their tactics. They should be told to **** off and try to get that information themselves. If you want to nab a filesharer, you'll have to hack their systems/network to do it. Good luck with that guys. Those of us that are using filesharing as a tool to help us decide to purchase something are being punished for those that use it and purchase nothing.

"Welcome to the country where one person can screw things up for everybody!" -- Tim Allen

How to rule a country (1)

DimGeo (694000) | more than 7 years ago | (#18904651)

1. People need resources and entertainment (bread and circuses).
2. Provide them with resources (food, oil, etc.).
3. Outlaw free entertainment.
4. !?!
5. Profit?!?

Adding words to the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18904977)

Ex parte [wikipedia.org] does not necessarily mean it's secret. Adding the word secret (which appears nowhere in the article) makes it sound like this was a sealed proceeding. Due to the fact that we have a published ruling, this was not done in secret, but (regrettably) absent the party the ruling was against. Setting aside all my feelings on this matter, I don't like to see cheap words added to hype an article. Heaven knows this topic will get enough air-play here. -AZ

definition of ex parte (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18905295)

"Just to clarify, ex parte means that the application was secret, no one else -- neither the ISP nor the subscribers -- were given notice that this was going on."

Ex parte is latin for 'one party', which means that the motion is effectively unopposed.

It says nothing about notice nor secrecy. In fact, it is my understanding that the only secret trials in the US are military tribunals (and maybe some cases where judges question children who might feel vulnerable and lie in the presence of, for example, a formerly abusive parent, but even then there's probably a court reporter).

As for notice, that's a whole different story. If you serve notice and the other side just doesn't show up, that's still ex parte. It happens all the time. It makes judges reluctant to make an order, because we're in an adversarial system that grants the court enormous powers in the right situations.

I wouldn't describe an ex parte motion as secret, since it's on the public record in an open court room that anyone can walk into, but the manner is clandestine. The first question the judge should be asking is where the affected parties are and why they aren't at the court.

mo%d d0wn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18905611)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?